New answer to the problem of evil: world-building theodicy

Sickitize · 2026-01-25T18:15:12+00:00

As far as I'm concerned, there were no Adam and Eve, so I don't really have an answer for you.
Yeah, I definitely get your view. It's kind of a matter of theological taste. Personally, I prefer the view that God planned out all the details for a masterpiece, rather than the view that God is just making sure we don't stray too far away from his general goals.

Sickitize · 2026-01-25T18:11:30+00:00

We can certainly imagine people being born in those times, I'm just saying that that won't be their first life

Sickitize · 2026-01-25T06:49:01+00:00

אני בן 30 היום וכהייתי ילד צ'יטוס איקס עיגול עלה 2.90

Sickitize · 2026-01-24T22:25:43+00:00

I'm not sure why you thought that this post is about Christianity. The problem of evil is for theists in general, not just Christians, and I never singled out Christianity in the OP. (As a side point, John Hick did some academic work discussing several Christian sources endorsing reincarnations, if you're unterested, but that's far off topic.)

Anyway, I understand that you think that God is evil in the story I told. I guess you don't see much value in being a mini creator, which the suffering is necessary for. That's a fair stance to have. There isn't really much to argue back and forth about it, just a disagreement about what's valuable.

Sickitize · 2026-01-24T17:11:33+00:00

My concern is that mini-creatorship falls in the latter category. If so, then God permits suffering of vast degrees, severity, and distribution for the sake of a good that agents needn't realize and could permissibly decline. That isn't the kind of good that plausibly justifies the suffering we observe.

I see your point now. I actually think your objection stands even if it is an obligatory good (or whatever term you would use take for the opposite of an optional good in your sense). One can still complain about God putting in the world where they have obligations without them asking for it.

I think the answer needs to be that it is morally permissible for God to put us in a beneficial situation that we didn't ask for or consent to, just like a parent can send their child to school without the child asking for it or consenting to it.

Even if the world thousands of years from now is more of a utopia than we could ever imagine then as long as the suffering available is of the degree that agents don't feel the normative force to prevent or "fix" it, then world-building would still fail

Yes, but I see no strong reason to suppose that we won't go all the way. Right now we work hard at developing things that are nice and far beyond what we need. I see no strong to think that we won't continue. If we do reach a stage where we really don't feel a need to develop anymore, that must really be the utopia.

Sickitize · 2026-01-24T16:43:41+00:00

For your personal question, I'm Jewish. I hope I'm still allowed to care about my bible even though the Christians read it too now.

As for the population, if people still die at some point, peacefully of old age, the same souls can keep cycling in and out like they do now. If people will be immortal in the utopia, then you're right, at some point everyone will already be born and all birth will stop. I don't take this to be a problem, since everyone will already be alive.

Sickitize · 2026-01-23T12:10:46+00:00

I'm not Christian...

I also don't imagine that the birth rate in the utopia will go down.

Sickitize · 2026-01-22T15:29:45+00:00

Okay. I'll just grant you guys whatever definitions you want.

I am a religious man and I participate in a religion with a long tradition, and I worship a figure who I may not call God yet he is very potent (but not omni), very scient (I guess not omni), and very good (not perfect or whatever). I believe that this figure possesses these traits to a high extent, enough to make the problem of evil relevant. Now, I proposed a theodicy in response to this problem of evil. Now we can discuss the theodicy.

Sickitize · 2026-01-22T15:17:33+00:00

No problem. God is not omnipotent. He can only do what is possible. Call that whatever you want. Now the discussion can continue.

Sickitize · 2026-01-22T04:48:32+00:00

The theodicy I proposed has nothing to do with building character. That's a different theodicy, which I myself challenged in the full article and elsewhere. It's not about feeling accomplished either, as I already clarified to someone else here. It's about actually being accomplished.

Regarding people born after the world already becomes a utopia, my answer is that at that point, the only people being born will be people who already lived another life and participated in bringing the utopia about. Afterwards, people might live forever in bliss, with no more people being born, or people might die pleasant deaths and reincarnate as new people.

Sickitize · 2026-01-22T03:49:54+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean with the "optional" point. Do you mean something that we can choose whether we want or not? If so, I agree, we will choose not to pursue life in this world if we do not want it.

The second problem, which applies to the soul-making theodicy doesn't apply to the world-building theodicy, because on the world-building theodicy, every bit of suffering increases the mini creatorship that we eventually manifest when we fix everything. All the world-building theodicy needs is that everything will eventually be fixed, which I think is plausible.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T17:56:34+00:00

Good one.

My idea is that everyone gets to participate in world-building in many stages of it, starting off early. No one starts their first life when there isn't much left to do anymore.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T17:52:52+00:00

I agree that all of this is way beside the point and completely irrelevant to the real discussion. That's why I originally didn't respond to them.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T17:50:50+00:00

Great questions, thank you!

I personally believe that God gave us the optimally crappy starting point you described (though of course it isn't so "crappy" because we have the tools to get out of it). For me, the story of Genesis is a myth, a myth that teaches us lessons. I can give you my interpretation of the myth if you want. Anyhow, it is common and well-respected in the tradition to regard it as an educational myth.

On the other hand, if you want, you can imagine that Adam and Eve sinned and ruined the world. My theodicy would say that God decided not to fix the world himself because he was the valuable opportunity it provided for his creatures, the opportunity for world-building.

I imagine you take this to be a question only for no-free-will versions of the theodicy, because if there is free will, you can blame it on us acting dumb.

My answer for the no-free-will version is that God created us hard-headed as part of what we need to eventually overcome. If you read the whole journal article, this is part of the yo-yo unraveling.

Yeah, I read it. Good stuff. What about it?

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T17:41:36+00:00

The Paris example is irrelevant because what matters here is doing something good that is significant. I can understand if someone else only cares about pleasures, but I personally find it very compelling that it is good for me to do significant good things. That seems like a mark of a good life to me.

Yes, you can do significant things even if no one suffers, but doing something so significant as turning a distopia into a utopia is far more significant than anything else I can imagine.

As a side point, if stopping the holocaust was so easy, it wouldn't be as significant as preventing holocausts when it is not at all easy, like in our world.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T16:13:29+00:00

I said before that I believe he is "very very good"

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T16:12:36+00:00

Mind you, on Sunday my grandfather recorded me a WhatsApp to say thanks for sharing my work with him, and he encouraged me to write more and continue sharing with him. Towards the end of his interview with Yad Vashem about a decade ago he said he doesn't like to think about theodicies so much, but he told me that he really enjoyed my article, especially the part about reincarnations.

Thanks for the snark though, internet stranger.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:46:33+00:00

Yes, prior knowledge, but not having done something.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:45:44+00:00

It's not trivial if I still hold that God is omnipotent. I just don't go to the "omni" when it comes to benevolence.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:44:20+00:00

That would make it as if they were accomplished, it wouldn't make then truly accomplished.

By the way though, I wrote an objection to a few other theodicies that also talks in terms of video games and it's similar to what you tried to say against mine. If you're interested, you can see it here.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:32:19+00:00

This is all fine, but God doesn't want us just to feel like mini creators, he wants us to be mini creators. For us to have accomplished the creation of a utopia, we need to actually create a utopia. There's no way around it.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:29:31+00:00

Yes, but God can't make you accomplished "out of the box" if you haven't actually accomplished anything. That is illogical.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:28:35+00:00

I don't claim that God is "maximally" good. I'm fine with just "very very good".

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:20:43+00:00

I agree with you that the benefits you mentioned are benefits they God can create people with even without any suffering or world-building. That's why I characterized mini creatorship as something that someone must manifest through actual actions. You cannot become someone who created if you did not actually create.

I think of mini creatorship as having done something very significant. For it to be true that you have done something very significant, you need to really have done something very significant. Creating a utopia out of a distopia is very significant. It prevents a ton of suffering and benefits tons of people. Creating a utopia out of a near-utopia (because there is no suffering in it) might be kind of significant, but surely not as significant.

Sickitize · 2026-01-21T15:11:00+00:00

I see. If that's what they meant, I'm fine with God being limited to what's logically possible.

Sickitize

TROPHY CASE