Perspective on the Epicurean Paradox

"In the philosophy of religion and theology, the problem of evil is the problem of reconciling the existence of evil or suffering in the world with the existence of God. The problem follows with the belief that God is an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being, whilst at the same time evil exists. God either cannot stop evil or he will not. If he cannot then he is argued to not be omnipotent. If he will not then he is argued to not be omnibenevolent. "
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicuran_paradox]

Here is my response to this paradox with my own twist:

How can a perfectly good God (Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent) be said to exist, if we as humans, as well as other living beings exist in a state less than God?



1) If God is Omnibenevolent and Omniscient, being able to know all possible "good" states, then how can he withhold those "good" states from us?


2) If God is Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent, being able to single handedly create all possible "good" states, then how can he withhold that power from us?


3) If God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent, then how can his creations be anything less than "All Good", "All Powerful", and "All Loving". If they are less than this, how can he be said to be Omnibenevolent?



An interesting perspective, but again we end up concluding that given the state of the world, a good God must not exist if we stop here... Pondering further however, we arrive at another important conclusion:



1)Suppose that God, from his Omniscient point of view, realizes that there are many (possibly an infinite amount of) potential beings, who's initial state, transitional states, and final state are from the perspective of the being "good".


2)Being Omnibenevolent as well as Omnipotent, God would be required to create ALL of those beings who's existence upon self reflection is "good".

Looking at evil from this perspective, it is not so hard to imagine a being that would take pleasure in destroying his opponent, or in being master of his environment and of lesser beings, or in not just having what he wants, but being able to take it through his own dominance. It is quite easy to see how a being like this would desire to exist, and being omnibenevolent God must create him, along with a world and lesser beings to satisfy him.

What being would desire a life that includes being victimized by such a dominant being? There are indeed beings who enjoy being hurt for the pleasure of another, being dominated by another, or being used by another.

The real paradox comes into play when we consider a being who does not desire to be victimized, but is victimized anyway. What would make a being decide to want to exist despite being a victim during some or all of that life?


Is it possible that existing in a deprived state and transitioning to a positive state is better than existing in an apathetic state and transitioning to the same positive state?

Consider this story:

Imagine a young man and woman, who are both searching for love, but life always leads them on and on, leaving them hopelessly frustrated for 10 years. Imagine that by wonderful and unlikely circumstances, their lives collide and they fall in love. They hold back their sexual desires for 6 months until they are married. The anticipation builds as they travel to an island resort for their honeymoon. Finally satisfying themselves, they make passionate love and arrive at mind-blowing simultaneous orgasms, gazing passionately into each others eyes.



My question(s) for you all is:

Can pleasure exist without some level of frustration, pain, or suffering?

Can pleasure be enhanced, even maximized through frustration, pain, and suffering?