rainbow walking

Final Reflections on PoE: (I hope)

Thusfar I have considered the argument of PoE from two positions.

1. The traditional PoE: If an omni-max being existed he would have instantiated a state of affairs sans evil and suffering.

2. The Contemporary PoE: If an omni-max being existed he should do something about man’s suffering, either reduce the current levels or address the causes.

In my considerations I have determined that the Traditional PoE fails to obtain because its proponent cannot demonstrate how an alternate state of affairs, sans evil and suffering, could obtain without canceling out the attributes of this being required to instantiate said alternate state of affairs.

In my considerations of the Contemporary PoE I have been able to deduce the following premises of the argument:

The proponent of CP does not attribute any specific act or instance of evil directly to this being. He does not claim that this being willfully causes any specific instance or act that could be construed as evil.

The proponent of the CP also does not appear to be attributing any specific natural phenomena, causing harm or death, to be a willful act of this being. He does not claim that this being caused a tornado, for instance, to appear where one would otherwise not have appeared.

The proponent of CP is arguing that such a being, if he were truly omni-max, should have been compelled to do something to alleviate either the causes of these instances or reduce the suffering that results from them. That his failure to do so constitutes proof that said being does not exist. Thus, the proponent of CP is arguing on the basis of what such a being has not done, in other words, his inaction.

Thus, in my considerations of this argument, to narrow the focus of the argument down to its barest essentials, I must consider what such a being’s moral obligation to act should be due to his ascribed attributes, in other words, what moral culpability is incurred due to his inaction in light of his ascribed attributes.


In light of man’s history I have concluded that man has progressed somewhat in his understanding of his own moral comprehension; that he now appears to have somewhat refined his moral conceptualization from what it once was, thus I have further concluded that man appears to be progressing towards his own “greater good”.

Therefore my considerations compel me to consider what an omniscient being would know about mans progress towards this “greater good” and whether or not such a being would consider this a value in determining his actions or inactions regarding man’s suffering.

My considerations of this concept of man’s greater good have been based on man’s political history, (politics being the best reflection of man’s prescriptive, or moral, position), and his scientific history, (science being the best reflection of man’s descriptive faculties and thus the best indication of his potential for securing his own greater good as he struggles against nature). Thus I have considered man’s historical struggle against himself in politics and his environment in science.

My considerations have focused on these two elements of man’s existence because they cover both premeditated acts of evil along with the consequential suffering incurred, and gratuitous causes of suffering inflicted by natural phenomena like tornadoes, earthquakes and disease.

In as much as man has demonstrated a propensity to progress, in both areas, from a position of complete ignorance, (primitive man/cave dweller/hunter gatherer), to a position of less ignorance, (domestic man, social orderliness and primitive technology), to a position of higher understanding, (modern man and all that currently entails).

I, therefore, cannot but conclude that man’s history does describe a progression that indicates man’s moral obligation to the security of his own greater good, and from that obligation a prescribed/moral responsibility to continue to pursue his own greater good.

What I have not defined in these considerations, thusfar, is the precise meaning of this “greater good”. It is my opinion that in this definition we will find an answer to the question of this omni-max being’s moral obligation for action or inaction regarding the suffering man endures in his progression towards this higher value.

Now I will proceed to define what I envision man’s “greater good” to be and how it is to be obtained.

First I encourage us to consider man’s descriptive obligations, (his science), and how it has progressed. Man’s science is a result of his observations of his environment, including his physical bodily functions in medicine. All along the development of his scientific position man has been guided by one basic principle: The principle of right and wrong. When man’s descriptions are consistent with his relationship to his environment they are adjudged to be “right”. His descriptions are submitted to peer review and constantly tested for “rightness” in relation to these observations. If they are later discovered to be “wrong” they are rejected and or refined.

Thus we have the principle of right and wrong in science. Rightness and wrongness is determined by a procedure of trial and error, that is to say, man learns what is “right” by a process of eliminating what isn’t “right” and is therefore “wrong”. Being wrong is not a bad thing, in and of itself, until and unless one persists in being wrong in spite of knowledge to the contrary. Being wrong in this respect can incur suffering but not evil, until and unless one persists in wrongness and incurs further suffering. For instance, if a doctor learns that a particular medical procedure incurs harm rather than healing, yet continues to practice said procedure, said doctor is both wrong scientifically and morally.

Next I encourage us to consider man’s prescriptive obligations, (his politics), and how it has progressed his welfare as a sentient species. I will submit that man’s politics are guided by the same principle of “right and wrong” as his science, but with far more potential for injury and suffering to himself. When man’s politics are “right” the society that embraces them will benefit along with all other societies around them. When man’s politics are “wrong” the society that embraces these politics suffers along with other societies around it.

So I conclude that the consideration of man’s political rightness and wrongness is also reflected in his history. A society that allows its constituents to address political wrongness has an advantage over a society that does not. When a King is wrong his subjects have no recourse to address the wrongness and thereby suffer the inevitable consequences.

I further conclude that man’s understanding of political rightness and wrongness has been advanced by the same process of trial and error as in his science.

Thus I encourage us to consider that all along man’s political and scientific history he has displayed a preference for rightness and that this PFR is both the definition of “greater good” and man’s means of achieving it. That the principle of right and wrong is the underlying factor of man’s political and scientific history and that the “process of trial and error” has been his means of progression towards this greater good.

So I have concluded that without the process of trial and error man has no means of developing and testing his PFR: preference for rightness.

I further conclude that without the concept of “wrongness” man has no basis for the process of trial and error and thus no basis for development and progress, nor incentive to engage in such endeavors. The concept of “wrongness” does not entail the actualization of any specific wrong but cannot avoid the necessity of specific wrongs being actualized.

Now I have also considered that an omniscient being would know these things and would also know that any intervention, on his part, to provide a remedy for any of man’s sufferings would entail he address their causes and would prohibit man from arriving at the correct or “right” answers in the acquisition of his “greater good”.

For such a being to address man’s suffering directly he would have to address the way man experiences physical and emotional pain and this would affect man’s perceptual capacities. For such a being to address man’s suffering indirectly he would have to address the way nature affects man’s perceptual capacities and thus create an entirely different set of physical attributes directing the inter-action of the materials that comprise man’s nature. Neither of these interventions would be “right” for man if man has any moral obligation to pursue his own greater good. An omniscient being would know this.

Thus I define man’s “greater good” to be the development of his PFR and the refinement of it to such a degree as to facilitate man’s capacity to address the causes of his suffering himself. That such an omni-max being would use his attributes to their fullest capacity to create man with the capacity to express said beings attributes to their fullest capacity. Otherwise, he is not omni-max and PoE obtains. In other words the “greatest good” for man will be obtained when man can duplicate the consequences of omni-max attributes in action.

So I conclude that if a “greater good” can be obtained by man and that “greater good” is understood to be a process developed as a response to evil and suffering, then: If an omni-max being existed he would create a state of affairs where the greatest amount of evil and suffering “could” obtain in order that a GREATER amount of good “would” obtain.

So I call this state of affairs the best of all possible paths to the attainment of the best of all possible worlds.

And thus I conclude that such a path would represent the full and final moral obligation of such an omni-max being to those who are on that path.

Thus, PoE is not an ironclad proof that such a being cannot exist along side a world such as our own.


Now, whether or not such a being can logically exist at all will be my next challenge as I conclude my deconstruction of PoE.

rainbow walking

Thus I define man’s “greater good” to be the development of his PFR and the refinement of it to such a degree as to facilitate man’s capacity to address the causes of his suffering himself. That such an omni-max being would use his attributes to their fullest capacity to create man with the capacity to express said beings attributes to their fullest capacity. Otherwise, he is not omni-max and PoE obtains. In other words the “greatest good” for man will be obtained when man can duplicate the consequences of omni-max attributes in action.

Upon a further reading of this paragraph I feel some clarification is needed.

I'm not saying man will have realized his greater good when he himself becomes omni-max. I am saying his greatest good will be realized when he consistently reflects those omni-max attributes to his fullest capacity...which would necessarily be less than the capacity of such a being to do so, (provided such a being exists).

Dr. Retard

Maybe I understand this, maybe I don't.

I think you're pending this whole criticism on a controversial moral thesis. The thesis is that a world where humanity makes a certain type of moral progress is very good, and better than all the alternatives. What type of moral progress? One where humans constantly encounter terrible tragedies, and are thus induced to improve their codes of conduct and their knowledge of the natural world, so that they can better overcome these tragedies. This 'moral progress' scenario, then, positively requires great amounts of wretched despair and acute suffering. And your moral thesis, again, is that this moral progress is so valuable that it trumps the disvalue of all the tragedy encountered by the unfortunate humans.

I don't know if this is your viewpoint, but it's the best sense I can make of your claims. I find this viewpoint morally insane.

And, if it is, maybe the reason it's so difficult for people to understand what you're saying is that you take this bizarre moral thesis for granted. For example, you write:

This reads as if the author takes the moral claims within to be simple common sense. But when I try to take the words literally, the moral claims are appalling. So then I try to find another way to take the words, thinking "he can't mean that!" "After all," I think, "if he had such obscene moral claims in mind, surely he'd make a point of acknowledging how off-the-wall they are, and giving them special support". If you do indeed subscribe to these moral claims, then you should say so up front, so that we know what part of your criticism is the most controversial.

rainbow walking

rw: Well Doc, the glaring absence of a single intelligent, logical refutation of any point in the OP speaks volumes.

Your additional appeal to ad hominem sums up the remainder of this reply in far better fashion than had you just conceded the impeccability of the logic that has thrust your mind into such a state of rage that all you can respond with is ad hominem summations.

And, just to put a set of eyes and a nose on this snow man you've concocted, let it be made clear for the record that Doc has completely ignored the scientific aspect of the OP. Does he also consider my articulation of man's descriptive advancement to be morally insane, as well?

The argument stands brilliantly un-refuted and as crystal clear as a bright, sunday morning sunrise. A good day for a funeral for PoE in any form. History is history.

Dr. Retard

Number one, I was genuinely trying to understand your argument. It's difficult because, as I've remarked before, your writing style often verges on incomprehensible. That's why I offered my provisional interpretation, gave a provisional criticism, and asked if I was on the right track.

Number two, there are no ad hominems in my response. I use colorful language to describe the moral view that I interpreted your criticism to rely on. That's all. Remember, an ad hominem is where you attempt to criticize an argument by appeal to irrelevant personal characteristics of the argument's advocate. It's not the same thing as an insult. And it's sure not mere use of phrases like "morally insane", especially when the phrase is used to describe a view examined thanks to admittedly provisional interpretation.

Number three, as for any "scientific aspect" or "man's descriptive advancement", I have no idea what you are talking about. If your words are so garbled that they fail to convey ideas to your audience, that doesn't mean you win.

Number four, I only get thrust into a state of rage when I play NBA Jam and Horace Grant will not pass the goddamn ball to Scottie Pippen, no matter how many times I press the Pass button. Then Horace takes an idiotic jump shot and misses, that goggled halfwit. Your post merely thrust me into a state of confusion, which I aimed to clear up by offering an interpretation. There's no need to go Gene Ray on me.

rainbow walking

rw: O'kay Doc, I accept your explanation and apologize for having mis-understood your thrust. What I mean by man's desciptive progression is the history of science. Perhaps some of your confusion comes from my articulation, but hey,,,it makes sense to me :^D. Try to remember that I am arguing on the basis of history or historical precedent. I'm not isolating any single event but taking a historical view of man's history to establish the argument and the PFR.

But, as a result of your criticism I have went back over it and found that I have not established any concrete definition to what I mean by "greatest amount of evil and suffering".

If I don't establish this goalpost I suppose it would appear that my argument could incur a charge of moral insanity. So...

The "greatest amount of evil and suffering" would obtain with events leading to man's self extinction. Since we are obviously not an extinct species the greatest amount of evil and suffering has not obtained...yet, and I hasten to add, I hope never does.

That's why I worded this statement thusly:

If an omni-max being existed he would create a state of affairs where the greatest amount of evil and suffering “could” obtain in order that a GREATER amount of good “would” obtain.

The "could" is a relative statement and is not written in stone. It puts the onus back on man to decide and fulfill his future but leaves open the possibility that his future "could" end with his own extinction. It would necessarily have to be this extreme if man is to have any moral imperative for participating in his own progress.

Thus it could be said that the further man progresses away from his own extinction the less evil and suffering he incurs. I hope that helps and if there are any statements in this argument that are incomprehensible please point them out to me. I won't be offended, I can assure you, but a blanket statement that indicts the entire argument does seem more of an insult than a valid response.

Dr. Retard

So, to recap: I do not think your 'moral progress' scenario is morally better than the alternatives. I do not think it is good. I think it is terrible and tragic. If any God-like being were responsible for such a scenario, I would judge that being to be wicked.

In your last entry, you seem to think that my moral qualms arise on account of the mere possibility of "the greatest amount of evil and suffering". You seem to think that I object to the fact that, under your scenario, it's possible for humans to produce "the greatest amount...".

But this is not the source of my concern. I am concerned about the actual amount of evil and suffering in the real world. I believe it is far too much, and that any God-like being would have many morally better alternatives available. Even if we have learned from the evil and suffering, and improved ourselves accordingly, it is still not worth it. Any progress that we've made in our codes of conduct and our knowledge of the natural world is morally insufficient to justify all the evil and suffering that has plagued humans since Day 1. That's the problem I'm raising.

Take an example. Due to AIDS, we have made considerable advances in relevant scientific knowledge. We have also improved our codes of behavior, to accommodate ourselves to the problem. So now condoms and clean needles are more common, and medicines and therapies are available. This is indeed progress. But it is simply not worth it. AIDS is really bad, and this progress is not good enough to trump the disvalue of AIDS. If anyone were to have had the option whether or not to unleash AIDS on the world, it would not have been morally right to make the pro-AIDS choice. It would have been evil to do so. Though AIDS has yielded progress, this progress is not enough to morally justify AIDS.

Now, there are other problems with your criticism, as I understand it. First, I think the 'moral progress' scenario is false to the facts. I think we have not made any appreciable moral progress. The 20th Century has contained as much evil and wickedness as any century you care to name, thanks to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot, among others. I doubt that we have learned how to stop or contain evil, or to improve ourselves. If we have, it has been minor progress indeed.

Second, much evil in the world does not seem necessary for moral progress. This is the main objection that others have raised to you. When you respond to this objection, more than to any other subject, I completely fail to understand you. I do not see how every instance of evil contributes to moral progress. On the contrary, many instances of evil seem to inhibit moral progress. For example, if a new addictive drug is manufactured, and then legislators criminalize it, and then addicts move to illegal markets, and organized crime gains political power, and police forces become more corrupt, and more taxpayer money is spent on ineffective prevention programs, so less money is available for, say, fighting rape, I only see a cascade of evil. I do not see how this contributes to moral progress at all. I think the world would be better without this drug. If there were a God, I would expect God to poof this drug out of existence, at bare minimum. It would be morally wrong not to do so.

Finally, you write "Since we are obviously not an extinct species the greatest amount of evil and suffering has not obtained...yet, and I hasten to add, I hope never does." I strongly disagree that the extinction of humanity constitutes the "greatest amount of evil and suffering". There are worse fates. Take 1984-style dystopias. What if we managed to work ourselves into such a corner that every human life was a thoroughly miserable one, a life not worth living? The fact that you consider extinction so bad makes me think that you identify 'evolutionary purpose' with moral goodness. If so, I strongly disagree. I think physical pain and psychological anguish are far worse things than mere species extinction.

Alix Nenuphar

RW:

One issue that I do not see addressed in your post is the question of why an omnimax being needs to use a progressive, temporal path (involving, as you admit, considerable pain and suffering), when it could simply create a world where the end goal was realized.

If the being is omnipotent, then such a world could have been created. If it is omnibenevolent, such a creation would have minimized pain and suffering.

It does not appear that you have established the necessity for such an omnimax being to use a developmental technique to produce the desired goal - whatever that may be.

rainbow walking

doc: So, to recap: I do not think your 'moral progress' scenario is morally better than the alternatives. I do not think it is good. I think it is terrible and tragic. If any God-like being were responsible for such a scenario, I would judge that being to be wicked.

rw: Of course you would, else you’d not be arguing PoE.

doc: In your last entry, you seem to think that my moral qualms arise on account of the mere possibility of "the greatest amount of evil and suffering". You seem to think that I object to the fact that, under your scenario, it's possible for humans to produce "the greatest amount...".

But this is not the source of my concern. I am concerned about the actual amount of evil and suffering in the real world.

rw: And that being…? And what about the actual amount of good and pleasantness in the same world simultaneously? Much of which is derived from the suffering?

doc: I believe it is far too much, and that any God-like being would have many morally better alternatives available.

rw: None of which you’ve postulated thusfar, or that have been postulated thusfar by others have stood up under the extrapolation out to their logical consequences.

doc: Even if we have learned from the evil and suffering, and improved ourselves accordingly, it is still not worth it. Any progress that we've made in our codes of conduct and our knowledge of the natural world is morally insufficient to justify all the evil and suffering that has plagued humans since Day 1. That's the problem I'm raising.

rw: And I agree, but is this an indictment against God or man?

doc: Take an example. Due to AIDS, we have made considerable advances in relevant scientific knowledge. We have also improved our codes of behavior, to accommodate ourselves to the problem. So now condoms and clean needles are more common, and medicines and therapies are available. This is indeed progress. But it is simply not worth it. AIDS is really bad, and this progress is not good enough to trump the disvalue of AIDS. If anyone were to have had the option whether or not to unleash AIDS on the world, it would not have been morally right to make the pro-AIDS choice. It would have been evil to do so. Though AIDS has yielded progress, this progress is not enough to morally justify AIDS.

rw: Again, were the direct benefits all to be considered you’d have a valid point. However, as I’ve explained in the case of smallpox and the advent of the microscope, there are many indirect, yet greater, benefits often derived from such causes. The microscope has gone on to become one of the most useful tools man has in un-locking the mysteries of his genetics, in the solving of crimes as in forensics, in the development of electronic circuitry such as that incorporated into your computer…

doc: Now, there are other problems with your criticism, as I understand it. First, I think the 'moral progress' scenario is false to the facts. I think we have not made any appreciable moral progress. The 20th Century has contained as much evil and wickedness as any century you care to name, thanks to Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot, among others. I doubt that we have learned how to stop or contain evil, or to improve ourselves. If we have, it has been minor progress indeed.

rw: Then you neglect history and such morally significant advances as rules of war, human rights, the Constitution of the USA, separation of church and state, women’s right to vote, abolition of slavery, the list can be traced easily from a precursory glance at man’s history. No, it hasn’t been applied consistently by all people…but that doesn’t negate the facts and the establishment of such moral accomplishments for future generations. The atrocities you mention were all made possible by the corrupt philosophies of Marxism and Fascism in one form or another. Now that we know the bankrupt inevitable consequences of these political ideologies we shouldn’t have to re-invent this wheel again. But does that mean we won’t? Probably not.

doc: Second, much evil in the world does not seem necessary for moral progress. This is the main objection that others have raised to you. When you respond to this objection, more than to any other subject, I completely fail to understand you. I do not see how every instance of evil contributes to moral progress.

rw: Then perhaps this is the basis of your misunderstanding. I have never asserted that every instance of such causes of suffering and tragedy are necessary. I have never ascribed or established any such necessity to any specific instance. I agree with you that many such instances are totally unnecessary and regrettable. (Noting here that we seem to have switched emphasis from gratuitous suffering to premeditated suffering), But I do not, un-like you, see that as a logical justification to hold God responsible. Man is responsible and man is suffering the consequences. Such instances will continue to occur over and over until man, as a species, gets the message. The meta-path I described does not necessitate suffering on such a scale. Man is the final arbiter in determining the actual suffering accrued. The meta-path only allows man, without interference, the freedom to decide these things for himself.

doc: On the contrary, many instances of evil seem to inhibit moral progress. For example, if a new addictive drug is manufactured, and then legislators criminalize it, and then addicts move to illegal markets, and organized crime gains political power, and police forces become more corrupt, and more taxpayer money is spent on ineffective prevention programs, so less money is available for, say, fighting rape, I only see a cascade of evil. I do not see how this contributes to moral progress at all. I think the world would be better without this drug.

rw: What additional moral comprehension do you imagine man could derive from this case? Man already knows that addictive substances are detrimental to his existence when abused. But the consumption of such drugs remains man’s choice. The restriction and prohibition is within man’s realm of capabilities. The many other vices exposed along the way only serve to accentuate man’s position on the meta-path in relation to his moral application of that which he knows to be right.

doc: If there were a God, I would expect God to poof this drug out of existence, at bare minimum. It would be morally wrong not to do so.

rw: Thus exterminate an entire species of flora from which the drug was derived. Or erase from man’s mind the specific formula of chemicals required to produce the effect. So why does man labor so valiantly to preserve the flora and fauna of his world? And what if the chemicals in that drug also address another cause of suffering? If it was created legally by a drug company it was obviously not created just to abuse recreationally.

doc: Finally, you write "Since we are obviously not an extinct species the greatest amount of evil and suffering has not obtained...yet, and I hasten to add, I hope never does." I strongly disagree that the extinction of humanity constitutes the "greatest amount of evil and suffering". There are worse fates. Take 1984-style dystopias. What if we managed to work ourselves into such a corner that every human life was a thoroughly miserable one, a life not worth living? The fact that you consider extinction so bad makes me think that you identify 'evolutionary purpose' with moral goodness. If so, I strongly disagree. I think physical pain and psychological anguish are far worse things than mere species extinction.

rw: Unfortunately, were man ever to regress to this level of misery, extinction would soon follow anyway. Why procreate under such conditions? If the entire world sunk to this level, and there was no free thriving nation anywhere, no single example of joy or peace to be found, to look to as a form of hope, thus all was hopeless…man would perish as a species. And your final wish would be granted; that you would prefer extinction to un-relentless suffering. It is, after all, the reason many choose suicide, is it not?

rainbow walking

Hi Alix,



rw: That is a good question Alix that naturally flows out of the argument, so I best come up with a good answer.

To do so I think I need to expand on what I envision as man’s greater good.

Because the argument entails a progression along what I call a meta-path from the caves to this desired goal of man’s greater good, without establishing this goalpost, the journey does appear to cost more than it’s worth.

Since I used science and politics to describe man’s historical journey I’ll continue to do so to define their conclusion.

Scientifically man’s greatest good will have been achieved when the prospect of traveling great distances across the universe has become a reality and when death has become a matter of choice in lieu of an inevitability. To reach this point scientifically man still has a great many obstacles to over-come. The benefits derived from the realization of this vision would far outweigh the pain and suffering incurred along the way.

Politically man’s greatest good will have been achieved when he no longer requires rule or dominion of any kind in his existence, when the concept of morality is a matter of history and man’s behavior is self regulated by a plethora of good choices before him at every instance where a decision is required. Man would exist in a state of total anarchy in its purest form. Not that he has no recourse to bad or evil choices but that such recourse is no longer considered a viable option under any circumstances. Again, the benefits derived from such an achievement far outdistance the pain and suffering incurred along the way.

Now that is the goalpost. The question remains could a God have instantiated man into such a state sans history. Obviously to argue he could not, from an omnipotent perspective, is to negate omnipotence, so we must immediately concede that such a being must be able to do this.

Thus we are left with the question, why would he not do this?

In the first place the goalpost represents a “greater good” than all the suffering accumulated along the way. It is a value worthy to be pursued and I suggest that it is a natural course that man will pursue anyway whether he openly declares it an intended goal or not. I submit that his history of science and politics are already pointing him in that direction.

So we must ask ourselves if an earned goal such as this is preferable to an un-earned one. What is the relative value of each? Since the question is one of normative value the answer must lie in his political achievements. I say this because man’s morals are reflected in his political expression more so than in any other aspect of his existence.

For man to achieve a state of pure anarchy will positively require he learn to value both himself and his neighbor with equal respect. This cannot be achieved, without incurring a logical contradiction, sans a history of evil and suffering. For a God to create such a creature ad hoc is not logically possible. An omniscientGod would know this. A being without a history would be the moral equivalent of proto-man. If proto-man had been the greatest possible good then no further history of man would have ensued. All would remain as it was from the beginning of man’s existence.

Thus for an omni-max God to have created such a creature ad hoc, sans a history of evil and suffering, would entail a logical contradiction. Had God created such a creature anyway would have necessitated this creature start his history all over again because an un-earned greater good would not be recognized as being a good thing by such a creature as this. He would rebel against God and start all over the process that we are now complaining is too burdensome to allow the existence of an omni-benevolent creature a place along side it.

An omniscient being would know that the meta-path of history is the only logical way for man to earn his own greater good and appreciate his accomplishment once achieved. Man at the stage of “earned” greatest good would not rebel against an omni-max God because to do so would be to negate his state of anarchy. He would find a way to live with this God that did not disrupt the purity of his politic.

If this were also the intended goal of such a God, for man, he too would not wish to disrupt man’s politic, since it would represent his reason for having created man in the first place, and the two would co-exist without contradiction.

So it boils down to this: It's not a matter of whether God has the ability to by-pass the meta-path and take man directly to an un-earned position of greatest good. It's also not a matter of whether he wants to do so from an omni-benevolent position.

It's a matter of God not allowing himself to do so because the desired end cannot logically be achieved any other way. To use his power to create an illogical state of affairs would result in an illogical state of affairs...and nothing else. And an omniscient God would know this.