Theodicy doesn’t necessarily assume that omnipotence is absolute in the sense that a god can do anything including a logically impossible task, but merely the ability to do anything logically possible.

Should omnipotentence include the ability to create a square circle? A married bachelor? Triangle with four sides? A number that is both even and odd?

It seems that you’re taking it in what Thomasson calls a neutral sense as opposed to a sortal sense, which is meaningless for asking questions. For example, if I asked if there was anything in the fridge and you said it was empty. It’d be weird if I looked over and said “umm, excuse me? you said the fridge was empty but it’s actually full of air!”, because it was implied that I was asking about anything to eat instead of literally anything.

And if we just ignore the fact that you support eugenics, where would you draw the line between healthy and “deformed”? Is deformity not driven in part by genetic mutation and therefore natural part of evolution? Aren’t we all result of a series of advantageous deformity? What if two deformed parents decides to have a baby even though doctors have warned them that the baby is definitely going to be deformed as well?

Could you elaborate on how an entirely good god is mutually exclusive?

Omnipotence still have its limitations. For example, can a god create an immovable object? Which doesn’t make sense because the question itself is contradictory. So that begs the question, is it even possible to be entirely good while still being totally authoritarian and eugenics?

On a side note, I’m not even sure what you’re implying as the good option here. The child dying, the child growing up and having to suffer their entire life with deformity, or being eugenics? All of them sounds awful if I had to choose

Humanity has justified an awful lot of shitty behavior on account of religion

That’s exactly my point?

If you take an in depth look of those events, there were always inherent political and economical motives. Explicitly saying that you want to assert authority, consolidate power, and acquire more land and wealth by slaughtering bunch of innocent people sounds awful, doesn’t it?

Saying that most wars are caused by religion seems like a stretch, considering conflicts have existed long before human even existed and fights are going to happen anyway. I’m not sure if that’s any worse than invading Iraq for “freedom” or Stalin and Mao killing their people because they were “counter-revolutionaries”

Though, that argument implies that the only plan god has is death for deformed children. If everything is or could be part of god’s plan, then you could be as useful as Hitler or everyone else by simply being you and doing nothing.

The more fundamental question to answer is “how would you completely stop suffering?”, which I find impossible without taking away everyone’s free will.

What if eradicating suffering means that everyone has to go through equal amount of pain and hardship? Would that stop everyone from complaining or would it make everyone complain? What if preventing a greater suffering requires a lesser, necessary suffering? Would that stop people from complaining about it? What if everyone has to take the consequence of one man’s fault in order not to make him suffer?

I think the only way suffering would truly stop is if everyone shared the same goal and had no ability for independent thought.

So rich people have moral…?

How is overriding sense of morality is a problem? Doesn’t your sociocultural background already do that, leading to conflicts?

Based on my experience, people seem to override their religion more than the opposite. I doubt if those mega rich pastors, pedophile priests, extremists, and hate groups actually care about what their religions say. It seems that they just do whatever the fuck they want and do all sort of mental gymnastics to justify their actions and make themselves feel better about it. I’d much prefer if religion actually overrides these people’s morality