An omnimalevolent being can't create heaven - a place of eternal happiness. I don't see what obligation has to do with this.

Are you saying an omnimalevolent being can create heaven but it simply won't? Are you saying such a being is not obliged to create heaven?

However, it is obliged not to create heaven - out of its omnimalevolence and out goes its omnipotence.

The omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god creates hell to punish sinners. There IS a relevant assymetry.

It's all in the above. If you still don't see why your cherry-picked example can't be generalised to render only one half of the dichotomy incoherent (and herein lies your claimed asymmetry) then all I can suggest is you consider a few more examples.

I am not sure about G's existence, but I wonder if the moral concept 'good' does not also require a concept of 'evil' (like 'light' & 'dark'), but where what is 'good' is necessary and what is 'evil', is contingent. I would like to say that genocide is evil wherever and whenever, but if G isn't around to confirm my intuitions, then this judgement is my opinion, and ultimately (beyond norms) it has no more validity than 'I like ice cream'. Is there a better foundation..something more, something that grounds the necessity of the Good for men.

Perhaps some form of necessary moral transcendental is needed by man to make sense his existence, to be able to unequivocally say genocide is evil, whenever & wherever.

In other words, unless life is like a perfectly stage-managed spectacle full of happy endings and healthy people, then there must be something the matter with whoever is in charge. — Wayfarer

So if God can't do any better than create a world with genocide, sexual trafficking, famine and predation, why create a world in the first place? And the hotel manager is a terrible metaphor, as if the inconvenience of a poorly run hotel is somehow equivalent to the holocaust, or people starving to death.

David Benatar's argument really comes into force with a being like God.

So if God can't do any better than create a world with genocide, sexual trafficking, famine and predation, why create a world in the first place? — Marchesk

Because maybe, just maybe, us humans can do our bit to make sure it happens. Instead of whining about it like a Benatar.

What you're really asking is, how could God create people who can do that kind of thing? And the textbook answer is - and this is from one who doesn't even profess Christianity - that God creates beings who are free to do whatever they like. If they weren't able to do evil, then doing good would have no meaning - they'd be the droids that Daniel Dennett says we all are. Life involves big risks, and one of the risks is 'getting it all wrong'. But if there wasn't any risk, what kind of a life would it be?

Natural evils are things like epidemics, natural calamities, famines, and the like. And they don't seem 'evil' to me either, any more than a landslide is. It seems to me, you can't have a world where nobody dies, nobody gets sick, where there are no carnivous animals and no diseases. — Wayfarer

Why not? I can imagine a world in which that particular rabbit wasn't hit by a car last night. I can imagine a world in which that fish wasn't sucked into the motor of a maritime vessel. If I can imagine these particular cases as non-existent, why can't I imagine the entire set of particular cases as non-existent?

I mean, sure in this day and age we can be naturalists and believe there is nothing "objectively" evil to natural disasters. But back in the age of the Pre-Socratics and before that we were animistic and believed evil gods and demons were the source of these calamities.

The naturalistic turn, in this particular case, happened when we stopped seeing the world as divided by good and evil forces and saw it as simply indifferent. We went from seeing something that made no sense and making it meaningful to making sense of the world by realizing it makes no sense. It makes no sense for any of this to happen.

I don't really see how 'imagining how something might be different' makes any actual difference. From a humane viewpoint, it is always sad to see animals hit by cars, not to mention the terrible rates of attrition being caused by humans and environmental degradation nowadays. But one of the inevitable entailements of physical existence is the possibility of accident and injury. How could it be different? In what world does nobody and nothing grow old, get hurt, or die?What religions guarantees that this is how the world ought to be?

There is plainly an element in religion which is concerned with soliciting for benefits, safety and favour, going right back to ancient 'rights of propitiation'. Buddhism, in principle, is supposed never to be concerned with such things, but on the village level, it is frequently combined with animism, intercessory prayer and veneration of ancestors. Here in Australia every year, there is a 'blessing of the fleet' (i.e. fishing boats), a ritual that is apparently conducted by Catholic priests. Such practices seem endemic to human cultures and despite the wishes of the Enlightenment don't seem likely to be going away. But whether they're essential to the real meaning of religion is another question.

As for the 'naturalistic turn', I read that in terms of Max Weber's 'disenchantment of the world' which describes the attributes of modernized, bureaucratic, secularized Western society, where scientific understanding is prized over belief, and where processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society where 'the world remains a great enchanted garden'. That sense of disenchantment is what gives rise to the feeling (and that is what it is) expressed so memorably by Stephen Weinberg, that 'the more the universe seems intelligible, the more it seems meaningless'.

But one of the inevitable entailements of physical existence is the possibility of accident and injury. How could it be different? In what world does nobody and nothing grow old, get hurt, or die?What religions guarantees that this is how the world ought to be? — Wayfarer

Even if it were impossible to be different, why should this change the ultimate worthiness of such a universe? Just because it's the best-possible-universe doesn't mean it's actually a good universe.

It would be immensely sad and concerning if this really was as good as it got. I mean, this probably is why people believe in heaven after all.

That sense of disenchantment is what gives rise to the feeling (and that is what it is) expressed so memorably by Stephen Weinberg, that 'the more the universe seems intelligible, the more it seems meaningless'. — Wayfarer

Yeah.

Just because it's the best-possible-universe doesn't mean it's actually a good universe. — darthbarracuda

I think critters behave like it's a good universe. They have a natural exuberance. Humans loose touch with that - that is part of the predicament of 'the human condition' - but we have to recover that sense of wonder and mystery. That is the problem, the absence of that sense.

See the problem with moderns is that they've attached their religious identity, such as it is, to the sensory domain. So they tremendously value youth, sex, hedonism, but then of course we all know all of that will age, curdle, wither away in time. That is what gives rise to the sense of bitterness and dissappointment so often expressed in these threads.

So they tremendously value youth, sex, hedonism, but then of course we all know all of that will age, curdle, wither away in time. That is what gives rise to the sense of bitterness and dissappointment so often expressed in these threads. — Wayfarer

Yes, time-consciousness is a key, if not fundamental, aspect of existentialist and pessimistic philosophies. The reason these animals are "exuberant" as you say is taken to be because they aren't as conscious of themselves as we are. The more conscious you are, the more you aware you are about things. The key is to get right in that goldylocks zone, which humans are unfortunately out of.

This, of course, is more of a symbolic story than an accurate biological history, especially in terms of animal happiness, because on average animals live fairly short lives filled with stress. Pain may even be worse for animals because they can only endure or escape, they can't fix like we can. Although the idea of a "surplus consciousness" is something from Freud and Zapffe and is a key part of things like depressive realism. Colin Feltham has a good book(s) on this.

The reason these animals are "exuberant" as you say is taken to be because they aren't as conscious of themselves as we are. — darthbarracuda

I see the myth of the fall as being a parable about self-consciousness. It symbolises the origin of language and identity. I read the synopsis of a book by Georges Battaille about this idea - he sounds like a rather unsavoury character otherwise, but his theory of the meaning of 'primal intimacy' and the advent of self-consciousness rings true. It revolves around language and tool use - at that point, the idea of possession becomes possible, and also the idea of loss, and the realisation that other subjects exist, who don't conform to my wishes. This represents a profound loss of innocence, the realisation of our aloneness and the possibility, indeed the inevitability, of death. Sacrifice is seen as a returning to the God or gods of the tools or powers which we have been given, which gives them something beyond utility - almost like returning a gift to its rightful owner, so as to relieve oneself of the responsibility of owning it. Sacrifice is a way of symbolically returning to the womb of nature, the 'time before time'.

That is also a theme which is explored by religious studies scholar Mercea Eliade, in his seminal works like the Myth of the Eternal Return. Ancient man divided the world into the profane realm, and the sacred domain of the ancestors/gods/spirits, which were invoked through ritual and sacrifice.

The predicament of modernity is that this sense of the sacred has been lost or displaced. Where I think it has shown up again, is the quest for interstellar travel - now we literally, physically want to 'go to the heavens', via machines that for now (and possibly for ever) only exist in fantasy realms, which can travel 'faster than light' thereby literally dissappearing into the super-luminal realms. 'Warp drive, Scottie!'

But one of the inevitable entailements of physical existence is the possibility of accident and injury. How could it be different? — Wayfarer

We could be made of something more resilient than meat. Even as meat, we're not optimally designed to last and avoid injury. We just have enough resilience to reproduce and raise children, on average.

You can't really tell me that God couldn't think of a better design. Our bones could be made of carbon nanotubes. Or immune systems could be much more resistant. But for that matter, why do we inhabit a world where we need immune systems? Why should the environment be chalk full of things that would like to hijack our cells or feed on us? That's just horrific.

Why oh why does life exist at the expense of other life? Why can't the entire biosphere be massively symbiotic? Are you telling me that God is incapable of that?

And aging is unnecessary. Our germ line is ageless, going back all the way to the first life. Cells don't necessarily have to age. There are several organisms who don't show any aging.

And what is up with cancer? Are you telling me that God couldn't make our cell reproduction mechanism robust enough to avoid uncontrolled growth? Is God that bad of a designer? Are you telling me that cancer is unavoidable. That no possible design could have eliminated the possibility?

We can make machines faster, strong, and of more durable material than our bodies. Can God not even do that much?

And the textbook answer is - and this is from one who doesn't even profess Christianity - that God creates beings who are free to do whatever they like. — Wayfarer

I don't think most human beings actually consider this sort of free will to be a good thing, but I'll create another thread about it.

I think critters behave like it's a good universe. They have a natural exuberance. — Wayfarer

Until they're being chased by a lion, or fail to find water during a drought, or have parasites infesting their brain.

You can't really tell me that God couldn't think of a better design. Our bones could be made of carbon nanotubes. — Marchesk

Science fantasy.

Science fantasy. — Wayfarer

We're talking about God, who didn't find it too hard to create an entire universe with the laws of physics as they are, and you're telling me that making animals with carbon nanotubes instead of calcium is too difficult? Gimme a break.

We're talking about God, — Marchesk

We're talking about 'conceptions of God', mainly entertained by those who believe there is no such being, and therefore no real understanding of the term, so therefore interprets 'omniscience' to mean 'anything I think is possible'. The break you're looking for is to actually be God.

so therefore interprets 'omniscience' to mean 'anything I think is possible'. — Wayfarer

Omniscience means to know everything. What exactly is meant by knowing all things is debateable, but non-believers did not' invent the term.

The break you're looking for is to actually be God. — Wayfarer

Wouldn't this apply to believers as well?

That is one easy argument to dismiss.

The existence of 'good' (or fleeting moments of non-pain and no suffering) don't necessarily undermine an evil/oppressive world where the individual is merely meat for the machine and nothing more.

In the movie 1984, a character by the name Winston Smith can for brief moments seem to be able to outmaneuver the totalitarian state by both knowing the truth from the many of the lies he is told and by the fact he is willing to take risks when undertaking many actions which he knows could get him into trouble. One could imagine the fact that an individual such as Winston doing such things could be a threat to 'Big Brother' (the evil all powerful state), but Big Brother often just sits back to when it suits them to arrest someone instead of 'swooping in' merely at their first thought crime. As the movie seems to put it, 'Big Brother' prefers for some it's victims to have a fantasy that they have managed to safely fooled him before getting caught, brainwashed, and made a scapegoat like all of it's other political prisoners.

Another way to put it, in a Machiavellian world the ability of people to sometimes be good and or have pleasure doesn't mean it is any less Machiavellian. I guess someone might believe that an all-powerful Machiavellian God might want to increase suffering as much as possible, but there is nothing that I know of that says that such a God would do so, As far as I know an all-powerful Machiavellian God could merely be an apex predator choosing to consume and destroy (and possibly sometimes creating something to later consume and destroy) as it pleases them, and things not immediately being harmed by it would very unlikely threaten it omnipotence, and any other omni whatever powers it might have. All it would mean is that it is still just meat for the machine.

The strength of the argument for wicked creator is not only that it does not require a theodicy (an excuse) to make it plausible, but we can demonstrate through the historical continuum that good always leads to greater evil, where evil is defined as the ways and means by which suffering is experienced.

The only reason there does not exist a school of thought examining this is simply because its just so uncomfortable for people to even entertain the idea.

Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, onle he knows why things happen. Despite the fact that you, or me, as mortal humans might witness many seemingly evil things happen, we just see it that way because we do not have enough perspective towards the future, in reality those seemingly evil acts will turn out to have been good in the future, we just dont know it yet, only God knows it. — rickyk95

I see no reason why God can't achieve these future goods without putting innocent and good people through such gratuitous suffering in the process. He's not bound by any such reason, he can have it both ways if he wants to.

Both of the arguments used are examples of self-sealing or fallacious arguments, i.e., any counter-evidence in terms of evil or good is justified by saying it's not evil or good. It's like saying "All cars are blue," and someone's response is, as they point to a car, "But this car is yellow," then they respond, but that's not a car. Thus it's self-sealing because they will not admit to any counter-evidence, they simply deny it.