No - I am being quite clear and you are obfuscating.
The removal of suffering, as per the means you believe can achieve it, requires the person to want to do it.
It is not God choosing to do it directly but offering a way for an individual to choose to do it.
Thus it is not God acting directly.
Thus the removal would be indirect.
.
... and the removal of suffering, as per the means you believe it can be achieved, disregards whether the person wants it or not. Hence it is impersonal.
Granted, the superficial notion of suffering in this world is dictated by the solution of acquisition. eg. A person is suffering because they are poor, so then they acquire wealth and they are supposedly no longer suffering .... because rich people apparently dont suffer. So, along those lines, one may perceive God as directly solving the problem of suffering through the standard channels of acquisition, or popping up with a bag full of gold.
However if the problem of suffering in this world begins (and ends) at a broader point, namely within the attitude of the living entity's relationship with God (deeply lodged in free will), then the direct manner of solving it is different.
Suppose you have some relationship issue with someone, and its you who is actually labouring under some sort of misunderstanding of the status quo or whatever. What is the
direct manner that the other party would bring that problem to an end? Simply coming on as if they are your best friend, while you maintain a vigilance of being unable to tolerate the sight of them?
Or to put it another way, what possible solution could there hope to be that wouldn't involve a
very direct intervention/experience with the said person that was in accordance to a level of reciprocation you were comfortable with?
Besides this, what possible solution could hope to be more direct?
.
So would you agree that God choosing to not intervene directly in a given situation is something an Omnimax God is capable of?
.
Sure
.
If so, then is choosing to not disclose himself as, at least as far as you see it, someone who can hold their own in a online discussion forum, not also something the omnimax God could do?
.
Sure. God is supremely independent. There is no reason He couldn't pose as an online contributor here.
But, as mentioned, God doesn't wager His revelation on an irrational premise (at least, outside of an embarrassing chapter of Abrahamic obscurantism, He doesn't).
You may not have heard of the euthyphro dilemma, (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma) but if you want to play a divine omni version of "Simon says " ("Capracus says"?), a lot of things start to lose their necessity ... least of all, a rational connection between "things" and "the qualities by which we discern such things"
There is no such premise.
Huh?
You don't perceive the complete suspension of rational thought behind Capracus's : "Hey I'm God, yeah, totally omni, although I independently refuse to display anything Godlike or omni or any other value or quality that could possibly be held as distinct from a regular joe with a mediocre understanding of religion and philosophy, but don't let that shortcoming fool you because I just said I am God."
Please stop obfuscating.
It is quite clear you realise the error of your original dismissal and are now trying to cover it up.
Needless to say I find that behaviour rather disappointing.
C'est la vie, I suppose.
I am beginning to wonder if you have paid attention to anything Capracus has said.