I don't need to be Christian to rebut your flawed argument that god should prevent of forms of pain and suffering. If you truly understood the implications of omniscience, you wouldn't have asked such a self-negating question. And apparently, you still don't because you're taking aim at whether or not I'm Christian instead of one of god's most prominent attributes which I slightly expanded upon.

Yes, hard things are more impressive because they're rare and require more resources to accomplish than the alternative. But that doesn't imply that they are desirable in themselves, nor what their valuable would be in the absence of all forms of scarcity.

Your sublime acknowledgement of such a relationship contradicts the crux of your argument. Clearly you don't know that "hard things are more impressive" because you wouldn't have made such an absurd and nonsensical proposition for god's prevention of all forms of "evil", let alone the comical idea of ending all contact sports.

Because people (who mostly believe in ethics) like to see the triumph of good over evil and can relate it these stories to the dangers that humans face in love? And for fighting games, we have an interest in conflict qua conflict because it's provisionally useful for life under threat of death and in conditions of scarcity.

You make the claim that Christians have an attachment to brutality, go on the explicit anti-conflict stance and want to abolish regulated fighting, now you're saying "we have interest in conflict qua conflict" and are even justifying the usefulness of Mortal Kombat. Hopefully you stop trying to save face and admit how contradictory your initial arguments are.

So here, as well as other places in your post, you've indicated that certain things are desirable/undesirable, preferable, or appropriate. You are letting in ethics through the back door here, although without guideposts like "good" and "evil," I'm assuming your "ethics" is basically just authenticity through the sturm und drang. The only way to counter that argument, for me, is to appeal to the superiority of a real system of ethics (because authenticity based ethics don't give a shit about ends, and thus can be disastrous for human happiness--this is the line of criticism which ties Heidegger to Nazism); or to argue with the ontology on which that ethics was based. If we're going to do the latter, I'll have to dig up my old copy of Sein und Zeit.

It's either you're ignoring the brief dichotomy I put forth from the start or failed to understand it. Ethics cannot have meaning within the context of omniscience. Anything that is, is a tautology of a preexisting discourse. Calling a representation of something else "good" or "evil" is as nonsensical as claiming that sentence "Hitler killed many Jews" is evil, instead of the historic event it's referring to.