Since pain and suffering exists — Zg3TWbIqgz7

If one would like to provide a counterargument for "the problem of evil" I'd ask whoever is defending it to prove either of these things exist. One may add evil in that mix as well.

Well, writing a homework assignment isn't evil. The argument isn't just about pain and suffering; it moreso refers to evil. If God exists and she is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then how can something like genocide occur? Surely God should've thought people shouldn't've had to have put a stop to it themselves and just have prevented it outright, in so far that she is omnipresent, and therefore aware, omnipotent, and therefore capable, and omnibenevolent, and therefore cares to. I actually think that Epicurus's argument still holds, but only for a omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god.

If one would like to provide a counterargument for "the problem of evil" I'd ask whoever is defending it to prove either of these things exist. One may add evil in that mix as well. — Tzeentch

Why should they have to prove that pain and suffering exist when it seems self-evident that they do. It seems like should have to prove that they don't exist.

Also, evil exists. When you think about something like The Gestapo for an extensive period of time, you have to wonder, why, when they had all of the information that they did about Jews did they actually go through carrying out the Holocaust? They must've known that they did not have the kind of clandestine global dominance that they were made out to, as well as that only some of them were Communists. You can think of any litany of rationalizations or justifications on their end, but, at the end of the day, it was just kind of baseless act of human cruelty. Evil, too, I think isn't too difficult to prove the existence of.

Maybe this can help with the problem of evil.

Its all in the definitions. The idea of the "Omni's" really isn't about God, but about their limitations as useful words to apply to reality. If the omni's are used as an idea that something has the power to do anything, then this word is a contradiction. To do "anything", means that it can contradict itself. This means it can do something impossible. But then the impossible is not impossible anymore. Which means there really are no contradictions, only limitations of power.

But life does not bear this our. We see very real contradictions that no imagined power can break. We cannot speculate on what we have not observed, only what we have observed. And what have we observed? That there are limits, and give and takes on decisions. Want an intelligent brain? Its going to generate more heat and consume more resources. Want an intelligent brain that doesn't require calories or generate any heat? Welcome to fantasy land.

If you use the omni's in such a way, then you are describing an impossible being. But you do not believe God is an impossible being, but a possible being. Therefore you have to clarify the omni's.

Omnipotent - As powerful as a being can be
Omniscient - As all knowing as a being can be
Omnibenevolent - As good as a being can be

And now the problem of evil is solved. If we understand God to fit these words, then this is a possible being. At this point we can state, "There is evil in the world, but it is minimized as much as possible within God's limitations."

Before you get offended with the idea that God has limitations, think about it. It doesn't mean that God has limitations like you or I. Compare to ourselves, we might hyperbolize and state, "All powerful". A dog might think we are a God, but we are still limited by reality. It is not offensive or foolish to claim that God is powerful, but even God has limits. In fact, its the only thing which makes sense within religion. Doesn't God work with us and ask us to choose to follow his guidance? It sounds like God is limited to this, and that's ok.