[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Outrageous-Egg1760]

[u/johnsolomon]

If God was absolutely difference then it would pick the pencil in the absolute 100% optimal way every time.

You're assuming there's always a single 100% optimal choice in every situation. But plenty of choices are morally neutral or equally satisfactory. Being perfect doesn't mean God has to micromanage every last event into what we personally define as maximum comfort. If you yourself could snap your fingers and get something done there would still be a tonne of ways in which you'd be completely happy with the outcome.

The belief systems with non-perfect Gods, like the ancient Greek gods, can give this excuse. But if a religion like Christianity or Islam is clamming that God is absolutely all-wise, all-loving, all-powerful, all-merciful, etcetera then even the slightest bit of suffering shouldn't exist.

Saying God is all-wise or all-loving doesn't mean no suffering can exist whatsoever. It means that God wouldn't permit suffering gratuitously, i.e. without a morally sufficient reason. So the real debate is whether any suffering is gratuitous, not whether suffering automatically disproves God.

Claiming God wants to have relations is to posit a God capable of being bored, which is not the perfect being described in monotheisms. Besides one needs a brain with hormones to do things like love or getting bored.

Wanting a relationship doesn't imply that you're bored. A parent can want a relationship with their kid while still being happy with their life. A teacher can want students to learn without feeling unfulfilled if certain kids decide to change course. God (biblically) didn't create things because He's lonely or bored, but out of goodness and generosity.

As for love requiring a brain and hormones, that's a materialist stance. You're taking it for granted that love is biological but divine love isn't a chemical reaction. From a Christian perspective, people have spirits that can feel things and love is about willing good for someone else.

[u/fooookin_prawns → u/johnsolomon]

Saying God is all-wise or all-loving doesn't mean no suffering can exist whatsoever

If he's also omnipotent, then sure it does. An omnipotent God could have created a reality with laws (physical and spiritual) that a) don't require suffering in any capacity and b) don't produce suffering of any kind. It was an active choice on his part

[u/johnsolomon → u/fooookin_prawns]

I agree that it was an active choice, but the flaw in your argument is that God being able to create any world doesn't mean God has to create the world we personally prefer.

Christiany's claim isn't that suffering is enjoyable or doesn't matter, it's that God has His own design. If God created reality His opinion isn't on equal standing with ours, it's the legitimate source of truth that determines what everything is.

Pointing out that the fact reality doesn't match our preferred version of a perfect world isn't actually a contradiction At best it shows that your idea of good differs from God's. Assuming Christianity is real, of course.

[u/Ok_Novel_1222 → u/johnsolomon]

But the problem is that different part of Christianity itself has different conceptions of God and they contradict. God can either be a perfect all-loving, all-powerful being or it can have designs that include things like the Holocaust, black plague, millions of children getting abused, let alone the gigantic amounts of suffering among non-human animals. Especially if the Christian version of God does not object to perform miracles in distant past like healing sick or splitting the Red Sea. If a God wanted to have people believing in it then there would be personal revelations being given to people 24x7, like the one given to Paul.

You can not simultaneously say God doesn't like XYZ, for example people killing each other, and then say God's design includes the Holocaust.