A contradiction in God’s abilities?

Michi's arguments are easily refuted. If there is no intervention, and if there is any conception of the Creator, assuming that He is omnipotent and omniscient, no matter how you turn it around, He is evil. Both because of natural evil, which He is and should have intervened from time to time in His world and did not intervene. And because of human evil, which He is responsible for its consequences and did not intervene. At the very least, they can maintain the claim that He is not omnipotent and therefore powerless. And that's it. And Richard Rubenstein has already argued that the Holocaust unequivocally proves the bankruptcy of traditional Jewish theology.

God stood before the dawn of who knows how many possibilities and this is the world he created. He went bankrupt long ago, if he had to intervene in every detail of suffering in his failing creation it would never end.

The principle of sufficient reason forces us to have a reason for God giving man free will. Doesn't that unknown reason gnaw at the claim that God is omnipotent? What was God dealing with by giving man free will? Then the claim of His lack of omnipotence retreats one step back from the very reality of evil in the world, to the desire to give man free will.

God gave such free choice, so that there would be a sadistic game that he could watch and crack open.

He gave up free choice on the animals, they are his direct will, that they will devour each other cruelly. I detest predatory animals.

I think it is enough that you are willing to support Rav Michi's approach once regarding natural evil (which requires order in the world), to already claim that it is not evil. Nature also has “evil” inherent as a necessity. Because nature is blind to law and it is blind to whom. Unless, you allow intervention. But if it were to be on a constant level at every point, then there would be no nature at all. And how would you learn that fire causes pain? This creates complete conceptual anarchy.
Therefore, to the extent that you allow suffering, what is a little for me, what is a lot for me? That is how I understand his words.
In particular, some would say that the world was created partly broken with “evil” on the part of the broken, so that it could be repaired.

Dear A, my question was directed to the Rabbi. Please do not drown the thread with your thoughts, lest the Rabbi miss my question, which I am very interested in receiving an answer to.
Thank you in advance for your patience.

K.

Learning that fire causes pain does not absolve the Creator from responsibility if a person stumbles and falls into the fire and He does not save him. Plagues or cancer that a person does not know where they came from are the responsibility of the Creator. May the Almighty intervene.

He does not spare even His righteous ones. If he is righteous, it is bad for him. But the way of the wicked prospers.

Siegel, the principle of sufficient reason does not apply to actions committed by those who have will. There the sufficient reason is their will. God did not have to give us a choice. He wanted it and therefore gave it to us.

So that they can rape a beautiful woman. It is interesting that God has instilled in man a sexual instinct and violence whose basic color is all evil incarnate. And R’ Sigmund Freud has already emphasized this.

thanks

Of course it is possible. Ask the kids in the US. They call him Santa Claus.