I hereby assert that such a world would be devoid of suffering (surely you don't dispute that!) and would therefore be preferable!
I assert in particular that, while some foggy-minded human beings might not choose that, an omniscient, all-loving Creator must perforce prefer that.
My "personal feelings" about that are irrelevant. Instead, I assert that, objectively, a world without suffering is always preferable to a world with suffering.
Can you seriously dispute that?!
Regards,
I do indeed in the light of what is ultimately manifests - including all the motives and works of man and their effects, and what they would done if they had more power - and what is all accomplishes according to Scripture. Only by denying that, and or being ignorant of it, can you advocate a world of creatures who cannot make moral choices and that effect others, for good or evil, but must act as programmed.
assert that, objectively, a world without suffering is always preferable to a world with suffering.
Yes, that is the Bible. In the end (Rev. 21,22) the only world will be of humans and angels who could sin but will not, having chosen Light over Darkness, (Jn. 3:19-21) not by being androids or as clouds.
And I say (stolen of course, as there is nothing new under the sun) that one does not learn very much without pain or suffering.
(Various t-shirts agree with me.)