u/Cydrius

TL;DR: The claim that evil and suffering can exist in the presence of a tri-omni god requires that all evil and suffering, no matter how small, inevitably lead to a greater good. Given the sheer amount of apparently-meaningless suffering we see in our universe, this is a grave violation of Occam's razor and requires far too many unevidenced assumptions to be a convincing rebuttal.

Whenever the Problem of Evil is brought up, a common rebuttal I see is that this evil has to be there because it leads to a greater good.

To put it clearly, this is the Problem of Evil/Suffering as I understand it:

• God is said to be All-Loving, All-Knowing, and all-Powerful.
• If God is All-Loving, then God would want there to be as little evil and as little suffering in the universe as possible.
• If God is All-Knowing, then God knows exactly how to prevent any evil or suffering that they do not want to exist in the world.
• If God is All-Powerful, then God is capable of preventing any evil or suffering that they wish to prevent.
• Evil and suffering visibly exist in the world.
• Therefore, a Tri-Omni god does not exist.

The "greater good" rebuttal, as I understand it:

• It is possible that there is a greater good that requires some evil or suffering to exist, and could not otherwise be achieved, even by a tri-omni god.
• A tri-omni God would want to achieve this greater good.
• Therefore, it is possible that a tri-omni God exists despite the presence of evil and suffering.

This is the rebuttal that I would like to address.

For the sake of conversation, I will take it as true that there could be a greater good unachievable without evil and suffering. (I do not personally believe this, but that is outside the scope of this conversation.)

The greater good rebuttal leads to the following logic:

• Evil and suffering do not contradict the existence of a tri-omni God if, and only if, it is guaranteed that a greater good will come from them.
  • It has to be guaranteed because an all-knowing God would know of the results ahead of time, and would only allow to happen those evils and sufferings that will lead to a greater good.
• If any evil or suffering exists that will not inevitably lead to a greater good, then this contradicts the existence of a tri-omni God.

This means that the following are required for the greater good rebuttal to be valid:

• Any evil act that was ever performed in the history of humanity must inevitably eventually lead to a greater good.
  • This means that every murder, every rape, every assault, every case of harassment, every cruel prank, and every insult, for all of human history must lead to a greater good. Otherwise, the existence of a tri-omni God is disproven.
• Any suffering that has ever happened in the history of humanity must inevitably lead to a greater good.
  • This means that any accidental death, any trauma, any broken limb, any disease, any minor injury must lead to a greater good. Otherwise, the existence of a tri-omni God is disproven.
• It is not that all of these acts must merely lead to a greater good. They must lead to a greater good in such a manner that this greater good could only have been achieved with the exact level of suffering they caused, and that no lesser amount of suffering could have led to the same outcome.
  • This means that not only do all forms of harm in history must be accounted for, but every sub-element of these harms must be accounted for. For every car accident that kills someone, not only must their death be accounted for, but if that death was painful, then every iota that pain must also be accounted for.

I will freely admit that this does not entirely disprove the possibility that yes, all suffering, of any quantity, in the entire history of the universe, will inevitably lead to a greater good. Assuming that to be the case, however, is an extreme violation of Occam's razor.

Some rebuttals I would like to address ahead of time:

• The "kindergarten world" rebuttal: "If God protects us from all harm, then we would be helpless coddled being devoid of meaning."
  • Even if I grant this entirely, this does not resolve the problem, as there is clearly space between "our universe" and "perfectly safe but meaningless world" that has to be accounted for.
• The "my god is not tri-omni" rebuttal:
  • This is not talking about your god. You are off-topic.
• The "free will" rebuttal:
  • This is about the "greater good" rebuttal. I would be happy to discuss the free will rebuttal at another time, but this is not what is being addressed here. You are also off-topic.
• "Evil" and "Suffering" are defined by God, not humans.
  • If a God's idea of Evil and Suffering is so drastically different from their creations' that it leads to their creation regularly being in what that creation perceives as pain and fear, I do not believe it is justifiable to call this God all-loving towards their creation. A loving God would want its creation to not face evil and suffering not only by the God's definition, but by the creation's as well.
• Evil and Suffering are required so that we can appreciate Good and Joy in contrast.
  • Just like the Kindergarten World rebuttal, even if I grant this entirely, this does not resolve the problem, as there is clearly space between "our universe" and "world where there is only good and joy, so they cannot be appreciated" that has to be accounted for.
  • I would also posit that good and joy could be appreciated by comparing them to lesser degrees of good and joy, or by comparing them to their absence, as opposed to the presence of their inverses.
• There wasn't evil in the world until humans brought it there.
  • A Tri-Omni god would not want this to happen, could stop it, would know it will happen, and would prevent it. If humans brought evil into the world, then God allowed this to happen, and is not, in fact, Tri-Omni.

Definitions I am using:

• God: Any transcendent divine being, who may or may not be the creator of our universe.
• Tri-omni: All-good, all-powerful, all-loving. A being that can do anything that is logically possible, knows everything that can be known, and would want beings in their universe to suffer as little as possible.
• Evil: Willful harm caused by a thinking person with the goal of causing others to suffer, or the goal of improving one's own situation at the active detriment of others.
• Suffering: Anything that reduces a being's quality of life, enjoyment, or is generally a net negative to them. This includes injury, disease, sadness, anger, fear, and so on.
• Good: Seeking the betterment of the world and of other beings.
• Greater good: A form of good that requires some amount evil or suffering to achieve.

Hey all, I started playing again recently and rediscovered an issue I had before. I was wondering if I'm missing something, because this seems like an obvious problem:

My current skill level means that I get the most enjoyment out of the hardest songs on Medium, and the easier to middling songs on Hard.

This makes it very difficult to enjoy multiplayer play:

If I join a Medium difficulty room, roughly half of the songs will be too easy. If I join a Hard room, roughly half of the songs will be unplayably hard.

Am I missing something? Is there some solution to this?

Hey all, I'm trying to figure out an issue I'm having:

I can't seem to find the right z-adjustment.

If I place it lower (-2 or so), the first layers are fine but the extruder scrapes across the top of the print a few layers in, sometimes pushing it off.

If I place it higher, the first layers don't adhere to the bed at all.

Is it poasible I'm missing a setting somewhere and my printer isn't moving up enough when it should?

Hey all, I've had my V3 S1 pro for a while, and leveling has been a long and frustrating journey. Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong. Here is my process:

1. Fully tighten all four corners.
2. Loosen every corner approximately two full rotations.
3. Preheat the bed.
4. In the Aux Leveling menu, adjust the Z-level until a sheet of paper placed between the extruder and the bed rubs just a little bit when moved around.
5. For each corner, adjust the wheel to achieve the same effect for those corners.
6. Repeat if need be.
7. Run the auto level.

The issue I have is that it seems that the center of the bed is significantly lower than the corners. After adjusting all four corners, the center has become lower, and my prints won't stick to the middle. I would expect that the auto-leveling would cover the difference, but in does not.

There have been a few occasions where I've managed to get prints to stick and come out fine, but it doesn't take much time before my bed is once again not level and prints won't stick.

Most of the time, I feel like I have the leveling right, and then when I start a print, the extruder prints above the surface of the bed and nothing sticks.

I'm at my wits' end with my printer, please help me figure this out.

UPDATE:

Thanks to u/FluffyChicken and u/sublime2craig's advice, I was able to get my leveling be a lot more effective. I adjust the Z setting after leveling the corners. (Should I also be doing that after the auto-level? I've tried with and without.) I also added M420 S1 Z10 to my Gcode.

I now have a new, different problem:

The extruder correctly puts down the first layer, and it seems to be well in place, including that mild "squish". However, a little bit into the print, while it's going through the second or third layer, the print comes off the plate and makes a complete mess.

I've tried increasing the plate temperature from 60 to 65, and I clean off the plate with isopropyl alcohol before printing. I've also added some z-hopping. The printing speed for the first layers is 15 mm.

What I'm trying to print (pieces for a Blokus game) has a somewhat small footprint (1cm squares), but it seems like that should still be enough to hold.

Can someone advise on what could help with this issue?

(Edit: Did some research after writing this. During my next go at this, I will be trying turning off the cooling fan during the first layers and slowing down the overall print. Will also give the plate a thorough wash, not just an alcohol wipe.

Would love to hear other advice in the meantime.)

Hey all, I've taken in some feedback and updated this homebrew subclass. I'd like to get some further feedback to refine my design.

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/4TsST_sG0N1h

Notes and context before I begin:

• I'm a software engineer with over a decade of professional experience. I have experienced programming with, and without AI.
• This is not about the environmental ethics of AI data centers. I am on board with these being an issue.
• This is also not about the economical impact of AI on jobs. I am on board with the idea that AI enables the worst of capitalism.
• Software development, like medical analysis, is a domain where I believe AI can be used as an effective tool for assisting workers. Companies pushing the use of AI for coding at the expense of training junior programmers for future development, on the other hand are absolutely being unethical.
• I think AI art and music are soulless trash. If you want to challenge my viewpoint by saying that AI art and music are valid... don't.

Hello all, I've seen this point come up in a few places, especially around game design forums, and I'd like to put my perception of the issue to the test.

I occasionally see people decry AI-assisted coding and/or vibe-coding as comparable to AI art or AI music, and I can't help but disagree.

As I see it, music or art is the end product. It is what is consumed by the audience. When AI generates art or music, even based on a user prompt, the AI is replacing the artist and the human creativity entirely.

Meanwhile, code is a tool. Code is what makes the program happen, as opposed to being the program itself. Having an AI write the code for an algorithm you are defining is akin to having an AI mix your paints for you, and then using those paints to paint a picture.

AI in programming does have its own issues. It carries a higher risk of errors, lower quality code, and a loss of maintainability. It is definitely not a sustainable practice, but these are not the same kinds of issues.

Let's take a game, for example:

• If the graphics were done by an AI, you're looking at an AI's sprites; they most likely have the extremely generic visual composition common to AI work.
• If the music was done by an AI, same thing. You're hearing the generic bits-and-pieces composition of a machine.
• If the coding was done by an AI... you're still looking at a human's game development vision.

If we get AIs who can design entire games without a human's involvement, that would be another thing, but that's not what is being brought up in these cases.

I don't understand the viewpoint that AI code is analogous to AI art. I would like to hear from those who hold that viewpoint if there are reasons I should oppose it from a creative, artistic, and "human" viewpoint.

(Because AI subjects tend to be very loaded, I want to be clear again: This is not about the environmental or economical aspects of the AI issue. Those are very important domains, but they are not the focus of this conversation. This is not CMV: AI is good.)

I haven't done homebrew in a while, and I was hoping to get some feedback on this.

I'm particularly uncertain of Penitent Smite. I'm not sure if a pure healing ability would be interesting at that level, and the amount of healing that would be reasonable to give is beyond me.