SH wrote:
Moving on then... One of the issues with even the "net good" concepts of God is that "net good" is a really, really low hurdle to get over. Vladmir Putin could make the argument that he is saving lives by carpet bombing Aleppo -- a net good. The torturers from the Spanish Inquisition could argue that a short stint of torture here on earth -- designed to help you understand the benefits of confession and belief -- easily outweighed the eternal torment that was waiting for you in the hereafter. When MLK makes the statement "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere", theologians would need to reply "Well, actually...".
I'm not sure that this is a satisfactory approach either.
And it's not all tied to mankind and his/her decisions. You go out in the wild and basically all animals consume other animals in order to live. It's the way of the world.
Heck, lionesses often begin eating gazelles while they're still alive... balls first! That's having your innocents suffer, I'll tell you what.
I'm not really following your examples of "net good." To me the question is whether a certain action is good or bad. Yes people can make arguments about whether their actions are good or bad. However, their subjective view does not change affect the question: is a certain action good or bad?
Accordingly, relevant to your formulation of the POE, I don't care what some hypothetical person may argue. I'm asking your opinions on existence.
Is it good or bad action to bring a new human being into this world?
Similarly, if you were put in the position of God, holding the current existence of the world in your will, the action at question is do you instantly extinguish the world or allow it to continue. Which action is good?
Do you have a view on those two questions?
________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev