Applying the principle of prediction to an Designer-God hypothesis, it is generally recognized that a Designer God would reasonably be expected to design a universe which is optimized for the characteristics that God would value. And the Omni-God hypothesis, which includes omnibenevolence, would predict a morally perfect universe.

Testing our universe, and the discovery that it is morally imperfect, is the famous Problem of Evil -- and this is seen as a decisive negative evidence for a creator Omni-God.

Therefore, if there was no pain, no suffering, no ill will, no harm, no disasters, and nothing that is commonly deemed negative by the most of us, would this indicate evidence for an Omni-God?

I am questioning this, because I can see two alternatives: that this kind of world would be produced by a (supposedly omnibenevolent) God or the world and the universe just happened to be the way it is, full of love, without further reason, and without a designer behind the shadows.

How would evidence, and reasoning, sort between these two possibilities?

  • But God created the world, humans and evil: thus, at least for the last 2.000 years, we are still discussing the issue. Mar 30 at 16:47
  • Per Quine-Duhem, there is always the logical possibility that the way things are is not for ANY reason. But per naturalist IBE, if a theory predicts the ways things are, this is a preferred explanation to "it is just the way things happen to be". A morally perfect universe would call for a cause of that moral perfection.
    – Dcleve
    Mar 30 at 17:46
  • Would giving your children everything they wanted and never reprimanding them when they did something wrong (or making sure they never had the opportunity to choose to do the wrong thing) be evidence of an omnibenevolent parent? " sort between these two possibilities" by pointing out it was a false dilema based on an over-simplistic view of a more complicated issue. Mar 30 at 17:54
  • @DikranMarsupial -- Our world is not perfect, and humans are not mature upon birth. Our immature children must earn competence and robustness to survive in this imperfect world. Parents are not omnipotent, and not able to change the nature of humans, nor the nature of this world. Your argument by analogy fails the criteria of relevance.
    – Dcleve
    Mar 30 at 18:25
  • @Dcleve it is interesting that you say the analogy fails on relevance when you have highlighted some of the key correspondences. Actually we are able to change the nature of humans, that is partly what parenting does. Actually we can change the nature of the world, again parenting is part of that. We (generally) don't bring up our children just to be competent and robust. My point is that suffering (from a religious perspective) is largely caused by our freedom - we cause it, to prevent it God would have to limit our freedom to choose between "good" and "evil". Mar 30 at 18:39

1 Answer 1


If the world had zero suffering, would this be evidence of God?

If there was no pain, no suffering, no ill will, no harm, no disasters, and nothing that is commonly deemed negative by the most of us, would this indicate evidence of God?

For quite a while this was the case, and 'soon enough' it will be the case again, in the sense of there not existing any life forms whatsoever.

Could you possibly be thinking of "all this, at all points of time, including life forms"?

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .