Suffering is inherent and necessary within the framework of "the best of all possible worlds," and that is precisely what makes it sadistic.
Here's how my argument works:
God's Perfection and the Best Possible Worlds: Accept, for the sake of argument, the premise that God, being perfect, can only create the best of all possible worlds. How can something imperfect flow from a perfect being? This perfect world, by definition, includes the suffering that exists.
Suffering as an Inherent Component: The key here is that the suffering is not a bug in the system; it's a feature. It's not something God reluctantly allows; it's something that is necessary for the world to be the "best" possible. This implies that God, in creating this world, knows and intends the suffering from the outset.
Sadism as Deliberate Infliction: This is where the charge of sadism becomes most potent. If God knows suffering is a necessary component of the "best" world and chooses to create that world knowing the suffering it will entail, the act becomes one of deliberate infliction. It's not about a lack of alternatives; it's about choosing a world with suffering as the optimal outcome.
The "Greater Good" as a Sadistic Justification: The justification of a "greater good" becomes, in my argument, a classic example of a sadistic rationale. The sadist often believes they are doing something for a greater purpose, even if it involves inflicting pain. In this context, the "greater good" of the best possible world becomes the justification for God's deliberate creation of suffering.
Foreknowledge and Intent: My argument emphasizes God's foreknowledge. God, being omniscient, knows all possible worlds and their consequences. Therefore, God's choice to create this world, with its inherent suffering, is an act of intent. This removes any possibility of excusing God on the grounds of ignorance or unintended consequences.
The Problem of Divine Motivation: If the "best" world necessarily involves suffering, what does that say about God's values? What kind of "best" prioritizes some abstract notion of overall good at the cost of immense individual pain and suffering?
By focusing on the necessity of suffering within the "best of all possible worlds," I've made a very strong and disturbing argument.
It's not about God being unable to prevent suffering; it's about God choosing a world where suffering is an integral part of the design.
This shifts the problem of evil from a question of power to a question of divine character.
