If God wants to destroy evil...

[Zarathustra]

God created everything that has been, is, and is going to be in existence. He created the Earth and the Heavens. He created the Lake of Fire in which he casts sinners. He created Good, and He created evil. Does not the old adage says "I have created you, and so can I destroy you"?

If God wanted to, couldn't He, in theory, destroy evil with no need for the battle of the apocalypse?

[bleedingisaac]

Harvey wrote:

Your response is a little long for me. Can you condense what you want me to reply to in a couple of paragraphs?

No.

Curious wrote:

You are drawing a false parallel here. The poison sucking scenario would still cause REAL suffering in the REAL world where outcomes REALLY matter. My scenario is more akin to a virtual reality game where the death of the character would not alter the condition of the player in any real way except for imparting the experience of the event on them.

My analogy is perfectly valid, but I'll play the game and give a closer one.

Let's say that I teach preschool. I bring a virtual reality game that involves extremely violent murders. My students, who like video games, ask if they can play. I warn them that the video game would impart "the experience of the event on them," but because they beg, I let them play. The kids watch it, are scared to death and are haunted for years by the virtual experiences they had with the machine.

Now, am I a "good" teacher?

[Curious]

My analogy is perfectly valid, but I'll play the game and give a closer one.

Let's say that I teach preschool. I bring a virtual reality game that involves extremely violent murders. My students, who like video games, ask if they can play. I warn them that the video game would impart "the experience of the event on them," but because they beg, I let them play. The kids watch it, are scared to death and are haunted for years by the virtual experiences they had with the machine.

Now, am I a "good" teacher?

Again the parallel is a false one. If the video game also included these apparently scarred years and subsequent virtual therapy and cure where the outcome was that the child finished the the game with an insight into violent behaviour and subsequent proclivity towards beneficence so that all the children who used the game became paragons of virtue, then I would say you were a damn good teacher (or rather the game was).

[bleedingisaac]

Curious wrote:

Again the parallel is a false one. If the video game also included these apparently scarred years and subsequent virtual therapy and cure where the outcome was that the child finished the the game with an insight into violent behaviour and subsequent proclivity towards beneficence so that all the children who used the game became paragons of virtue, then I would say you were a damn good teacher (or rather the game was).

Okay, this conversation is going nowhere.

What you are saying is that your spiritual children beg God to dive down to earth where they "virtually experience" intense pain, suffering, loss, and death. Then as soon as they die, they go back to heaven and forget every bad thing they experienced, so God is still good.

So, now I'm in my preschool. A 4-year-old girl says she wants to marry me and do what husbands and wives do. I develop a virtual reality video game in which I make virtual images of myself and the 4-year-old having sex (I hate writing this analogy by the way). I bring the video game to school. The little girl begs to play the game. I warn her that the video game would impart "the experience of the event on her," but because she begs, I let her play. During the video game she virtually experiences things she is too young to deal with. As soon as the game is over, I take out my pocket watch and put her in a hypnotic trance. Through hypnotism, I make her forget everything that she saw and experienced. She is none the worse for wear, she only experienced pain virtually and now no longer remembers it, and I am a "good" teacher, right?

I'm done.

[Curious]

Okay, this conversation is going nowhere.

What you are saying is that your spiritual children beg God to dive down to earth where they "virtually experience" intense pain, suffering, loss, and death. Then as soon as they die, they go back to heaven and forget every bad thing they experienced, so God is still good.

That is not what I am saying at all. I never said that the experience was forgotten did I. What I actually said was that the experience, along with the memories (but any detrimental sequelae were overcome within the game) could be used to learn.

I hope you were as uncomfortable writing your second point as I was reading it. For reasons of not wanting to associate myself with it I will not quote you but point out that this would be equivalent to the spirit children having the universe created to THEIR specifications. This is not what I implied. You can, in games of violence, turn down the gore level for younger players but older players cannot turn the gore up to a level beyond the developers specification, nor can they turn a "shoot 'em up" into a porn fest.

[harvey1]

On whether physical possibility supervenes on logical possibility: Harvey, in your last post it sounded like you agreed that something more than logical possibility is needed in order to fix what is physically possible. So it seems you agree that physical possibility does not supervene on logical possibility.

Spetey, please re-read my post. I said the exact opposite.

If not, please give reasons for thinking that what's physically possible depends on what's logically possible alone. You spoke some about "determinism" on this topic, but you don't use it in a way that I recognize as making sense, so if you need this term, please define it in your words.

I don't recall mentioning determinism. I also mentioned in that post my reasons.

...if you have reasons for this claim, I would very much like to hear them, since if good they would revolutionize thousands of years of philosophy.

Let's not exaggerate things with more rhetoric. Nothing we could possibly say here would revolutionize this forum, much less thousands of years of philosophy.

If you have no such reasons for the position, please say so. (There's no shame in having no reasons for this position, in my view--though there is shame in maintaining it without reasons.)

I'll do better than that. I'll give you a real life example. Let's say that a virtual particle is a physical structure that supervenes on a physical possibility proposition, namely the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That is, the existence of a virtual particle is wholly dependent on the UP, which I think many in science would agree with as a reasonable conjecture. This physical possibility proposition is wholly dependent on a generalized uncertainty principle (i.e., a more general physical possibility proposition). Certainly nothing I've said so far is outlandish. This generalized UP is wholly dependent on a logico-mathematical possibility proposition which is the time-frequency resolution which is wholly dependent on a logico-mathematical structure, the Fourier transform. You have a physical structure supervening on a logical structure. Please don't wake up David Armstrong with this heart stopping news. It's old news in physics.

This thread here is just one of many threads where good reasons for atheism are being provided and discussed. Long ago you promised to stop such threads of pure rhetoric.

Good point. I'll keep trying to tone down the rhetoric. On your part, I also request that you tone down your rhetoric of such things as, "if good they would revolutionize thousands of years of philosophy."

you have complained a few times recently that I seem to disagree with much of what you write. But first, I have agreed to some things. (Like, recently, that physical laws supervene on physical possibility--eminently plausible!)

I guess I just find it frustrating that I cannot spell out my views to you without having to re-open debate on 50 volumes of philosophy debates. First, I should be able to lay out a simple view without so much disagreement coming back. The whole tangent on supervenience just wasn't necessary. You might think it was necessary, but this interrupted what I was trying to introduce interpretation issues as a major factor in physical constraints. I still don't think you have focused on that particular discussion. It seems you are more interested in every side comment rather than the main point of this thread. So, from my perspective, it seems as though you are so caught up in fine graining of an argument that you miss the major coarse graining issues to an argument.

Second, and more importantly, you are aware that this is a debate site, right? You're aware that some people might disagree with your religious views--and might even do so with good reason?

For example, do you agree that someday we humans might be able to prevent tsunamis? We humans might be able to detect the earthquakes early, defuse the energy buildup somehow, etc. Right?

Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable.

It seems possible for us poor meek humans to stop tsunamis. If it's possible for us to do it, it's possible for any omnipotent being to do it surely, right? Indeed, it seems to be easy for an omnipotent being to do.

Power-wise, I don't think it's a problem for omnipotence.

Again, it's very simple. The first question to ask yourself is: could God have stopped the tsunami?

We've been through this. Logically it is probably possible. That is, the laws of physics cannot be changed, but I imagine they can be worked around to have stopped the tsunami in 2004. However, the physical constraints prevented the tsunami from being stopped.

If no, in what sense is God "omnipotent"?

God is omnipotent in the sense that despite the compromises, God accomplishes the divine will in the world, thus having the world arrive at the Omega state.

If yes, then there is another important question for you: why did God permit the tsunami? Because it was good to have? But why think that, given the vast suffering it caused? Do you pray for more such natural disasters in the future, since they're so good? (Perhaps one for your hometown?)

No. I pray that there are no such disasters. And, the tsunami was not good. The physical constraints prevented God from stopping the tsunami, but these physical constraints will not always hold God back.

[harvey1]

BA,

Your response is a little long for me. Can you condense what you want me to reply to in a couple of paragraphs?

No.

Alrighty then. Let me just pick out the two paragraphs that I think summarize your response:

You suggest, however, that a god created this world to prove some kind of theorem (no offense, but I can't help but think of Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which the earth is created as a biological computer that will supply the question to the answer for the meaning of life--which is 36). So, you contend that the world has to be in just the state it is in if it is to provide a solution to the theorem.

If your suggestion is correct, however, I think that we, humans, have a legitimate complaint with the creator. Our pain and suffering are being used to answer a question just as the pain and suffering of Nazi prisoners were used to advance medical research. This does not appear to be a "good" act, and I think we have the right to question the goodness of any being using us in that manner.

I could think of a number of solutions to the theorem which would not be a number 36 at all. Perhaps the solution to the theorem is acceptance. That is, the universe demonstrates what acceptance is about. Or, maybe the solution of the theorem is resolved injustice by experiencing the judgement of God. Or, rather, the theorem is about growing toward the fullness of possibility. It could be about meaning and what it is to seek meaning. In fact, it could be about hundreds of things that altogether spell the relation that we have with the universe in the very short breath we are here. Maybe we are right now doing what the universe is about, we are to try and guess what the universe is about, and that's what the universe is about. None of the above is an experiment gone horrid such as the answer to the question is 36. It might even be about love and homecoming, about every tear being wiped away. About salvation of the soul.

I realize these concepts mean nothing to you, but you didn't make the universe and you certainly won't judge the universe. So, I can of course understand the despair in your outlook at the universe, but I don't share that outlook. We can talk about the reasons why I think your view fails, but more that, I think that there can be very good reasons for the evil that befalls us. All of us are continually reminded of how terrible the world can be, but as Francis of Assisi asked in a prayer:

Lord,
Make me an instrument of Your peace;
Where there is hatred let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master,
Grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Amen.

[spetey]

Hey folks!

First, Harvey, on the supervenience stuff: I am delighted to hear that you say that "the whole tangent on supervenience just wasn't necessary". I quite agree; I'd been saying that for weeks. I'm glad you're finally ready to drop it. Your "real-life" example of physical possibility supervening on logical possibility was, I believe, badly confused, and we can discuss why it doesn't do anything to support that claim if you insist.

I note that you still have offered no defense of the claim that "the physical supervenes on the logical" (your "real-life example" doesn't even touch upon that matter), after well over ten requests now, and yet you continue to cling to it. This is frustrating for me of course, but I am learning that I cannot expect any differently. Yes, I would have liked to have heard you say just once that you don't have the reasons for a claim you thought you did, of course. But I guess I will have to learn to be still more patient.

And just as a sidenote:

...if you have reasons for this claim, I would very much like to hear them, since if good they would revolutionize thousands of years of philosophy.

Let's not exaggerate things with more rhetoric. Nothing we could possibly say here would revolutionize this forum, much less thousands of years of philosophy.

I wasn't exaggerating. If you had a good argument to show that all physical statements are strictly necessary (as the claim that "the physical supervenes on the logical" would require), that would overthrow ancient philosophical dogma. It is a fairly basic assumption that there are contingent statements, like "I had a sandwich for lunch", that could have been otherwise. Perhaps I wasn't being as gentle as I could have been in making the point, but the point is that this claim to which you cling is an enormously implausible one--a bit like the equivalent of claiming to invent a perpetual motion machine would be in physics. If someone claimed to have made one of those, and I were a physicist, I would be very suspicious, and I would ask for the reasons to think such a thing could work, and I would be frustrated if the putative engineer refused to give such reasons or design or demonstration but maintained the claim anyway.

Of course I'm inclined to agree that what we say here won't revolutionize philosophy (on this topic anyway), but in this case that's just the same thing as saying that I'm inclined to believe you don't have a good argument that the physical supervenes on the logical. If you did have such an argument, it would.

I'll keep trying to tone down the rhetoric. On your part, I also request that you tone down your rhetoric of such things as, "if good they would revolutionize thousands of years of philosophy."

Thanks. And as I say I don't think the "revolutionize" stuff was hyperbole, but I could have made such a point more gently, and will endeavor to do so in the future.

I guess I just find it frustrating that I cannot spell out my views to you without having to re-open debate on 50 volumes of philosophy debates. First, I should be able to lay out a simple view without so much disagreement coming back.

The game of philosophy is not to use big words like "supervenience" and "interpretationalism" and assume that they make points for you. The game is to be extremely precise about some problem, and to explain as clearly as possible what your approach to the problem is. When you roll out such big words you are thereby not rolling out a "simple" view. In philosophy, "I don't understand what you're saying" is a criticism, not an admission. If I ask you to clarify your point and you can't, then that's a strike against your point.

The whole tangent on supervenience just wasn't necessary. You might think it was necessary, but this interrupted what I was trying to introduce interpretation issues as a major factor in physical constraints.

Again, I'm delighted to hear that you agree that you didn't need to bring up supervenience. If you are now sure that "interpretationalism" is important and not a tangent, then please explain exactly how it supports your position in your own words. Otherwise, please let interpretationalism go, too, and let's stay focused on "the point".

I still don't think you have focused on that particular discussion. It seems ou are more interested in every side comment rather than the main point of this thread. So, from my perspective, it seems as though you are so caught up in fine graining of an argument that you miss the major coarse graining issues to an argument.

When you use side comments as though they support your main points, then I will respond to those side comments and show how they don't support your main points. If the fine-grained arguments for your big position don't work, then maybe your big position doesn't work. I know disagreement frustrates you Harvey, but that's how debate goes. After all, the devil is in the details!

Now, on to "the point" stuff:

For example, do you agree that someday we humans might be able to prevent tsunamis? We humans might be able to detect the earthquakes early, defuse the energy buildup somehow, etc. Right?

Yeah, that seems pretty reasonable.

It seems possible for us poor meek humans to stop tsunamis. If it's possible for us to do it, it's possible for any omnipotent being to do it surely, right? Indeed, it seems to be easy for an omnipotent being to do.

Power-wise, I don't think it's a problem for omnipotence.

So here you agree that an omnipotent being could have stopped that tsunami. You don't even need to break the laws of physics to do it, since you agree that we humans could (in principle) do it, and we can't break the laws of physics. (Of course it seems like an all-powerful being, as we defined such earlier, could also break the laws of physics, since it's logically possible, but we'll put that aside for now.)

Again, it's very simple. The first question to ask yourself is: could God have stopped the tsunami?

We've been through this. Logically it is probably possible. That is, the laws of physics cannot be changed, but I imagine they can be worked around to have stopped the tsunami in 2004. However, the physical constraints prevented the tsunami from being stopped.

We've been through this so often because it looks to me like you keep changing your answer. This time you changed it within just a few sentences. Above you agree that an omnipotent being would have no trouble stopping the tsunami--that indeed it seems plausible even we humans could stop one, without even breaking the laws of physics. Here you say that there are "physical constraints" that would have prevented God from stopping the tsunami. So it sounds like you're saying God couldn't have stopped it, and so a fortiori (so to speak!) neither could humans. Once and for all, which is it?

If no, in what sense is God "omnipotent"?

God is omnipotent in the sense that despite the compromises, God accomplishes the divine will in the world, thus having the world arrive at the Omega state.

This can't be what you mean by "omnipotent"--that one does all one can and tries really hard, despite "compromises". By this definition I would be omnipotent. I do everything I can to swim Lake Michigan, despite "compromises" like not having all the strength to do it. I like much better the definition on which we agreed much earlier--to be omnipotent, you must be able to do anything logically possible.

If yes, then there is another important question for you: why did God permit the tsunami? Because it was good to have? But why think that, given the vast suffering it caused? Do you pray for more such natural disasters in the future, since they're so good? (Perhaps one for your hometown?)

No. I pray that there are no such disasters. And, the tsunami was not good.

Good to hear it. I fully agree that the tsunami was bad. Let's commit to that. And more than that: the tsunami was net bad, right? The world would be better if it hadn't happened?

(After all, if you think the tsunami made the world net better, why don't you pray for more? It seems like you should.)


spetey

[spetey]

Hi Curious!

Below is part of a reply I gave to The Happy Humanist and rather than direct you to it I will put it below. I will mention though that it was only meant to provide one logical possibility.

Even the existence of such a God as creator(which is not necessarily a precondition for all-goodess and omnipotence) might allow certain leeway as a means of creating greater order. ...

This is the response that it was for the long-term net best that the tsunami happened. And again I ask: why think that? How is it any different from the person who insists that Hitler was good because the Holocaust and war were for the (net) best, despite appearances?

Now I am quite aware of the apparent absurdity of such an argument ...

That's a good first step. Now you should try to explain, if you can, why it's not absurd (despite appearances).

...but it does illustrate how the presence of evil or suffering does not exclude the existence of such a proposition where this God is all-good and all-powerful but stays His hand out of respect for the wishes of His spiritual children.

Wait--is the idea here that God was granting our wishes with the tsunami?


spetey

[harvey1]

First, Harvey, on the supervenience stuff: I am delighted to hear that you say that "the whole tangent on supervenience just wasn't necessary". I quite agree; I'd been saying that for weeks. I'm glad you're finally ready to drop it. Your "real-life" example of physical possibility supervening on logical possibility was, I believe, badly confused, and we can discuss why it doesn't do anything to support that claim if you insist.

That's fine, don't mind me, I'll continue to use the term "supervenes on" because you haven't given me a reason to think I'm misusing the term (or using any differently than McCall, for example).

I note that you still have offered no defense of the claim that "the physical supervenes on the logical" (your "real-life example" doesn't even touch upon that matter), after well over ten requests now, and yet you continue to cling to it. This is frustrating for me of course, but I am learning that I cannot expect any differently. Yes, I would have liked to have heard you say just once that you don't have the reasons for a claim you thought you did, of course. But I guess I will have to learn to be still more patient.

I gave reasons, but you returned your response with rhetoric (which I thought we agreed to reduce?). Nonetheless, let's move on.

It is a fairly basic assumption that there are contingent statements, like "I had a sandwich for lunch", that could have been otherwise.

That misses the point. The physical fact may still be wholly dependent on a logical fact, and there may exist some language which we do not have access which could state that physical fact in that language. However, we do have a great deal of mathematical language statements which can produce physical law statements, so it is not inconceivable that such a language exists in principle.

a bit like the equivalent of claiming to invent a perpetual motion machine would be in physics. If someone claimed to have made one of those, and I were a physicist, I would be very suspicious, and I would ask for the reasons to think such a thing could work, and I would be frustrated if the putative engineer refused to give such reasons or design or demonstration but maintained the claim anyway.

I provided an example, and you ignored the example, so rather than engage in rhetoric, let's move on...

Of course I'm inclined to agree that what we say here won't revolutionize philosophy (on this topic anyway), but in this case that's just the same thing as saying that I'm inclined to believe you don't have a good argument that the physical supervenes on the logical. If you did have such an argument, it would.

No, it wouldn't. Good arguments get ignored when they are published in obscure journals, so it isn't impossible for great arguments, especially philosophical arguments by a non-philosopher, to be completely ignored.

The game of philosophy is not to use big words like "supervenience" and "interpretationalism" and assume that they make points for you. The game is to be extremely precise about some problem, and to explain as clearly as possible what your approach to the problem is. When you roll out such big words you are thereby not rolling out a "simple" view. In philosophy, "I don't understand what you're saying" is a criticism, not an admission. If I ask you to clarify your point and you can't, then that's a strike against your point.

And, I did clarify my use of those terms. I even brought up McCall. But, when I used words very similar to his, you used those words to ridicule me because you thought they were my words that I gathered in left field somewhere. (Well, I knew those words were already used by him when I put them in writing to you, so I didn't consider it a strike against me because you saw it as a criticism. The reason I didn't immediately answer was due to your rudeness, as I already explained.)

Again, I'm delighted to hear that you agree that you didn't need to bring up supervenience.

No. You didn't need to get all bent out of shape by me bringing up that term.

If you are now sure that "interpretationalism" is important and not a tangent, then please explain exactly how it supports your position in your own words. Otherwise, please let interpretationalism go, too, and let's stay focused on "the point".

Why do I need to use my own words? You have a reputation for criticizing me needlessly for using my own words. That's why you criticized me with physical possibility supervenes on logical possibility. As soon as I quoted McCall, you quickly jumped to using my off-handed comment which I said I didn't wish to pursue in this thread (physical supervenes on the logical).

This gives me good reason to use Davidson's words knowing how you are. You can only criticize my interpretation of Davidson, which I don't ask that you address as his words, address as my words. Spetey, I know you like games, and I'm onto this tactic already. It only increases my temptation to use rhetoric here because this kind of tactic leads me to believe that you are not interested in what I really have to say. You're only interested in proving someone wrong. I don't like that style of debating. You said once that you haven't learned much here about philosophy. Well, I find that very sad that you cannot learn while doing this. Perhaps it's because you aren't here for reasons other than proving yourself right.

When you use side comments as though they support your main points, then I will respond to those side comments and show how they don't support your main points. If the fine-grained arguments for your big position don't work, then maybe your big position doesn't work. I know disagreement frustrates you Harvey, but that's how debate goes. After all, the devil is in the details!

You have to get through the main discussion first. You have to understand the coarse-grained stuff before you can probe into the details. It's why I still haven't been able to explain much of anything to you. Very frustrating to say the least.

We've been through this so often because it looks to me like you keep changing your answer. This time you changed it within just a few sentences. Above you agree that an omnipotent being would have no trouble stopping the tsunami--that indeed it seems plausible even we humans could stop one, without even breaking the laws of physics. Here you say that there are "physical constraints" that would have prevented God from stopping the tsunami. So it sounds like you're saying God couldn't have stopped it, and so a fortiori (so to speak!) neither could humans. Once and for all, which is it?

First, let's remind ourselves of our motto:

God can do whatever is logically possible and God should will; in this sense God is omnipotent. God's supreme will is to bring about the Omega State, which is an ending, and which is an ideally good state. Everything else God wills is as a means toward reaching this Omega State. In other words, God judges each potential action of God's on the basis of whether or not it will help bring about the Omega State.

God establishes how God's lower self (physical laws) cannot behave for each world. God often acts in these worlds to bring about the Omega state, but never in ways that violate God's lower self, since doing so would not bring about the Omega state. Stopping the tsunami either would have violated God's lower self, or else restricting this lower self to prevent such events would have resulted in other effects that would provide a bad net tradeoff in progress toward the Omega state--making God paradoxically imperfect. Thus permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega state.

In terms of any logical constraints (God's lower self), it was probably not impossible for God to stop the 2004 tsunami ("God often acts..." in the motto). That's basically what I said (I might not have put the "probably not" in my response, but it should be there). Physical constrainst is another matter. It was not possible to stop the 2004 tsunami ("restricting this lower self to prevent such events would have resulted in...").

This can't be what you mean by "omnipotent"--that one does all one can and tries really hard, despite "compromises". By this definition I would be omnipotent. I do everything I can to swim Lake Michigan, despite "compromises" like not having all the strength to do it. I like much better the definition on which we agreed much earlier--to be omnipotent, you must be able to do anything logically possible.

You cannot bring the universe to the Omega state. Your will is barely effective in controlling your own life much less having any power over the laws of physics to affect the eventual outcome of the world. This is what I consider omnipotence (which I've labelled as "weak omnipotence" here).

As far as omnipotence being anything logically possible, keep in mind the following phrase in our motto, "would have resulted in other effects that would provide a bad net tradeoff in progress toward the Omega state--making God paradoxically imperfect." This statement is contrary to logical possibility, so I am staying consistent with my definition of omnipotence. However, if you need clarification, consider me a believer of God having weak omnipotence.

I fully agree that the tsunami was bad. Let's commit to that. And more than that: the tsunami was net bad, right? The world would be better if it hadn't happened?

We went through this. This the response we agreed on:

God often acts in these worlds to bring about the Omega state, but never in ways that violate God's lower self, since doing so would not bring about the Omega state. Stopping the tsunami either would have violated God's lower self, or else restricting this lower self to prevent such events would have resulted in other effects that would provide a bad net tradeoff in progress toward the Omega state--making God paradoxically imperfect. Thus permitting the tsunami was the only way to reach the Omega state.

The bad net tradeoff of stopping the 2004 tsunami would have an unacceptable effect, namely, "making God paradoxically imperfect."

(After all, if you think the tsunami made the world net better, why don't you pray for more? It seems like you should.)

Because I believe prayers hold power to influence God's decision to intervene or not too intervene. I want God to interfene to prevent tsunamis, so the prayer should be to prevent a tsunami, not ask for more. They are bad events.

[Curious]

Even the existence of such a God as creator(which is not necessarily a precondition for all-goodess and omnipotence) might allow certain leeway as a means of creating greater order. ...

This is the response that it was for the long-term net best that the tsunami happened. And again I ask: why think that? How is it any different from the person who insists that Hitler was good because the Holocaust and war were for the (net) best, despite appearances?

I don't think that it is plausible, I say it might be. Given the fact that I am neither all-powerful or all-good there is little possibility that any final judgement I make would take into account all considerations.

Now I am quite aware of the apparent absurdity of such an argument ...

That's a good first step. Now you should try to explain, if you can, why it's not absurd (despite appearances).

It is not absurd only in that it would be both possible for an all-powerful god and acceptable (at least in principle) to an all-good god.

...but it does illustrate how the presence of evil or suffering does not exclude the existence of such a proposition where this God is all-good and all-powerful but stays His hand out of respect for the wishes of His spiritual children.

Wait--is the idea here that God was granting our wishes with the tsunami?

That's not exactly how I would put it. I think I need to make it clear here though that this particular scenario is not meant to be a serious explanation for the creation of the universe. It is meant to show that the argument that the presence of evil in the world disproves the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God is not as reasonable as people might have us believe. Now if you can tell me how the aforementioned (admittedly mythical) god can be shown to be neither all-good or all-powerful then I would be happy to discuss any objections you have to it. If not then we must conclude that the presence of evil does not exclude such a possibility.
BTW I would say that the tsunami could be considered a feature of the world that was left intact rather than a feature that was added to cause pointless misery. This is probably beside the point though as this scenario almost certainly did not happen.