A post that demonstrates that any answer to the "Problem of Evil" and the concept of "theodicy" in general makes absolutely zero sense
There's a recent post by the user u/UsefulPalpitation645 that points out that if God is truly sovereign, then sin, suffering, and hell are part of God's design rather than accidents or unintended consequences:
And appealing to "free will" also completely fails as an explanation.
If God is truly sovereign, then even the parameters of "free will" itself were God's design choice. God established what free will means, how it functions, and its consequences. An omnipotent God could design beings with free will who consistently choose good, or create systems where evil choices have limited consequences.
Even taking the concept of "free will" fully into account, God could have easily created "free willed" human beings with all of the following attributes:
"Free willed" with perfect moral intuition
"Free willed" with clear understanding of consequences
"Free willed" with guaranteed ultimate reconciliation
"Free willed" with rehabilitative rather than retributive justice
Basically, if theists are going to take the claims of the omni-attributes seriously, there should be absolutely no reason for any "theodicy" to actually exist.
Why have there been arguments for thousands of years over this?
For an omniscient and omnipotent being, "INTENTION" AUTOMATICALLY = "RESULT"
When religious people speak about God, especially members of Abrahamic religions, they tend to “humanize” God in a way that neglects his omnipotence. It usually follows a pattern of “God intended for it to be this way, but this happened instead, and now this has to happen as a result.”
This kind of reasoning would be valid for a human with limited capacities. The results we achieve often fall short of our intentions. The same kind of reasoning, however, cannot be applied to an omnipotent being who is sovereign over all, like YHWH, Allah, the Triune God of Christianity, etc. If something comes to pass, it is something that God willed, either passively or actively.
Thus, I despise it when the religious, especially Christians, say things like “God intended for the world to be perfect, but Adam and Eve sinned so now we have to live in this nightmare of a world and face the threat of hell” or “God made Hell specifically for Satan, but because of this mess we made, it’s open to us as well”. Like this is some sort of accident that happened outside of God’s sovereignty.
Since God is, by definition, sovereign over all, God WILLED for sin to enter the world and for hell to be a consequence for it. It doesn’t matter if he did it passively or actively. He did it. God could have created an alternative reality. He could have given us free will but restricted the RESULTS of sinful behavior so that the implications would not be as bad. He could have restricted our free will and made us content so that we would not be bothered by our restrictions. He could have chosen a different system of justice that emphasizes rehabilitation over retribution. He could have seen in advance those who would choose against him and mercifully decline to bring them into existence. But, out of all possible realities, God chose one where many or even MOST of the people he supposedly “loves” suffer eternal torment. And if you have any complaints about the alternatives I propose, that does not change anything. If the possibilities to God are infinite, there are possibilities that I cannot even conceive of. But I seriously doubt that of all possible realities, THIS is the best one.
If Jesus died for us with the intention to save us, this is, as far as I can tell, a very loving act. But if Jesus IS God, that has some harrowing implications. Apologists can say with a straight face that God loves us enough to die for us but not enough to take eternal torment off the table? It seems like a pretty arbitrary place to draw the line. Substitutionary atonement is clearly allowed in Christianity, and it is not measured at all by our own merit. If Jesus’ sacrifice can save EVERYBODY and still check off the box for justice, why add the extra requirements for “accepting” it when the consequences are so dire? In other words, God decided what the RESULTS of his sacrifice would be, and saw the damnation of many as a preferable alternative to universal reconciliation. Which makes no sense because the Bible clearly states that God desires ALL to be saved. If that is the case, why set a deadline after which that becomes an impossibility?
Regardless, I cannot honestly consider a God who values his own preconceived notion of justice more than the beings he himself brings into existence as “loving”. If it was loving for Jesus to die for us, that presents a paradox or even a contradiction more than anything else. I might add, also, that it was God in the first place who established blood sacrifice as an atonement for sin. It would not have been necessary had God not MADE it necessary. Why would a loving God make that necessary at all?
I am obviously referencing Christianity heavily, but I have the same objections to Islam. From what I have read, Judaism paints a much more reasonable picture of the afterlife, but considering the premises that I have established, Judaism has other problems that require explanation. In fact, I would go as far as to say that this applies to EVERY traditional religion.
In short, stop treating theodicy and the problem of hell as some sort of accident. This contradicts true sovereignty and omnipotence.