Theodicies

It still seems to me that the laws of logic applied in a physical world absolutely necessarily entail numerous tradeoffs in the designs of organisms and mechanisms in that realm - that a pure paradise with no degradative and potentially painful processes is impossible unless the laws of logic are suspended.

I think you're conflating the laws of logic with the laws of physics. There is nothing logically inconsistent with an existence without the sort of trade-offs you describe - which is another way of saying that it is logically possible that the laws of physics could either (1) have been otherwise so as to avoid trade-offs or (2) been consistently contravened by a higher power as necessary to avert negative consequences and the need for trade-offs.

How about a main battle tank design as an example of absolutely (logically) necessary design tradeoffs. It obviously is one of the design requirements to incorporate armor protecting the crew and the essential subsystems of the tank. Other absolute (logical) design requirements are the engine, transmission, weapons (in particular the main cannon), targeting gear, and communications gear. Each of these subsystems has costs in terms of weight, external power and fueling requirements, accessability for repair and replenishment, and financial cost of manufacture. In general, these and other costs sharply rise with increased performance requirement of the particular subsystem.

Let's say the requirement comes down from the high command to build and mass produce a tank with a 1000 mile unrefueled range, 10 mile range 150mm high velocity cannon, circumferential armor protection 99% effective against other tanks with similar cannons, 100 mph max cruising speed over rough ground, weight per tank within the capacity of a C-5 military cargo aircraft to carry four of them 5000 miles (say 8 tons), all subsystems easily accessible and easy to repair in the field, and a cost of manufacture in quantity of $75,000 per tank.

The design bureau chief would laugh his head off and respond that all these requirements are simply impossible to incorporate in one tank design.

However, if the powers that be are truly omnipotent and accordingly can violate the laws of logic, they certainly could simply create such a logically impossible tank. The key here is that these powers that be would have to be absolutely omnipotent without limit and able to violate the laws of logic. Which I have contended is not plausible in the slightest.

In the absence of an absolutely omnipotent creative power able to violate the laws of logic, a tank very partially and incompletely attempting to as closely as possible reach these requirements could be built, but it would require a long list of compromises and give-and-take design tradeoff decisions. Tradeoffs would be an absolute logical necessity. The result would be imperfect but the best possible design given the requirements. 

I contend that this little story is a model or analogy for the absolutely necessary tradeoffs that must have been necessary in order to design our physical world in the absence of an absolutely omnipotent creator or creators.

You attempt to get around this by presupposing that the creator being or creator beings is/are virtually omnipotent and can at will do absolutely anything, including drastically revising the laws of physics to make the seemingly logically impossible design a reality. I would contend that such a revision is contrary to what we know of the existing set of laws of physics, which are so finely tuned to a critically exact degree so as to allow life as we know it to exist and flourish, that virtually any changes would collapse the whole thing so as to make us as physical living beings impossible.

In any case, it is apparent that the present existing set of laws of physics and the resulting physical reality we as human beings are immersed in, in fact incorporates innumerable tradeoffs in design, as was Sewell's insight. That then implies that the creator or creators were and are not absoluteley omnipotent. 

That leaves the other "out" you have proposed, that the creaor/creators could be consistently intervening in our natural order so as to prevent all natural and human-caused suffering and evil. I would suggest that this also would require the creator or creators to be absolutely omnipotent and able to do absolutely anything, which would contravene the laws of logic.

[Laird]

Let's say the requirement comes down from the high command to build and mass produce a tank with a 1000 mile unrefueled range, 10 mile range 150mm high velocity cannon, circumferential armor protection 99% effective against other tanks with similar cannons, 100 mph max cruising speed over rough ground, weight per tank within the capacity of a C-5 military cargo aircraft to carry four of them 5000 miles (say 8 tons), all subsystems easily accessible and easy to repair in the field, and a cost of manufacture in quantity of $75,000 per tank.

But there's nothing logically impossible about that set of requirements. There might not even be anything physically impossible either, especially when we take into account the incredible specs that nuts-and-bolts UFOs must have.

A logical impossibility would be if simultaneously the tank's cannon was required to penetrate the armour of other tanks like it with 99% effectiveness whilst its armour was required to protect against penetration by those same cannons at 99% effectiveness.

That leaves the other "out" you have proposed, that the creaor/creators could be consistently intervening in our natural order so as to prevent all natural and human-caused suffering and evil. I would suggest that this also would require the creator or creators to be absolutely omnipotent and able to do absolutely anything, which would contravene the laws of logic.

Ghosts of K. Godel and G. Frege!!!!!

The "laws" of logic?  There is only presumed to be a single physical environment and physics to describe it.  (many worlds theorists may differ).  The laws are taken to be universal and can be seen as a single set.  Or at least it is hoped they can be fully unified.

There is a very different picture with logics.  They exist in multitudes, by setting the definition of their own environments.

Typically when using the term, it is to refer to common sense informal logic or to the deterministic logic behind circuitry.

Formal prepositional logic is really dense and is rule based - not based on empirical happenings.  It is about using a language of analysis that is objective.

I am not positioned to have struggles with belief about creators and the problem of evil.  There is a lot of fine literature on the subject.  Theoretically, a creator could influence people's character, not by being a giant protector mom, but by rewarding good with loving affection and ignoring evil.  Rewarding everyone without prejudice when deserved.  This creator could try to influence her/his community (call them angels) to emotionally embrace these phenomena of good and shun those of lust and greed.

ps  Many here like to review arguments against materialism.  Kurt Godel presented some that are (to me)  the very best.  He was brilliant and Einstein's daily companion in Princeton.  His ability to argue logically was truly attack-dog like.  He went about proving some of the hardest math and logic problems.

    
Gödel’s realist views were formulated mostly in the context of the foundations of mathematics and set theory.

We referred above the list “What I believe,” thought to have been written in 1960 or thereabouts. Out of 14 items, only two refer to realism, remarks 10: Materialism is false and 12: Concepts have an objective existence.

Gödel published his views on realism for the first time in his 1944. The following is one of his most quoted passages on the subject:

Classes and concepts may, however, also be conceived as real objects, namely classes as “pluralities of things,” or as structures consisting of a plurality of things and concepts as the properties and relations of things existing independently of our definitions and constructions.

It seems to me that the assumption of such objects is quite as legitimate as the assumption of physical bodies and there is quite as much reason to believe in their existence. They are in the same sense necessary to obtain a satisfactory system of mathematics as physical bodies are necessary for a satisfactory theory of our sense perceptions and in both cases it is impossible to interpret the propositions one wants to assert about these entities as propositions about the “data,” i.e., in the latter case the actually occurring sense perceptions.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel/

Let's say the requirement comes down from the high command to build and mass produce a tank with a 1000 mile unrefueled range, 10 mile range 150mm high velocity cannon, circumferential armor protection 99% effective against other tanks with similar cannons, 100 mph max cruising speed over rough ground, weight per tank within the capacity of a C-5 military cargo aircraft to carry four of them 5000 miles (say 8 tons), all subsystems easily accessible and easy to repair in the field, and a cost of manufacture in quantity of $75,000 per tank.

But there's nothing logically impossible about that set of requirements. There might not even be anything physically impossible either, especially when we take into account the incredible specs that nuts-and-bolts UFOs must have.

A logical impossibility would be if simultaneously the tank's cannon was required to penetrate the armour of other tanks like it with 99% effectiveness whilst its armour was required to protect against penetration by those same cannons at 99% effectiveness.

A very simple analogy would be the logical impossibility of a creator being or beings stuffing 100 pounds of sand into a 10-pound bag. In order for this to be done and a 10-pound bag exist that contains 100 pounds of sand, the creator being or beings must be absolutely omnipotent - they can do absolutely anything including violate the laws of logic.

[Laird]

Yep, but that's consistent with everything that I wrote, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Yep, but that's consistent with everything that I wrote, so I'm not sure what your point is.

My simple analogy of the 100 lbs. of sand in the 10 lb. bag is logically impossible, just as is meeting all the design bureau requirements in one tank design, and building it. Hence the absolute requirement for design tradeoffs.

[Laird]

My simple analogy of the 100 lbs. of sand in the 10 lb. bag is logically impossible

Yep.

just as is meeting all the design bureau requirements in one tank design, and building it.

Nope.

My simple analogy of the 100 lbs. of sand in the 10 lb. bag is logically impossible

Yep.

just as is meeting all the design bureau requirements in one tank design, and building it.

Nope.

Where's the essential difference?

[Laird]

My simple analogy of the 100 lbs. of sand in the 10 lb. bag is logically impossible

Yep.

just as is meeting all the design bureau requirements in one tank design, and building it.

Nope.

Where's the essential difference?

The first is genuinely logically impossible. Logical impossibility is a formal concept which essentially means that a proposition or set of propositions entails a contradiction. Compare with logical possibility, which Wikipedia defines as both "a logical proposition that cannot be disproved" as well as, in terms of modal logic, a proposition that is "true in some possible world". There is no possible world in which a bag can contain no more than 10 pounds and simultaneously can contain more than 10 pounds (100 pounds), because this is contradictory.

The second is only (purported by yourself to be) physically impossible. That is to say that, given the (presumed) laws of physics, the requirements cannot be met. There is no logical contradiction entailed by the design requirements though: there is a possible world in which they are or can be met.