> He wishes harm to others because he created it and he permits it to happen. If he did not wish it, he would not have created it in the first place. FREE. WILL. *NIGGA.* Your points are the most banal, inane, third-grader-level arguments that I've ever (repeatedly) heard, from intellectual mid-wits. We created this hell on Earth, and he'll judge our performance in the game when our HP hits zero: that is all. Your (and Epicurus', apparently) argument only makes sense to someone who believes this reality is absolute, and that all deeds will be rewarded/punished in a timely manner, within a single lifetime. It is a satanic judeo-Christian talking-point which seeks to justify jewish world-dominance. It is an argument for someone who does not truly believe in God: for if you believed in *spirit*, than it's a laughable assertion to imply that the suffering is HIS fault: we created the suffering *for ourselves,* by not following God's laws, and instead choosing to worship O's— who are satan's henchmen. God loves us, unconditionally, and only wants the best for us: and he sits there, shaking his head, at our rejection of HIM. > I'm not sure what is meant by, "Is a totalitarian morally superior to a free one?", so I can't address that. Probably a typo. Seems like he's saying, "so is a tyrannical philosopher-king, who exerts his will with an iron-fist, morally-superior to a leader who allows you to make your own choices?"