The Problem of Evil fails

Thanks for your thought provoking reply. Perhaps we can clarify part of the issue. You affirm, and I deny, the following principle: Culpable: God is culpable for the harm humans inflict upon one another. You support Culpable by claiming that God is both direct cause and indirect cause of harms humans inflict upon one another. God is indirect cause of harms humans inflict upon one another because he is responsible for preventing these harms, and God does not prevent those harms. I deny Culpable by claiming that God is neither a direct cause nor an indirect cause of harms humans inflict upon one another. God is not a direct cause of these harms because neither you nor I have ever seen God smote anyone. You object: The Bible says it happened. Well, I suspect you don’t believe the Bible, so that doesn’t prove anything. And, there is a logical problem: if you believe God had smote someone, you would believe God exists in the first place. So, you cannot believe God has directly caused harm. You may reply: but I should believe the Bible, so this should work for me. For theists, if those events happened, they are instances of justice, not evil by gratuitous suffering. Imagine Joe enslaves Julie in the sex trade, and the police come along and kill Joe in a standoff. The police did not do evil, they did justice, when they caused Joe to suffer. God is not an indirect cause of these human inflicted harms either. On the production model of causation, x causes y if x transfers energy/momentum to y, or x pushes/pulls y. This requires that x is an event. Omissions are not causes. If I do not water the plant, and the plant dies, I do not cause the plant to die on this view because there is no energy transfer from me to the plant. So, on this view, if God omits to stop human from harming each other, God is still not a cause of humans harming each other. Perhaps the counterfactual model can help your case, according to which x causes y if the absence of x implies the absence of y. The legal system seems to use the counterfactual model to discern causation in cases of negligence. On this view, the company is a cause of the death in the dough machine because, had there been a rail, the death would not have occurred. But, the counterfactual model includes just about everything as causes. For example, had factories not started to exist in the 19th century, the death would not have occurred. Had humanity not evolved, the death would not have occurred. Had the big bang not occurred, the death would not have occurred. And, most remotely, had God not created free will, the death would not have occurred. But surely these are not all causes. And surely, these are not all responsible. I claim: in the case where a person falls into a dough machine, the person most responsible is the person who fell into the dough machine. They are responsible for their lives, and not letting themselves die. Other people that may also be held responsible include those people in a position of responsibility, who had a duty to provide safe guards but failed in that duty. Perhaps this includes the company CEO. But there are many people who are not culpable: the CEO of the company down the street is not culpable, the person who invented factories in the 19th century is not culpable, etc… These people are not proximate causes on any view of causation, and they are not in a position of responsibility. Similarly, God is not culpable because God is not a proximate cause and is not responsible. One could say: well, God made free will, so God is culpable. Well, that is as far removed as the big bang occurring being culpable. One could say: well, God has a responsibility to step in and stop human suffering, since God is powerful enough to do so. No, plenty of countries are powerful enough to stop the person from falling into the dough machine, but they are outside of a position of responsibility, so are not culpable. One could say: well, God is love, so God would step in to stop it. No, my entire thesis is that God gave humans free will and a planet, then left everything up to humans, in an act of love to let them create their own destiny. So, we should not expect God to step in now. One could say: well, God knows it will happen, so that puts the duty to stop it on God. No, it is likely that the person who invented factories knew someone would die in a factory accident, but they are not to be blamed for making factories … so much good has come of it. The person who invented electricity must have known that someone could get electrocuted, but they are not blamed for making such a good thing anyway. Likewise, God knew humans would abuse free will, but God is not blamed for making such a good thing. It is a mistake to force a duty upon God. Humans have no right to expect God to do anything. Our next breath is a gift, the fact that we exist at all is a gift, so any expectation that God must also create a utopia for us would be presumptuous, to say the least. The marvel is that God put things together, not that God allows humans to tear it apart. Here are some examples of how harm does not imply a loss of free will: Joe steals a loaf of bread from a billionaire, harming the billionaire, but not taking any free will away from the billionaire. Sue cheats on Stan, causing harm to Stan, but Stan and Sue come to agree to having an open relationship, increasing free will to both. Mark burns down Fred’s house, which harms Fred. But, they escape so they still retain their free will, and insurance buys them a newer house. As I said, I appreciate the point you make about harm being connected to free will reduction, so I don’t want to reject your point. I just provide some examples to show it is not automatic. On the ‘help increases free will’ argument: I would like to distinguish between the ‘faculty of free will’, and ‘acting freely in helpful/harmful ways’. God gave the faculty of free will, the potential to act as we want, and this is a good, and does not create more harm in any way, since no human harms are included in just having the capacity of acting freely. On the other hand, humans use free will to act in a harmful way or helpful way. You emphasize that when humans act in a harmful way, they limit the free will others have. By parity of reasoning, if humans act in helpful ways, they increase the free will others have. To borrow your example: you want to take up soccer, but have no money for shoes. Someone uses their free will to buy you shoes, which increases your free will, now allowing you to play soccer. Someone gives to charity, preserving the life of a hungry person, increasing their free will. The connection with help to increased free will is as strong as the connection with harm to decreased free will. This also allows free will to ‘grow’: by helping others, they have more options and more free will. Of course, the faculty of having free will does not grow. But, the amount of choices we have does grow. My central point is: humanity itself has the duty to care for everything harmful that happens in the species. The burden you are trying to place upon God, I place upon humanity. Imagine the converse: humans invent democracy, cure diseases, push human rights to the limits of the world, and do many other good things. The theist comes along and says: wow, God is so good for doing all that. No, humans did it, don’t credit God for something he didn’t do. Similarly, imagine humans kill, steal and war, and do many other bad things. The atheist comes along and says: wow, God is so bad for allowing all that. No, humans did it, don’t blame God for something he didn’t do. It should be easy for the atheist to take God out of the equation when it comes to dispersing blame, as they do not believe God exists anyway. For atheists, it should be clear that the world belongs to humans to fix or destroy, as I claim.