Why doesn't God take free will away from Bad people?

[Scowler]

Again, I fail to see why God, to be a good God, must use external stimuli to thwart evil deeds from being done.

That is the basis we use to evaluate everyone. We call those people “evil” who perform, or allow evil things to be done. God does not get special treatment.

It would seem to me that God desires…

Well, that may be the way it seems to you, and that is your opinion. My opinion is different: if someone allows gratuitous harm and suffering then that being IS evil. Mind you, I am talking about gratuitous harm. If you or God would explain why all those seemingly gratuitous harms are actually “good” that would be sufficient for me.

I would submit that truth, beauty and goodness do, in themselves, engender “worship, or love, or adoration, or glorification” in any being who takes the time to truly apprehend them in their fullness.

Before we can get there, then God’s actual existence should be established. Truth, beauty and goodness are simply concepts, they do not exist as ontological entities. If one looks at the world without the “pink” glasses of religion, there is nothing that would indicate the existence of a loving God. Of course the reality does not indicate the existence of an evil God either. It indicates either a totally uncaring God, or no God at all.

 

[HarryStotle]

If we don’t perform atrocities, then there is no reason to be held responsible.

I thought you said "We call those people “evil” who perform, or allow evil things to be done. If “God does not get special treatment,” why should we?

What about for permitting atrocities to occur on our watch? Or not doing enough to stop them? Or aiding and abetting the conditions which lead to them?

It is not sufficient to establish our innocence that our hands are washed and sanitized. Ask Pilate about that.

And yet, you want to hold God responsible even though he doesn’t “perform atrocities,” at least not gratuitous ones. Consistency much?

 

[HarryStotle]

Before we can get there, then God’s actual existence should be established. Truth, beauty and goodness are simply concepts, they do not exist as ontological entities. If one looks at the world without the “pink” glasses of religion, there is nothing that would indicate the existence of a loving God. Of course the reality does not indicate the existence of an evil God either. It indicates either a totally uncaring God, or no God at all.

If truth, beauty and goodness are ONLY concepts, they must only be concepts in the mind(s) of some being or other.

And if the mere concepts of truth, beauty and goodness are worthy of honour, respect and even worship, then those honorifics must be due a fortiori to the minds capable of conceiving those concepts of truth, beauty and goodness. Sounds just a tad vain-glorious to bestow honour, respect and worship on oneself for the trivial cause of simply being capable of comprehending truth, beauty or goodness without doing anything to actualize them in reality.

 

[HarryStotle]

Well, that may be the way it seems to you, and that is your opinion. My opinion is different: if someone allows gratuitous harm and suffering then that being IS evil. Mind you, I am talking about gratuitous harm. If you or God would explain why all those seemingly gratuitous harms are actually “good” that would be sufficient for me.

Why would it be necessary to show that gratuitous harms are “actually good?” Is it not sufficient to only show that they are actually not gratuitous or perhaps even necessary?

Seems to me that setting the bar to proving gratuitous harms are “actually good” is just a bit overstated and beyond the pale, i.e., beyond the proper ‘marking post.’

 

[Scowler]

Ahh, yes: the noble gesture of atheists everywhere! “I’m a reasonable person, so if you provide proof, I will concede!” Problem is… “to those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient.”

This is the most insulting remark. And it only indicates that you DON’T have sufficient arguments, and you need to try to blame the unbelievers. As the saying goes: “Nice try!” Of course, if I would say that physical proof would be sufficient, then you would blame me for wanting God to jump through hoops for me. Looks like that non-believers cannot win. They are either too dumb or stubborn when “proofs” are given, or they want too much from God. Never mind that “ask and you will be answered” or “knock and the door will be opened”… My knuckles are already worn down to the bone… and nothing happens. That only indicates that I am too impatient, and demand that God would come to me on MY terms. Nope… I cannot win, and get insulted in the process.

No. Yet again, you’re not thinking it through sufficiently.

Sure, on day n-10 I think, “man! why can’t I get this right??? I’m so unlucky!” The point is that, in the aggregate – and perhaps not only for myself, but in discussion with others – eventually we all learn “an invisible force prevents me from doing evil.” And at that point, it’s game over.

That would STILL not point to some God. Only to a natural force - which we could then investigate. The impossibility of levitating still does not point to the existence of a God.

I’m not saying, mind you, that you need a ‘Hitler’ to understand a mother’s love. Just that, if there weren’t degrees of good (and here, we understand “less good” to imply “more evil”, as evil is “the absence of good”), then we would never be able to perceive ‘good’.

Correct. Degrees of good is welcome. One does not need to starve to appreciate a good meal more than a piece of dry bread. Not everyone is able to actually and intellectually perceive the “good” as “good”. Animals and small children are instinctively drawn to pleasant and good experiences. They do not understand the “moral” good, per se. After all “good” is based on natural, biological good.

By the way, I wish you guys would drop this nonsense of “evil” is the “absence of good”. According to that phraseology, bad weather is “evil”, a cat “playing” with the mouse is “evil”, too much rain for the cactus id “evil”, too little rain for the “impatients (a plant)” is evil. The word “evil” should be reserved to “intentionally causing harm”. Is there no chance of that?

 

[Gorgias]

Ahh, yes: the noble gesture of atheists everywhere! “I’m a reasonable person, so if you provide proof, I will concede!” Problem is… “to those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient.”

This is the most insulting remark. And it only indicates that you DON’T have sufficient arguments, and you need to try to blame the unbelievers.

I’m sorry that you take offense to it. However, we could – if we wanted to – get into a discussion of what would constitute “proof” of God’s existence that would be sufficient for you. In other words, what would constitute empirical evidence of a non-physical being. If you want, we can go through that exercise. But, whether you realize it or not, you’re asking for an impossibility, so really, when it comes right down to it, it’s not “believers don’t have sufficient arguments”, it’s that “non-believers are asking for something which, apriori, is impossible to provide.” And that’s why it’s not reasonable. (Or insulting. It’s just a statement of fact. )

 

[Gorgias]

By the way, I wish you guys would drop this nonsense of “evil” is the “absence of good”. According to that phraseology, bad weather is “evil”, a cat “playing” with the mouse is “evil”, too much rain for the cactus id “evil”, too little rain for the “impatients (a plant)” is evil. The word “evil” should be reserved to “intentionally causing harm”. Is there no chance of that?

We’re talking in the realm of morality – that is, of “moral good” and “moral evil”. There are natural evils, but attempting to pooh-pooh the terminology, when really you’re just conflating “natural evil” with “moral evil”, is irrational.
(If ‘evil’ is too strong a word for your tastes, try something else: “boo-boo”, or “undesirable effect”, or whatever. It still comes down to the spectrum of “good and evil” (or “good and boo-boos”, if that makes you happy).

 

[HarryStotle]

The word “evil” should be reserved to “intentionally causing harm”. Is there no chance of that?

I dunno. Speak to the guy who claimed…

My opinion is different: if someone allows gratuitous harm and suffering then that being IS evil.

So which is it? An evil being is one who is “intentionally causing harm” or one who “allows gratuitous harm and suffering?”

 

[Scowler]

I’m sorry that you take offense to it. However, we could – if we wanted to – get into a discussion of what would constitute “proof” of God’s existence that would be sufficient for you. In other words, what would constitute empirical evidence of a non-physical being.

The problem is that God is NOT an exclusively non-physical being, God is whatever he wants to be. If he wishes to assume a physical form, he can (allegedly he did). Also God is supposed to constantly interact with the physical reality, so there is no impossibility in expecting a physical interaction with God. There is also an alleged two-way communication with God, so an interaction is not irrational or illogical.

As for the “no proof is sufficient” part, some people were convinced so for “some” the “proof” was sufficient. How about the road to Damascus? I take offense at the categorical pronouncement of “for those who do not believe no proof is sufficient” - how could anyone know what is sufficient for me? Remember, for different people there is a different level of “getting convinced”. I prefer the “beyond reasonable doubt”. I would be willing to have a conversation about the necessary evidence. Which God do you have in mind? The God of the Bible or the God of the philosophers? Because they not the same. As a first step I would love to see clear definition of God’s attributes.

There are natural evils, but attempting to pooh-pooh the terminology, when really you’re just conflating “natural evil” with “moral evil”, is irrational.

Sorry, the “natural evil” is just a very sloppy terminology. There are many words which are “unfortunate”, like “irrational numbers”, or “imaginary numbers”. I just don’t like the pollution of the language with unclear words and phrases. They make mutual understanding difficult. Some of the synonyms of “evil” is “wicked” or “malevolent”. All refer to human - moral - activities. The neutral words of “good vs. bad” describe the natural side. For “moral bad” there is the word “evil” and its synonyms. Natural “bad” is simply “bad”.

 

[Scowler]

So which is it? An evil being is one who is “intentionally causing harm” or one who “allows gratuitous harm and suffering?”

Both, obviously.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Yet If we don’t have it we aren’t responsible for anything.

If we don’t perform atrocities, then there is no reason to be held responsible.

You have set a very low bar.
That also means the good you do means squat.

Consider

Twenty Arguments God's Existence by Peter Kreeft (& Ronald K. Tacelli)

I kinda like #20 paschal’s wager.

Scowler:

Do you really think that I am not intimately familiar with those? And Pascal’s wager is probably the worst one, so much so that most apologists simply do not mention it any more.

Paschal’s wager, reworked in my own terms

If you are right Scowler and I’m wrong, then no harm no foul. We just die and no consequences for what kind of life we led. Whether an abominable person or a stellar person, there are No benefits no chastisements, nothing, we’re just dead. You won’t say your last words to me, see I told you so steve, and my last words to you, yeah Scowler, you were right, well nice knowing you…lights out forever!

But if I’m right and you’re wrong you’re screwed so bad you can’t get your head around it. You won’t come to me and I won’t come to you giving each other our last thoughts. We will be separated for eternity. One in hell one in heaven.

Hence my friend, the wager. the gamble.

Who is right and who is wrong? Both can’t be right and both can’t be wrong.

I have for my support system, someone who has died and risen from the dead, to tell me how things really are. And He appeared to thousands of eye witnesses.

There’s a wager on the table. You’re betting against the house.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that God is NOT an exclusively non-physical being, God is whatever he wants to be.

God is spiritual, not physical. But, to your point:

If he wishes to assume a physical form, he can (allegedly he did).

One-time event, not to be repeated.

Also God is supposed to constantly interact with the physical reality, so there is no impossibility in expecting a physical interaction with God.

The problem is that there is no way to predict it, and therefore, there’s really no practical way to be prepared to measure it.

There is also an alleged two-way communication with God, so an interaction is not irrational or illogical.

Again: unpredictable and unable to be prepared for.

As for the “no proof is sufficient” part, some people were convinced so for “some” the “proof” was sufficient. How about the road to Damascus?

He already believed in God. He just needed convincing that Jesus was God, too. Kinda a big difference.

I take offense at the categorical pronouncement of “for those who do not believe no proof is sufficient” - how could anyone know what is sufficient for me?

Again… we could have that discussion. Please, pray tell: what would be sufficient for you as proof?

Which God do you have in mind? The God of the Bible or the God of the philosophers? Because they not the same.

I think you’re simply saying that the people of Old Testament times knew less about God than we do (since they weren’t privy to subsequent divine revelation). Are you asking whether I believe that God is on a mountaintop, or drives a chariot with the sun? If that’s all you’re asking, then it’s a trivial question. I believe in God as professed by the Catholic Church.

As a first step I would love to see clear definition of God’s attributes.

That would make for a good thread. Interested?

Sorry, the “natural evil” is just a very sloppy terminology. There are many words which are “unfortunate”, like “irrational numbers”, or “imaginary numbers”. I just don’t like the pollution of the language with unclear words and phrases. They make mutual understanding difficult.

Have you ever encountered Aquinas’ account of ‘evil’? If not, I can point you toward some explanations. If so, then what about the phrase ‘natural evil’ is confusing to you?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So which is it? An evil being is one who is “intentionally causing harm” or one who “allows gratuitous harm and suffering?”

Both, obviously.

Then anytime you allow – I.e., DO NOT DO everything in your power to stop – gratuitous harm and suffering around you, you are guilty of evil, even though you did not actually cause the harm. As you say, “God does not get special treatment,” so we (including you) should be held to that same standard, no?

The difference, as far as you are concerned, is that you can always plead nolo contendere and hide behind some impotency of yours, whereas God being omnipotent and omniscient has no such defense, correct?

What if God, in his omnipotence and omniscience has offloaded completely the knowledge and control over good and evil into our hands as the result of our willingness to assume the power to “be as gods” at the fall of Adam? In other words, if God has given over to us complete domain over good and evil and provides us the sufficient power (via grace) to overcome every evil, what becomes of your objection? In that case, the fact that evil persists could be completely the responsibility of human beings collectively and individually since we have the power (sufficient grace from God) and the moral authority to completely overcome moral evil and, yet, we (including you) haven’t.

If moral evil is completely our responsibility (recall that you took natural evil off the table), then human beings (you and I and everyone else) might just bear complete responsibility for moral evil precisely because we belong to the fallen human race. If God has given us complete power to repair the moral situation through a full dose of all the natural and supernatural graces required, and we have failed to do so, then some or all OF US bear full responsibility for permitting and committing all moral evil.

You can deny that kind of responsibility, if you wish, but you will need to provide a full accounting of your actions wherein you have never in your life “allowed gratuitous harm and suffering.” I suspect you will have a very difficult time proving that, and yet that is the standard you want to hang ONLY on God.

For my part, if God is, indeed, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, he will, at the final accounting, with certainty produce a clean moral ledger. Concerning your role in allowing gratuitous harm and suffering and not doing what was required to stop it, given the abundance of supernatural grace and available power to do so, you may bear a far greater burden of guilt than you suppose. Are you certain you want to compare your moral ledger in this respect with God’s, given that he has access to every one of your deeds, thoughts and motivations, whereas you have no real idea about why God did or did not act in every instance from the beginning of time to the end?

Are you sure you want to show that kind of audacity? A little humility might be in order, no?

 

[Scowler]

One-time event, not to be repeated.

And “prey” tell (intentionally mispeled! ) - how would anyone know that? Is that logical impossibility? Because only logical impossibilities are unavailable for God. By the way, it would be already be a two-time event - once in the OT and once in the NT. Why not a third one? Or one every time one begs for it? And getting into a physical form would allow us to have that evidence we would like to have. For example a nice, long conversation. Again, please spare me of the “blessed are the ones, who do not see and yet believe”. We are talking about HOW can we get evidence for God’s existence - not a cop-out about why it is not provided.

The problem is that there is no way to predict it, and therefore, there’s really no practical way to be prepared to measure it.

Sure there is. We cannot know up-front which new medication will be successful, so we use double-blind experiments to find out. We may use any of the zillions of supplicatory prayers, and see if there is any reason to believe that they are successful. Again, leave out the idea that God is not like a physical causative agent, which can be “tested” . It would be disrespectful to God, because it would declare God as an impostor, who prefers to cheat. By the way, these experiments have been conducted since time immemorial. The trouble is that all the results are negative.

He already believed in God. He just needed convincing that Jesus was God, too. Kinda a big difference.

The principle is the same: “to provide sufficient evidence for something”. If a “tap on the head” is the necessary evidence, why not provide it? Or a friendly conversation?

I believe in God as professed by the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately that is an insufficient description for this conversation. The God of the Bible is categorically different from the God of the philosophers. The God of the OT is categorically different from the God of the NT.

That would make for a good thread. Interested?

Always interested.

Have you ever encountered Aquinas’ account of ‘evil’?

Of course I have. Discussing it would be another very interesting conversation. Continued below… (The 3200 limit bites again. )

 

[Scowler]

Continued from above.

Aquinas writes: “Thus, for example, if God chooses and should choose a given good, and that good logically implies an accompanying evil, God is not blame-worthy for the evil.” Very true! The question is: “Are there such goods, where the accompanying evil cannot be eliminated - even for an omnipotent being”? (Omnipotent means to be able to do everything except logically contradictions.) I don’t think so. Do you have at least one example?

A very short argument: “There is no logical need for physical suffering. Thinking beings could be created without the ability to feel pain. The vegetation (plant life) comes to mind. Yet, it is possible to create a different environment for the cognitive functions, without having a pleasure / pain center. Moreover it is also possible to regrow lost tissue.” So this whole “pain / suffering” problem can be overcome with a slightly different design mechanism.

Another possibility would be a Gaia-type environment, where the separate living beings would be part of a super-organism. Just like our different organs are part of our body, and they do not compete with each other, they all cooperate in sustaining us. There would be no “moral evil”, just like our lung is peacefully cooperating with our stomach, and heart. Of course they would NOT have the “freedom” not to cooperate, but what would be the point of such freedom?

Here is a third one. Thinking beings could be created from totally inorganic materials, too. All we need is to think outside the box, and the solutions are all over the place. You could have a whole world of autonomous beings, capable of thinking, reasoning, being creative… you name it. But no pain, no suffering.

 

[Scowler]

Then anytime you allow – I.e., DO NOT DO everything in your power to stop – gratuitous harm and suffering around you, you are guilty of evil, even though you did not actually cause the harm. As you say, “God does not get special treatment,” so we (including you) should be held to that same standard, no?

Yes, exactly.

The difference, as far as you are concerned, is that you can always plead nolo contendere and hide behind some impotency of yours, whereas God being omnipotent and omniscient has no such defense, correct?

Yes, well said.

But here comes the problem. We should only be blamed for all those problems

1. Which we know about and
2. Which we can fixing by simply “willing” it away without inconveniencing ourselves in the slightest.

I am ready to make this comparison, but let’s make it precise.

In other words, if God has given over to us complete domain over good and evil and provides us the sufficient power (via grace) to overcome every evil, what becomes of your objection?

The operating word is “IF”. All my objections would be gone, IF the “grace” and sufficient power would manifest themselves. Unfortunately “grace” is just an empty word (unless you say it before taking a meal), and we definitely do not have the knowledge and the power to get rid of the “evil”.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

One-time event, not to be repeated.

And “prey” tell (intentionally mispeled! ) - how would anyone know that? Is that logical impossibility?

No: it’s part of divine revelation: there has been only one Incarnation, and it will not be repeated. We’ll see Jesus again at his ‘second coming’, at the end of time.

Because only logical impossibilities are unavailable for God.

No… so are the things He’s told us He isn’t going to do.

By the way, it would be already be a two-time event - once in the OT and once in the NT.

You’re talking about Genesis 2? You realize that Catholics aren’t Scriptural Fundamentalists; the Church does not require Catholics to hold that the first chapters of Genesis are historically literal, yes?

Gorgias:

The problem is that there is no way to predict it, and therefore, there’s really no practical way to be prepared to measure it.

Sure there is. We cannot know up-front which new medication will be successful, so we use double-blind experiments to find out.

Apples and oranges. You may not know whether the medication works – but you definitely know that some in your sample have taken it, and the period of time in which it’s been taken! It’s this difficulty – as well as the paucity of ‘revelation experiences’ – that make it impossible to prepare to measure them.

(After all, in a double-blind experiment, if you don’t know that anyone took the medicine, how could you conclude that it was ineffective? )

Again, leave out the idea that God is not like a physical causative agent, which can be “tested” .

Why? After all, it is true…

It would be disrespectful to God, because it would declare God as an impostor, who prefers to cheat.

Huh? How do you figure?

Gorgias:

He already believed in God. He just needed convincing that Jesus was God, too. Kinda a big difference.

The principle is the same: “to provide sufficient evidence for something”.

The principle might be the same, but the experiment is completely different! On one hand, it was “I believe God exists”, and in your case, it’s “I don’t believe God exists”. That’s a huge difference!

If a “tap on the head” is the necessary evidence, why not provide it? Or a friendly conversation?

Let’s put Paul aside. The revelation he received was meant for a divine purpose – God wished him to be an apostle. God doesn’t just show up for coffee and a danish, and to make small talk… which is what you’re proposing here.

Gorgias:

I believe in God as professed by the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately that is an insufficient description for this conversation.

Umm… why?

The God of the Bible is categorically different from the God of the philosophers. The God of the OT is categorically different from the God of the NT.

Even if He is (which I’d deny), so what? The Church has defined God; I believe in Him. If you wish, you can read the Catechism for a description of God.

 

[Gorgias]

Continued from above.

Aquinas writes: “Thus, for example, if God chooses and should choose a given good, and that good logically implies an accompanying evil, God is not blame-worthy for the evil.” Very true! The question is: “Are there such goods, where the accompanying evil cannot be eliminated - even for an omnipotent being”? (Omnipotent means to be able to do everything except logically contradictions.)

“To be able to do everything” doesn’t imply “must do everything” (or even less so “must do everything I think He should do”).

A very short argument: "There is no logical need for physical suffering. Thinking beings could be created without the ability to feel pain.

Actually, pain is a positive and good feature. It allows us to recognize when something bad has happened, so that we might take steps to correct it. (Have you ever read The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? )

The vegetation (plant life) comes to mind.

The fact that vegetation doesn’t “feel pain” in the way we do doesn’t imply that it’s what should be the model for animal life. We don’t process chlorophyl – are you suggesting that God should have given us that functionality, as well, and is unjust for having not done so?

Yet, it is possible to create a different environment for the cognitive functions, without having a pleasure / pain center. Moreover it is also possible to regrow lost tissue." So this whole “pain / suffering” problem can be overcome with a slightly different design mechanism.

That (you suggest that) it’s possible to have a different design doesn’t imply that it’s either the optimal design or that it’s a necessarily good alternate design.

Another possibility would be a Gaia-type environment, where the separate living beings would be part of a super-organism. Just like our different organs are part of our body, and they do not compete with each other, they all cooperate in sustaining us. There would be no “moral evil”

How do you know that “no moral evil” is entailed as a logical necessity?

Here is a third one. Thinking beings could be created from totally inorganic materials, too. All we need is to think outside the box, and the solutions are all over the place. You could have a whole world of autonomous beings, capable of thinking, reasoning, being creative… you name it. But no pain, no suffering.

Again: your examples do not logically require “no pain, no suffering”. Moreover, they’re alternates, and do not demonstrate better design than God’s. Finally, as in the book of Job, “were you there when I designed the universe?”. (The practical upshot being: if you don’t know what I was thinking when I did, then don’t pretend you’re Me.)

 

[Scowler]

No: it’s part of divine revelation: there has been only one Incarnation, and it will not be repeated.

You really should know better than to present your opinion as a fact. Revelation means nothing to non-believers. Omnipotence means to be able to anything, except logical contradictions. This conversation is about how can we (non-believers) get convinced that God exists. One undeniable way would be to God manifest himself in a physical fashion. God could do it if he wanted. If he does not want it, then he has no right to complain about our lack of belief.

You’re talking about Genesis 2? You realize that Catholics aren’t Scriptural Fundamentalists; the Church does not require Catholics to hold that the first chapters of Genesis are historically literal, yes?

You are free to take it literally or allegorically. If you don’t take it literally then the whole foundation of your belief system collapses. No monogenesis, no rib-woman, no talking snake, no tree, no disobedience, no original sin, no “need” for Jesus. You are left with an empty bag. If you say that it was only allegorical to describe some actual event, then you only have a fictional story, without ANY support at all - not even a “biblical” foundation. You throw out the “baby” with the bathwater.

After all, in a double-blind experiment, if you don’t know that anyone took the medicine, how could you conclude that it was ineffective?

We all know about the supplicative prayers, and their ineffectiveness. A perfectly good experiment, except the result is negative.

Huh? How do you figure?

I use your arguments. God “thwarts” those experiments, which would reveal his existence. That is called cheating. It looks like that God prefers “faith”, or to be more precise: “blind faith”.

God doesn’t just show up for coffee and a danish, and to make small talk… which is what you’re proposing here.

Unfortunately, that is true. He does not… Why not? Because he is not there, or maybe ashamed for his actions (or inactions). I would be if I were God.

The Church has defined God.

Are you kidding? The church tries to “define” God? And attempts to “define” his characteristics? Not “discover”, but “define”?

The point is that you try to salvage your belief in God, by trying to whitewash the “silentium Dei”, which is one of the strongest arguments against God’s existence.

 

[Scowler]

“To be able to do everything” doesn’t imply “must do everything” (or even less so “must do everything I think He should do”).

But it does. If you don’t do the best you can, you only deserve disdain. Especially, if doing the best does not “cost” you anything. A parable: “there is a mother, who only gives lousy junk food to her children. When she is asked why not give good, nutritious food, she just shrugs: just because I can give good food, it does not imply that I should.” Or another parable: “a surgeon treats a leg with gangrene. Instead of removing the infected tissue and apply antibiotics, he chooses total amputation. Moreover does not apply anesthesia, but gives a bullet to the patient to clamp down on it. When he is asked why use this barbaric method, he answers: just because I could use a better method, it does not mean that I should. Maybe even adds: just because you think that antibiotics is better than using an axe to chop off the leg, that does not mean that it is better.”

Actually, pain is a positive and good feature. It allows us to recognize when something bad has happened, so that we might take steps to correct it.

Baloney. It is only useful for an inferior material. If the material does not deteriorate, there is no need to give “warning”. Plant life does not need pain, because it simply regrows the lost parts.

How do you know that “no moral evil” is entailed as a logical necessity?

Give me an example, if you can. I am always willing to listen. In a Gaia type arrangement there can be no moral evil, because it is based upon mutual cooperation. Just like in your body the stomach would not “think” about doing something against the lungs. If you are interested, you could read Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy, where such a world is described in good detail. And remember, God could do everything except logically contradictory states of affairs.

Moreover, they’re alternates, and do not demonstrate better design than God’s.

Contrary to Leibniz’s assertion, this is definitely not the “best possible world”. Even the smallest improvement demonstrates a better design. We see gradual improvements every day. All those could have been incorporated in the original “design”. You have no arguments against the proposed alternatives. Obviously Aquinas could not have offered such improvements, in his day and age these were way over the “horizon”.

But the fact that you are unwilling to think outside the box only reflects of you, and not in a favorable manner.