The PoE is short for what dissenters of creationism, monotheism call the problem of evil.
To end the debate, if life was made ultimately good, them the creator would have made it impossible with its omnipotence to have bad outcomes even with free will, or rather, life itself couldn’t have a bad outcome - free will being an aspect of life. You decide… Is there a creator? Did it make life good?
First we must decide if solipism is true, then we must discuss the merits of masochism. Personally I believe in semi-solipism, that some people are real and some people are not.
If solipism is true, then ask yourself “was it worth it”? Was your life worth it? If not, who is qualified to decide? Maybe before you were born you planned all of your suffering and misery for your own amusement. Maybe life among the gods was dreadfully boring?
If solipism is 100 percent false, then I would say that PoE is a real issue, because I assume that many lifeforms have dreadfully miserable lives that don’t have any positive value.
So if God is real, his only possible excuses are that heavenly life is dreadfully boring, and he made the rollercoaster of misery for our own benefit. And that pleasure is derived from a masochistic way of seeing things. Then he would be a good God. The other possibility is that he is a good God, but not all powerful God, so he was unaware of the serpent who caused the corruption of his grand plan.
Freewill is a mechanically impossible concept, and if there were a such thing God could not possibly know the future since He would have a near infinite amount of futures and He would not know which future was true.
Many philosophers say that suffering is needed to appreciate the good life. I don’t believe this is true but a result of flawed biology. If you are happy for an hour with no suffering, what is different from that and 90 years of no suffering? If a plane can fly for a minute, it can fly for 90 years.
Maybe read something about the Problem of Evil before declaring that you’ve solved it.
What is ‘ultimately good’? What is ‘free will’?
‘Good and evil’ don’t exist until around 14 bil years into the life of the universe, with the earth and humans. My guess is therefore that there is nothing fundamental about these things.
This not a fact. Even without conscious awareness or language we could still feel good and evil on a deep metaphysical grounds. For example, if a star or comet was in pain, that is really evil on the first stage, isn’t it? With our complex brains we can derive more complexities attached to it, for example “lorem ipsum”, which takes into account the concept of investment and future planning, something a star or primordial ooze could not do. But at the very root, without complexity added, good and evil are analogous to pleasure and pain. So it is fundamental, but at the same time, the properties, sensations and configurations which constitute, define, interpret and generate its essence may vary from organism to organism.
Furthermore this question of “what is good” can be further nullified by adding an extra layer of comprehension to the words “pleasure” and “pain”. On a light level, pain is defined as a type of injury. But at the metaphysical core pain is really whatever is spiritually painful. So if being whipped gives you physical pain, but makes you spiritually satisfied it is not “pain”, but “pleasure”. So really the question is, who is qualified to decide what is “pain” and “pleasure”? It’s not just a question of the kid at the candy store, and his parents denying him the immediate pleasure of candy for future good, based on lorem ipsum. Absolute pain is really hell, and absolute pleasure is really heaven. It’s something we innately know on a metaphysical level, and perhaps even on a primordial level. Personal hells and heavens vary and flux, but each one knows that is the absolute and yet absolutely subjective reference for which all goods and ills are measured. So to determine what is “ultimately good” for oneself requires a bit of mostly subconscious calculation, weighing its properties in relation to how one feels about heaven both subconsciously and consciously. And to determine what is good for others is often a subconscious autonomous process too, assuming the personality of others and doing a little bit of extrapolation. What is essential for this process to maintain its truth is that the organisms inner mind must be aligned with its outer output. If an organism deceives the judging organism, whether it be intentionally or unintentionally, the truth of what is ultimately good for that organism is no longer truthful and possibly detrimental. This also applies to it’s own self, as self-deceit might impede its judgement of ultimate good as well.
As for freewill, there is no such thing.
Trixie z
No. A comet in pain is a metaphor. A person in pain, is in pain. Comets like suns may like being so ‘alive’ that they burn, who knows. 
There may of course be other intelligent beings out there, and they may have occurred earlier. Yet the substance of their existence, existed in the fundamentals prior them. We don’t know if strumming an infinite guitar [sets etc], is the thing which makes both/everything [us and the fundamentals]. In which sense, our intellects may only match what is already there. So for all the billions of years without conscious intellects, the chord had already been struck for the song to be sung and the story be told, this is why we are born with a destiny.
I’d like to ask you to contemplate that such things are not fundamental, its most freeing. It means we are not entirely at least, driven.
No-one! There is no way to qualify that, because they don’t have any properties of their own, except vague emotions. …because they are not fundamentals.
There are definitely things which we don’t want to happen also, but that is subjective, cultural etc. Take for example conscience, a Buddhist’s conscience will be slightly different to that of a Christians, e.g. As concerns eating meat. Ancient pagans would probably had very different notions in their conscience, and so the content can change completely.
In a way it is like the world has given us the full rainbow of variance, possibly because there cannot ultimately be limits [to the stories/all must be told].
With free will; there is at least a] info from sensory deriving electrical signals [the subconscious]. Then while conscious there is always the subjective observer. The two are both happening at once [because the universe is duel volume], so if a tiger jumps out on you, you will run or shoot it, then once safe you will regain command. …but either way, there seems to be a duality rather than a singularity, no?
_
Wasn’t a metaphor, certain types of comets, rocks, and star matter may or may not have sentience we can not verify this with current human level of technology. If I can postulate a star being sentient I can also postulate that it could also feel pain.
I am not right now able to translate the meaning you are trying to make from this.
I am not right now able to translate the meaning you are trying to make from this.
Misinterpretation of moral beliefs does not negate the validity of moral beliefs. Individuals with low ethical compasses are not utilizing the benefits of lorem ipsum. For all they know they could rebirth as one of their victims. The carnivores consciousness is not up for debate. If a carnivore does not believe he is hurting his prey, his belief does not remove the prey’s subjective feeling of pain. Therefore it still remains a fundamental.
Error 34, does not compute. No such thing as free will.
Question, is there a duality rather than singularity? Interpreted translation=Are actions simultaneously caused by both conscious and unconscious properties?
Answer=Output of the human organism can be simultaneously affected by both conscious and unconscious processes. However, the cultural phenomenon of freewill is based on the observers observed dance of thought, and its unison and harmony between action and the dance of thought. In order to understand why freewill is illusory, it helps to understand the conditions of which the illusion does not occur. If an organism has control type thought patterns which do not appear to reflect the organisms output, experience of paralysis occurs and the illusion of free will is lost.
If an organism does not learn teachings promoting free will, and if an organism is not sufficiently complex enough to have dancing thoughts, goal oriented thoughts, and or thoughts which argue with themselves, it will not experience the illusion of free will.