Why Does God Allow Suffering?

[tonyrey]

God does not need to **prevent **me from hurting others. I already **chose **the path not to hurt them. If everyone would be created like me (or even better), there would be no need for later “intervention”. Really, this is not rocket science.

Surely it is obvious that a being whose powers include creating whole universes and performing incredible (literally incredible) miracles, could do a little bit of preventing “tinkering”, and create people with good will, with decency, without malice, even though those people can imagine, contemplate and then freely decide against those actions. Where is the problem?

People with good will entails people with free will but people with free will does not entail people with good will. In fact a person without free will is not a person in the full sense of the term.

 

[R_Daneel]

People with good will entails people with free will but people with free will does not entail people with good will.

What is your point? You can subdivide people into two categories, the ones with good will and good disposition, with decency, helpfulness being their most fundamental traits (let’s call them group “A”). The other group will contain the rest (group “B”). God is supposed be omniscient, knowing who will fall into which category. Then God can decide to create the group “A” people, and not create the group “B” people. After all God is under no obligation to create anyone or everyone… Obviously the group “A” is not an empty set, so maybe there would be fewer people. So what? Quality is preferable quantity.

I already answered your prior question about the ways and means how to reconcile free will with the lack of evil human actions. Do you acknowledge the validity of my answer, or was your reply supposed to contain a counter argument?

 

[tonyrey]

What is your point? You can subdivide people into two categories, the ones with good will and good disposition, with decency, helpfulness being their most fundamental traits (let’s call them group “A”). The other group will contain the rest (group “B”). God is supposed be omniscient, knowing who will fall into which category. Then God can decide to create the group “A” people, and not create the group “B” people. After all God is under no obligation to create anyone or everyone… Obviously the group “A” is not an empty set, so maybe there would be fewer people. So what? Quality is preferable quantity.

Since we are not created directly and instantly by God your proposal is not feasible. Not only that. No matter how many good traits we inherit from our ancestors we are still capable of choosing evil at any moment… There is no guarantee of decency if there is genuine freedom.

 

[R_Daneel]

Since we are not created directly and instantly by God your proposal is not feasible. Not only that. No matter how many good traits we inherit from our ancestors we are still capable of choosing evil at any moment…

Looks like we are talking about technicalities. According to Catholic beliefs we are our “souls” - which is directly and instantly created by God, so your proposition is incorrect. Of course we are still capable of choosing evil - that is the corollary of free will. But our actions are “directed” by our souls, and that is why we can avoid choosing the “evil” path.

There is no guarantee of decency if there is genuine freedom.

What is “genuine freedom”? Freedom is freedom… Our ability to assess any given situation and choose according to our internal “compass” - which is usually expressed as the “natural law which is inscribed onto our ‘heart’ (a ludicruos phrase, but I let that pass)”. That is the reason why there are good and not-so-good people.

 

[chessmane4e5]

You will never get a good, logical, rational and meaningful answer this question, only evasive nonsense about “free will”, and whitewashing God’s responsibility.

Maybe this is because their is no “good, logical, rational and meaningful answer”. Man has created what he calls logic and rational. Simply because we can not rationalize the decisions of an Infinite Being does not imply that they are irrational.

Also, it is a Fallacy to try and label “free will” as “nonsense”, this is an appeal to ridicule. Free Will might seems like nonsense to you, but to try and discredit it, without proof, is fallacious.

God easily could have created a world without suffering, with free will and without sin at all. Or he could have created everyone into heaven - directly. Catholics believe that Mary was fully human, she was created without sin, and she chose not to sin. Therefore, God could have created everyone just like her.

Where is your proof that God could have easily created a world without suffering?

You cite Mary as an example, but she is but one person living in a world that is fallen. You seem to assume that if there were many “Mary’s” living a perfect world, that everything would be fine. For all we know, the reason that Mary chose to never sin might be because she observed other sinners in this world and therefore chose not to be like them. Without their bad example, maybe she would have sinned. My assumption seems as good as yours.

And God must bear the whole responsibility for all the suffering, all the “sins”. When one has the knowledge and has the power to stop suffering, then it is his responsibility to act - provided of course that he wants to be called “loving” and “caring”.

How do you know God is not acting? He acted when He freed His people from slavery in Egypt. He acted when He took human form by being born, suffering, and dying on a cross. He has acted countless times by giving us His grace and miracles.

If my own child was suffering in pain from some unknown disease, and it seemed like they were going to have live with this for many years, should I “act” and end their life to stop their suffering? I have the power to stop the suffering, I love and care for them, so by your reasoning it is my responsibility to act. But of course I would not kill my own child, instead I would try and comfort them.

So if you want to continue this discussion, I think you need to first prove that Free Will is the nonsense you claim it to be.

I think ultimately we need to understand “why” God created us to even have a chance of understanding the nature of His creation. If you were to watch a football game without the knowledge of “why” the teams were doing what they were doing, we could arrive at all kinds of false answers. But if you had a rule book to read (the Bible) and maybe a coach to talk to (The Catholic Church) then you at least stand a chance to figure things out.

 

[R_Daneel]

Maybe this is because their is no “good, logical, rational and meaningful answer”.

That is my point. And the poster of the OP seems to be looking for one.

Man has created what he calls logic and rational. Simply because we can not rationalize the decisions of an Infinite Being does not imply that they are irrational.

There is no separate “divine” logic and “human” logic.

Also, it is a Fallacy to try and label “free will” as “nonsense”, this is an appeal to ridicule. Free Will might seems like nonsense to you, but to try and discredit it, without proof, is fallacious.

The appeal to free will (as the solution) is the problem, not the concept of free will itself. BTW, the existence of free will is just an assumption (rejected by many) which cannot be either proven or disproven.

Where is your proof that God could have easily created a world without suffering?

You cite Mary as an example, but she is but one person living in a world that is fallen. You seem to assume that if there were many “Mary’s” living a perfect world, that everything would be fine. For all we know, the reason that Mary chose to never sin might be because she observed other sinners in this world and therefore chose not to be like them. Without their bad example, maybe she would have sinned. My assumption seems as good as yours.

No, it does not. If Mary was only acting virtuously because she saw the “bad” examples of others, then her “free decisions” were logically contingent upon the “bad actions” of others - and as such her decisons were not “free”, they were caused by the “bad decisions” of others.

How do you know God is not acting? He acted when He freed His people from slavery in Egypt. He acted when He took human form by being born, suffering, and dying on a cross. He has acted countless times by giving us His grace and miracles.

Pure conjecture and mythology. Did he come and save the Jews from the Holocaust? Does he provide rain to the draught-stricken lands in Africa? Nope, he did not and he does not.

If my own child was suffering in pain from some unknown disease, and it seemed like they were going to have live with this for many years, should I “act” and end their life to stop their suffering? I have the power to stop the suffering, I love and care for them, so by your reasoning it is my responsibility to act. But of course I would not kill my own child, instead I would try and comfort them.

Bad example. If you could cure your child’s suffering and chose not to, then you would be guilty of negligience. Try to think sometimes outside the box. After all you assert God’s omnipotence. To provide a fresh cure to some hitherto unknown illness is well within God’s ability… isn’t it?

So if you want to continue this discussion, I think you need to first prove that Free Will is the nonsense you claim it to be.

I already gave plenty of arguments, why the appeal to free will is nonsensical.

I think ultimately we need to understand “why” God created us to even have a chance of understanding the nature of His creation.

That question cannot be answered. However, it is not the point of contention here. The problem you must face is the discrepancy between God’s alleged omnimax attributes and the existence of unexplainable suffering - which contradicts the omnimax attributes, especially omnibenevolence.

If you were to watch a football game without the knowledge of “why” the teams were doing what they were doing, we could arrive at all kinds of false answers. But if you had a rule book to read (the Bible) and maybe a coach to talk to (The Catholic Church) then you at least stand a chance to figure things out.

Ugh. That “rule book” is nothing more than a hodge-podge of ancient, superstitious fairy-tales, loaded with nonsensical and seriously erroneous stories and the CC is nothing more than a human institution, which has a vested interest in “explaining” the rule book according to its best interest. Hardly a foundation for “understanding”.

 

[djeter]

Perhaps one of the greatest events that tested everyone’s understanding of God’s justice was the massive tsunami that engulfed the coasts of South Asia and Thailand five years ago this past Christmas.

As Christians came forward with consolation and answers to the profound mystery of suffering, the theologian David Bentley Hart penned a reply to many of his fellow Christians in the Wall Street Journal.

His essay called Tsunami and Theodicy became a classic on this question. You can find it here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/422/tsunami-and-theodicy-by-david-b-hart/

dj

 

[chessmane4e5]

There is no separate “divine” logic and “human” logic.

So says you. If you are wrong, then clearly your human logic will be insufficient when applied to divine logic.

I contend that with our Human Logic, God is an Axiom. We can not Prove an axiom and to try and do so leads to absurdity. We must just accept certain things when it comes to God.

The appeal to free will (as the solution) is the problem, not the concept of free will itself. BTW, the existence of free will is just an assumption (rejected by many) which cannot be either proven or disproven.

While it may be rejected by many, it is also accepted by many. But that is neither here nor there, everyone in the world can reject something, but that does not make it not true.

The appeal to free will is a problem for you, not as a solution. Free will actually solves the problem.

No, it does not. If Mary was only acting virtuously because she saw the “bad” examples of others, then her “free decisions” were logically contingent upon the “bad actions” of others - and as such her decisons were not “free”, they were caused by the “bad decisions” of others.

By this logic, no one has free will, as we are all influenced by our experiences.

Even still you logic does not work with my example of Mary. I hypothesize that had an event not happened, Mary may have acted differently. This does not negate free will. Our “free decisions” or not “contingent” upon others, but they can be influenced by others.

Pure conjecture and mythology. Did he come and save the Jews from the Holocaust? Does he provide rain to the draught-stricken lands in Africa? Nope, he did not and he does not.

My conjecture and mythology is as good as yours. But I can cite many examples that can be attributed to God saving Jews (and others) during the Holocaust. Did He save them all? No. Why? This is what we are discussing, so to use an example of suffering is only proof that God allows it, but we still do not know why. It is not proof of anything more than that, God does allow suffering. But we also know that God does answer prayers. Also ponder, had God prevented the Holocaust, how would we have know that He had saved those 3 million lives?

Bad example. If you could cure your child’s suffering and chose not to, then you would be guilty of negligience. Try to think sometimes outside the box. After all you assert God’s omnipotence. To provide a fresh cure to some hitherto unknown illness is well within God’s ability… isn’t it?

I did not say I could CURE it, I actually said the disease was unknown, implying the cure would be unknown. The only known method of immediately “ending” the pain would be for me to kill my child. Yes it is within God’s ability as has been demonstrated though out history. Why might He choose not to intercede? Only God knows.

I already gave plenty of arguments, why the appeal to free will is nonsensical.

Maybe you can sum them up in a clear and logical fashion.

That question cannot be answered. However, it is not the point of contention here. The problem you must face is the discrepancy between God’s alleged omnimax attributes and the existence of unexplainable suffering - which contradicts the omnimax attributes, especially omnibenevolence.

It may not be the point of the contention here, but it is relevant to the point. We can not answer the question of the OP without understanding WHY God created us in the first place. It should be obvious that until we know why we are here, there are many questions that we can not answer on our own.

I do not have a problem with the alleged discrepancy. Free will works for me.

Ugh. That “rule book” is nothing more than a hodge-podge of ancient, superstitious fairy-tales, loaded with nonsensical and seriously erroneous stories and the CC is nothing more than a human institution, which has a vested interest in “explaining” the rule book according to its best interest. Hardly a foundation for “understanding”.

Your adjectives mean nothing to me. What I find amazing is that science is proving the Bible to be right, more and more. Take for example the Star of Bethlehem. A movie, by the same name, was made a few years back, which using Astronomy with the aid of computers, we are able to “view” the night sky when Christ was born. And lo and behold, what do we see? Exactly what the Bible says, a “star” (it looked like a star to the naked eye, it was actually the planet Jupiter “aka the King planet”) that moved (it’s called retrograde motion) and led the Wise Men to Jesus.

 

[tonyrey]

quote=R Daneel;6140601]Since we are not created directly and instantly by God your proposal is not feasible. Not only that. No matter how many good traits we inherit from our ancestors we are still capable of choosing evil at any moment…

According to Catholic beliefs we are our “souls” - which is directly and instantly created by God, so your proposition is incorrect.

We are not our “souls”; we have a mind, a body and a soul, i.e. a mental, physical and spiritual nature. We do not make choices and decisions in a intangible realm but in a complex physical and social environment.

What is “genuine freedom”?

Not a travesty of freedom!

Of course we are still capable of choosing evil - that is the corollary of free will. But our actions are “directed” by our souls, and that is why we can avoid choosing the “evil” path.

You are oversimplifying matters. Quite often we are not forced to choose between good and evil but the lesser of two evils. And with the best intentions in the world we may do what is wrong because we are fallible. We may not be culpable but we cause suffering nevertheless. So the concept of a world without suffering is absurd.

Freedom is freedom…Our ability to assess any given situation and choose according to our internal “compass” - which is usually expressed as the “natural law which is inscribed onto our ‘heart’ (a ludicrous phrase, but I let that pass)”. That is the reason why there are good and not-so-good people.

Another oversimplification! There are countless gradations between a saint and a devil. It is impossible to know the precise extent to which we are responsible for our choices and decisions given our limited knowledge and willpower. We are not logical machines but sentient beings swayed by such factors as instinct, emotion, impulse, advertising, force of habit and social pressures.

 

[Binary]

Please do not blame those who suffer by making them feel that their sinning has caused their suffering. Maybe the sinning is on the part of others inflicting the suffering. Or, maybe this is one of the times when we don’t know and won’t know why some suffer so greatly and others little or not at all. God does not cause suffering. We do not always create our own. It is our role as Catholics to comfort, not condemn.

I see what you’re saying. It wasn’t my intent to condemn anyone, but due to my clumsy wording, my comment could have been taken that way.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That is true.

This is not true. God is **ultimately **responsible for everything. God is supposed to have the knowledge (even foreknowledge) of all these events, God is supposed to have the power to do something about them, and yet God did not do anything. You cannot wash God’s responsibility away. There is no difference between **actively committing **and **passively allowing **an event. That distinction is only applicable to lesser beings, who either lack the foreknowledge or lack the power to prevent them.

here you seem to be saying that it is His responsibility to violate our free will, in order to prevent suffering?

that is tantamount to saying that G-d should destroy us in order to prevent us from suffering.

free will is a necessary part to the existence of a human being. without it you do not have a human being, you have a biochemical robot. no longer human. but dependent on some version of the 3 laws.

this is what i mean when i say that violation of free will is tantamount to destruction. one can no more have a “human being” without free will, than one can have a car without an engine.

The term “natural evil” is widely used as short description by all sorts of philosophers (both theists and atheists). You are right, that phrase is imprecise, and its wide usage is incorrect and regrettable. But the essence behind it is simple: “if one knows about a natural disaster, and has the power to prevent it, then it is morally imperative to prevent it”.

he he protected us from natural suffering once by living among us. we rejected him and now we suffer from random events in nature. but those random events that happen are not evil, they are simply random, the suffering from them then is also not evil but random.

i would say that G-d has no moral imperative to prevent natural disasters. we rejected Him. if a young man leaves his family and subsequently gets tossed in jail, its not his fathers fault. the father has no moral imoerative to prevent the suffering imposed.

 

[Filioque]

Fallen Catholic is a reference to the Diocese that I live in that rejects female participation in the mass and many other areas and condemns groups that are Catholic in origin and refuses to participate in monitoring / tracking priests who molest children (the ONLY diocese I might add). So, it is not my Catholocism that is in question but my fundamental differences with this Bishop that has rejected me. I guess fallen Catholic might be a misnomer. Rejected Catholic might be a better choice.

I’m interested in finding out how you are defining the rejection of female participation in the mass. How does your diocese reject this?

 

[R_Daneel]

here you seem to be saying that it is His responsibility to violate our free will, in order to prevent suffering?

No, I am not offering solutions, yet. I merely presented the problem, which says: “the ultimate creator must bear the ultimate responsibility”. God cannot hide behind the “I did not know it” defense, and God cannot use the “I was powerless to do something about it” type of defense. Once we agreed on the problem, the search for solution may begin. But not until that point.

he he protected us from natural suffering once by living among us. we rejected him and now we suffer from random events in nature. but those random events that happen are not evil, they are simply random, the suffering from them then is also not evil but random.

i would say that G-d has no moral imperative to prevent natural disasters. we rejected Him. if a young man leaves his family and subsequently gets tossed in jail, its not his fathers fault. the father has no moral imoerative to prevent the suffering imposed.

The analogy is wrong. We can never reach the “adult” status when God is the father.

In your example the father does not have immediate responsibility, because he does not have the power to do something about his son’s behavior. But nevertheless he still has the ultimate responsibility. This ultimate responsibility is mitigated by the fact that the human father does not have the foresight, nor the power over the child’s behavior. This is the defense which is inapplicable to God.

 

[R_Daneel]

You are oversimplifying matters. Quite often we are not forced to choose between good and evil but the lesser of two evils. And with the best intentions in the world we may do what is wrong because we are fallible. We may not be culpable but we cause suffering nevertheless. So the concept of a world without suffering is absurd.

Another oversimplification! There are countless gradations between a saint and a devil. It is impossible to know the precise extent to which we are responsible for our choices and decisions given our limited knowledge and willpower. We are not logical machines but sentient beings swayed by such factors as instinct, emotion, impulse, advertising, force of habit and social pressures.

You are still thinking “inside the box”. The point is that “freedom of will” does not lead logically and necessarily to “evil”. It certainly allows “evil”, but does not cause it. If freedom would logically lead to evil, then everyone would commit some moral atrocities - which is plainly not happening. One counter example is suffcient, and it was already presented: “Mary”. So, drop this nonsensical “free will defense”.

 

[tonyrey]

The point is that “freedom of will” does not lead logically and necessarily to “evil”.

Not in abstract terms but if free will never led to evil what evidence would there be that free will exists? I have pointed out that in a real world free will leads inevitably to a choice of evil even if that choice is not culpable…

It certainly allows “evil”, but does not cause it.

If there were no free will moral evil would not exist. So free will is the source of good and evil. The **cause **of good or evil is the person who has free will.

If freedom would logically lead to evil, then everyone would commit some moral atrocities - which is plainly not happening.

Free will does not logically lead to moral evil but it does lead to evil - as I have already explained. It leads to moral responsibility which is diminished or absent in certain situations.

One counter example is sufficient, and it was already presented: “Mary”.

You have ignored the reasons I have given to show that her case is not a counter example…

So, drop this nonsensical “free will defense”.

I could equally well say drop this nonsensical rejection of “free will defense”! Since that type of statement does nothing whatsoever to advance the discussion it is superfluous. It is an expression of emotion rather than a rational argument. These important issues obviously arouse emotion but if it is not controlled it obscures the interchange of ideas - which should be amicable…

BTW Do you believe free will exists? If so how do you explain it? These questions are directly relevant to the OP.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Quite exactly and precisely, God permits suffering because without it, you would not know God was there and simply die.

 

[R_Daneel]

Not in abstract terms but if free will never led to evil what evidence would there be that free will exists?

Well, at least we have some level of agreement. If you agree that the “existence” of free will leads only to the possibility (potentiality) of evil, but not to the actuality of it, that is a huge step forward. Let’s phrase it like this: “the existence of free will is a necessary and sufficient cause for the potentiality of good/evil but it is not a sufficient cause of the **actuality **of good/evil”. Do you agree with that?

I have pointed out that in a real world free will leads inevitably to a choice of evil even if that choice is not culpable…

I don’t think you did. Maybe you could point to the post you have in mind. The “probability argument” does not cut it.

If there were no free will moral evil would not exist. So free will is the source of good and evil. The **cause **of good or evil is the person who has free will.

I agree with the first sentence. The second one need to be amended to the form I said at the end of the first paragraph.

Free will does not logically lead to moral evil but it does lead to evil - as I have already explained. It leads to moral responsibility which is diminished or absent in certain situations.

I point again to the end of the first paragraph.

You have ignored the reasons I have given to show that her case is not a counter example…

Of course I did. There is no reason to assume that God can give a special grace only to one pregnant woman. That is special pleading and a diminishing of God’s omnipotence. Do you really contend that God only had only one “potion of special grace”, which had to be reserved for Mary?

BTW Do you believe free will exists? If so how do you explain it? These questions are directly relevant to the OP.

I don’t know if free will exists of not. No one knows it. It is a very plausible assumption, which cannot be proven of disproven. “You cannot step into the same river twice” - as Heraclitus wisely said. in other words, one cannot “rewind” the universe to see if in the same scenario someone would make a different decision or not.

As a matter of fact, I think that giving free will is a disastruous and stupid idea. A well programmed “robot” displays all the characteristics of a very good human (a saint, perhaps?) without ever going astray. Which is infinitely preferable to someone who may or may not act properly. True, a robot is not a moral being, so what? Who the heck needs morality, when you can have a caring “robot”? But this like of thought should be explored in a different thread.

 

[chessmane4e5]

No, I am not offering solutions, yet. I merely presented the problem, which says: “the ultimate creator must bear the ultimate responsibility”. God cannot hide behind the “I did not know it” defense, and God cannot use the “I was powerless to do something about it” type of defense. Once we agreed on the problem, the search for solution may begin. But not until that point.

Why is it that God must bear the ultimate responsibility?

1. God created us (premise)
2. God knows everything (premise)
3. God gave us free will (premise)

Given these premises, I do not see how it logically follows that God bears the responsibility. Man, because he has free will, bears the responsibility. When He created everything, did he Know everything that was going to happen? Yes. So the bigger question is not why does God allow suffering, but why did God create us? What is our purpose? If we do not understand this, then it is difficult to understand the Why’s of our experiences.

I have no problem excepting that there are some questions that we can just not answer.

 

[chessmane4e5]

You are still thinking “inside the box”. The point is that “freedom of will” does not lead logically and necessarily to “evil”. It certainly allows “evil”, but does not cause it. If freedom would logically lead to evil, then everyone would commit some moral atrocities - which is plainly not happening. One counter example is suffcient, and it was already presented: “Mary”. So, drop this nonsensical “free will defense”.

1. Free will does not logically and necessarily lead to evil.

I agree Hence we have the tempter (Devil) convincing Eve to eat of the fruit from the tree which gave Man knowledge of Good and Evil.

So Free Will alone may not lead to Evil, but we do not have free will alone, we have Free Will and Original Sin.

2… If freedom would logically lead to evil, then everyone would commit some moral atrocities - which is plainly not happening.

Why do you assume that everyone would have to commit moral atrocities? When I look at the world, I see a very few people who are extremely morally good, then a whole bunch who fall in the middle, then a very few who are extremely morally evil. (this is just a generalization, no one knows the exact numbers or degrees within each person). But to say that everyone would be committing moral atrocities is just a fallacy. I would say that everyone does sin, we just can not help it.

1. One counter example is suffcient, and it was already presented: “Mary”

One counter is sufficient to prove that it is possible for God to create a person that is sinless. This does not answer the question of WHY did God not create everyone this way. Catholics are still “figuring” out the mysteries of Mary, so while you might use her as your “Ace in the Hole”, it is simply because we (and no one for that matter) can understand God’s plan.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, at least we have some level of agreement. If you agree that the “existence” of free will leads only to the possibility (potentiality) of evil, but not to the actuality of it, that is a huge step forward.

I don’t see why! God must be free and yet the actuality of evil does not arise because He is perfect. It would be inconsistent with his infinite love.

Let’s phrase it like this: “the existence of free will is a necessary and sufficient cause for the potentiality of good/evil but it is not a sufficient cause of the **actuality **of good/evil”. Do you agree with that?

In plain language it is obvious that having free will does not entail the choice of evil on any particular occasion but I have pointed out that finite persons are often faced with the choice between two evils. So free will is a sufficient cause of actual evil…

I have pointed out that in a real world free will leads inevitably to a choice of evil even if that choice is not culpable…

I don't think you did. Maybe you could point to the post you have in mind. The "probability argument" does not cut it.

My exact words:
Quite often we are not forced to choose between good and evil but the lesser of two evils. And with the best intentions in the world we may do what is wrong because we are fallible. We may not be culpable but we cause suffering nevertheless.

If there were no free will moral evil would not exist. So free will is the source of good and evil. The **cause **

of good or evil is the person who has free will.

          I agree with the first sentence. The second one need to be amended to the form I said at the end of the first paragraph.

Not at all. If there were no free will moral evil would not exist. So free will is the source of good and evil. The **cause **of good or evil is the person who has free will
because that is where the buck stops. Quote:

Free will does not logically lead to moral evil but it does lead to evil - as I have already explained. It leads to moral responsibility which is diminished or absent in certain situations.

          I point again to the end of the first paragraph.

Which has not taken into account my point about the inevitability of evil.

You have ignored the reasons I have given to show that her case is not a counter example…

Of course I did. There is no reason to assume that God can give a special grace only to one pregnant woman.

Abundant reason when she is to be the mother of the incarnate Son of God.

That is special pleading and a diminishing of God’s omnipotence.

Precisely how?

Do you really contend that God only had only one “potion of special grace”, which had to be reserved for Mary?

Yes! The Incarnation was a unique event…

BTW Do you believe free will exists? If so how do you explain it? These questions are directly relevant to the OP.

I don’t know if free will exists of not. No one knows it. It is a very plausible assumption, which cannot be proven of disproven. “You cannot step into the same river twice” - as Heraclitus wisely said. in other words, one cannot “rewind” the universe to see if in the same scenario someone would make a different decision or not.

It is the basis of the universal legal presumption that we are normally responsible for our actions…

As a matter of fact, I think that giving free will is a disastrous and stupid idea. A well programmed “robot” displays all the characteristics of a very good human (a saint, perhaps?) without ever going astray. Which is infinitely preferable to someone who may or may not act properly.

Free will applies to our thoughts as well as our actions. Do you prefer not to be able to think for yourself?

True, a robot is not a moral being, so what? Who the heck needs morality, when you can have a caring “robot”? But this like of thought should be explored in a different thread.

Perhaps that is your concept of your ideal life partner!