Even better and even better
Regarding the question of suffering in the world, specifically regarding suffering that does not stem from human choices:
1. You claim that God does not intervene and perform miracles because He wants a deterministic world and there is no clear boundary that requires intervention. In my opinion, this is weak because He has the ability to prevent cases of suffering without anyone even knowing that He intervened (so that, from an "educational" perspective, people will live in a consciousness of determinism). I am not talking about preventing all cases, but even a single case of minor suffering caused by rubbing an elbow on a table. In addition, even if there is no clear criterion for when it is worth intervening, there are clear cases that justify it (to push a tectonic plate a little so that it does not cause a tsunami that will destroy a quarter of a million people).
2. You claim that, assuming that God decided not to intervene (starting from some date in the last few thousand years for some reason) and everything has to be deterministic, the burden of proof that there could be another set of laws of physics that would cause less suffering is on the proponent (no less!) since the end product must be the same as our universe (to the point where you have reached discussions about a point of non-clearance continuity), and your evidence for the puzzling assumption that an identical end product must be reached is the fact that this is the end product. What would be so terrible if there were another set of laws that would produce less suffering (enough for one creature to suffer a little less throughout history) and there were a little less grains of sand on the beach in Florida, or if the lifespan of a common cactus was one year longer? What is so sacred about the precise state of our universe that it could not be given up in order to save unnecessary suffering?
The starting point is that there is a problem here and I am looking for a solution to it. Assuming that there is a God and that He is good, why is there evil in the world? My answer is that He wants the world as it is, that is, with the same set of laws that lead to His goals (which are unknown to me). Removing the suffering points while leaving a world with rigid natural laws is an unreasonable thesis, and therefore the burden of proof is on the one who makes it difficult. You can of course argue that the world is just like that, without it really reflecting what God wants (completely unreasonable, also regardless of the problem and its solution), or argue that there is no God (completely unreasonable for other reasons). But in any case, there is no problem here. To make a problem difficult, you have to lift the burden of proof.
If I understood its purposes, I could tell you what the value of a common cactus' life is. If you understand these purposes, I would be happy for you to share them with me. By the way, maybe the cactus' life has no value, but the laws that lead to this life have value, and that is the verb that comes out.
Therefore, it is also irrelevant to claim that he can intervene without anyone knowing. He wants a world with strict rules, regardless of whether anyone knows or not. What's more, such interventions probably do eventually come to light.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer