Ignoring the man does not make him the victim of your choices, as murdering him does. It simply means you're not intervening into his situation either way. The evil that is allowed now can force others to bear the brunt of the consequences, and I'd argue is in a lot of cases even necessary due to the system of reality we exist in. To me this is a huge distinction. I've mentioned this has been abstracted away by human dominance, but in the past when resources were limited it would be necessary to kill, either indirectly by taking the available resources, or directly by killing the competition to ensure you and your people got the resources. It's hard to see that as the most ideal classroom.

You posit that a world where everyone is super powerful would be chaos, I have previously posed the solution that we all live in our own reality where we have godlike power, if this life is to be a test. Even if we discount that possibility, it's not hard to believe existence would have reached an equilibrium. Technology has allowed us to kill people so much more efficiently than ever but there are also more people than ever, so we're not in this posited state of mega chaos despite guns, tanks, nukes, bombers, etc.

I think "this is best" is the simple answer and is in some ways necessary to believe in order to believe God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. But I find, without being able to really expand on this, for it to be unsatisfying intellectually. I'm sure before agriculture people, without being about to conceive of alternatives, thought finding berries in the woods was best. I believe this line of thinking ends up at "God works in mysterious ways", which is fine but as I said, I find to be unsatisfying when trying to reason this out. Either way, appreciate you

Ignoring the man does not make him the victim of your choices, as murdering him does. It simply means you're not intervening into his situation either way. The evil that is allowed now can force others to bear the brunt of the consequences, and I'd argue is in a lot of cases even necessary due to the system of reality we exist in. To me this is a huge distinction. I've mentioned this has been abstracted away by human dominance, but in the past when resources were limited it would be necessary to kill, either indirectly by taking the available resources, or directly by killing the competition to ensure you and your people got the resources. It's hard to see that as the most ideal classroom.

You posit that a world where everyone is super powerful would be chaos, I have previously posed the solution that we all live in our own reality where we have godlike power, if this life is to be a test. Even if we discount that possibility, it's not hard to believe existence would have reached an equilibrium. Technology has allowed us to kill people so much more efficiently than ever but there are also more people than ever, so we're not in this posited state of mega chaos. However that could potentially be used to argue another way, since when

I think "this is best" is the simple answer and is in some ways necessary to believe in order to believe God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good. But I find, without being able to really expand on this, for it to be unsatisfying intellectually. I'm sure before agriculture people, without being about to conceive of alternatives, thought finding berries in the woods was best. I believe this line of thinking ends up at "God works in mysterious ways", which is fine but as I said, I find to be unsatisfying when trying to reason this out. Either way, appreciate you