| Well, there are largely two versions of "god". There's the infantile right-wing Christian fundy god who's like Santa Claus; allegedly an actual "person" of great power not unlike the ancient Greek gods (except without the petty jealousies and human flaws... well, not really lol).
There other version if the one lightgigantic is hinting at where "god" is more an ideal than an actual entity.
The question posed in the op is much more apt for the first, more infantile view of god. If he's an entity and powerful enough to cause miracles, then why allow suffering?
The Christian argument has two answers, one for will-based suffering (such as murder or rape) and the other for unwilled suffering (such as an earthquake or tsunami). There's free will for willed suffering and The Fall for unwilled suffering. Neither one is particularly compelling and both are far too logically flawed to even bother hashing through. Both are based on unsound premesise and use unsupported claims as "evidence" of other unsupported claims.
Since we know gods are fabrications of humans we know that there is no god.
Since we know that a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving would HAVE to stop suffering, we know that god does not exist. Logically, he cannot. |