Good morning,

would you say that a God who "allows" war and hunger and disease cannot be a God?
I let my thoughts now rund and hope, you like to follow me along :)

But have we projected our ego-thinking onto an entity that, according to its meaning, has no ego?
Our ego says that this omnipotent being must "intervene" wherever there is war, hunger and disease. But such things are human thinking, that is, the wish that someone more powerful would judge what we humans consider worth judging.

Since God obviously does not intervene, this view opens up proxy positions.

But let's ask the question: What if God intervened and was always there exactly when a conflict was emerging, the first warlike actions were manifesting themselves, and would nip these actions in the bud?

Where and when exactly would he have to do or have done this? In the primordial soup of earthly genesis? Since he is assumed to be omniscient, he would have had to have known right from the beginning where man would develop, wouldn't he? By giving man free will, as he obviously did by means of the expulsion from paradise, he can afford the position of saying: Let's just wait and see. If it were not the case that man had free will, then neither Paradise nor the expulsion would somehow have been a meaningful measure, for then God could have kept mankind in a state of bliss for all eternity.

Since God must be assumed to have an entirely different understanding of space-time, humanity of the "present" could be in the bosom of God's attitude, which still says: Let me wait and see (The "present" stretches out, let's say for several thousands or hundred thousands of years). Since he knows more than we know, since he is outside of time and space, God could be considered open-ended and curious, but at least indifferent, no? He does not associate himself with anything or anyone, good or evil affairs, for if he did, he would probably not be a god but a man.

Back to the initial thought: where God would not allow war, hunger and disease to arise in the first place, people would not be people, they would be something else, perhaps gods themselves?

It would be a completely flawless world, devoid of any error, devoid of any need for experience, ... if you think it through? A paradise, whether earthly or unearthly, is it even conceivable without the serpent?

One would not know how to distinguish what experience would be in an everlasting, never-changing environment. Where there would be no conflict, no hunger and no illness, birth and death would also be superfluous. At the moment of birth, one would already be dead again, because the time span of life - everything that happens between these two events - would contain nothing that differed from each other. What is the point of ageing then? What is the point of growing from small to adult human beings? Aliveness, for me, means encountering the conflict of the living.

Zero conflict therefore seems to me to be a fixed human idea, which for me has nothing remotely to do with God (or whatever term you want to use at this point). The paradox for me is that desiring zero sorrow and conflict leads precisely to creating extreme sorrow and conflict. Man-made, of course. That's what I understand by what you call "obvious darkness".

This is inevitably followed by the question: If not zero conflict, how much can it be? A little conflict, medium conflict, severe conflict? Who can decide what is what? For me, the answer lies not in the general, but in the individual.

I agree, you can't deny it and even the strict attempt to do that denial creates more of the same, supposedly denied.

Greetings :)