http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/#SH3c

Look at the skeptical theist responses and the replies to them (this particular analogy is not fully addressed, but the lines of thinking are similiar and it is a good place to start). Your argument is faulty because it ignores vast differences between the relationship between God and man and the relationship between man and child. Namely: we cannot explain certain things to children because we lack the capacity to explain and the child lacks the capacity to understand. God, however, is omnipotent and omniscient, so it is not for lack of ability that God could not explain things to us and the fact that we cannot comprehend God's ways should not be a problem because God did not need to make it that way.

Of course it is hubris for believers to presume to understand the mind of god, but it really isn't all that much of a problem.

Let me come at this from an atheist point of view.

God didn't exist and it was necessary to invent him. God was conceived to be beyond our understanding. Perfect, all knowing, all powerful, ever present everywhere, just, loving and/or angry. We conceived of god as very different than us. We are imperfect, we know a little bit, we have a little power, we're very much stuck within time and space, and we are collectively an emotional mess.

We are only "made in the likeness of God" but we like to think of ourselves (sometimes) as "little less than a god".

The inscrutable god is our creation. We created god without a mind that could be known. We could, of course, revise our creation--but after a few thousand years of claiming otherwise, revising god's mind would devalue the franchise.

Believers, of course, don't think this way. Their god's mind is unknowable, but seems to be somewhat discernible with sustained effort. Believers can spot other believers gaming this mystery, especially when they don't agree:

The ambitious pastor testified before the congregation, "God is unknowable, but after long prayer, I have discerned that god definitely wants us to spend our money on a new church building. We could have helped many poor people with $3,000,000, but God wants us to do this. God knows what we really need."

God, however, is omnipotent and omniscient, so it is not for lack of ability that God could not explain things to us and the fact that we cannot comprehend God's ways should not be a problem because God did not need to make it that way. — Chany

Very good point. However just as adults conceal and defer some forms of knowledge from children, god must be doing the same - eventually for our own good and benefit.

So, is the problem of evil solved?

From an atheist POV, there is no "problem of evil". God, not existing, is not simultaneously all good and allowing evil to flourish. (There isn't any question that "evil" -- malevolent bad behavior -- exists. It exists, and in itself it is a big problem. Very good behavior exists too, and people are capable of being both very good and very bad.

Notice how we went from "the nature of God's plan is obscure to us" to "God must withhold knowledge from us in order to protect us".

First, we must differentiate between outright lying to a child and lessening the blow of a truth. We may not be able to tell the child everything about life, but it does mean we should outright lie to a child.

However, this is irrelevant: the same exact issue I said before comes up: lack of ability on God's part cannot be used as an excuse, nor can some mental limitation on our part to understand, comprehend, and deal with the reasons for gratuitous evil exist (or heck, to, bring the problem of divine hiddeness into the mix, why a lot of us do not see God's presence of his existence at all).

lack of ability on God's part cannot be used as an excuse, nor can some mental limitation on our part to understand, comprehend, and deal with the reasons for gratuitous evil exist — Chany

I don't think it's an excuse. I think I've given a valid reason why god allows evil to exist. Heck, I can continue on with my child-adult-god analogy as in ''spare the rod and spoil the child''

But does my analogy refute the problem of evil?

You have not given a valid reason. You are attacking a premise of a version of the problem of evil argument against the existence of the god of classical theism.

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

(Therefore)

3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.

The argument is valid, so the question is whether it is sound. The crux of the argument is that there is, what appears to be, a lot of senseless violence, pain, suffering, and death that serves no reason or greater good. In other words, there is evil that does nothing. It is not like a doctor performing painful but life-saving emergency surgery or an athlete who has to deal with muscle pain in order to become better on the field. It is things like this:

Example 1: the case of Bambi
“In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering”

Example 2: the case of Sue
This is an actual event in which a five-year-old girl in Flint, Michigan was severely beaten, raped and then strangled to death early on New Year’s Day in 1986. The case was introduced by Bruce Russell (1989: 123), whose account of it, drawn from a report in the Detroit Free Press of January 3 1986, runs as follows:

The girl’s mother was living with her boyfriend, another man who was unemployed, her two children, and her 9-month old infant fathered by the boyfriend. On New Year’s Eve, all three adults were drinking at a bar near the woman’s home. The boyfriend had been taking drugs and drinking heavily. He was asked to leave the bar at 8:00 p.m. After several reappearances, he finally stayed away for good at about 9:30 p.m. The woman and the unemployed man remained at the bar until 2:00 a.m. at which time the woman went home and the man to a party at a neighbor’s home. Perhaps out of jealousy, the boyfriend attacked the woman when she walked into the house. Her brother was there and broke up the fight by hitting the boyfriend who was passed out and slumped over a table when the brother left. Later the boyfriend attacked the woman again, and this time she knocked him unconscious. After checking the children, she went to bed. Later the woman’s 5-year old girl went downstairs to go to the bathroom. The unemployed man returned from the party at 3:45 a.m. and found the 5-year old dead. She had been raped, severely beaten over most of her body and strangled to death by the boyfriend.

Both examples are taken from the link in my first post. Even if it were the case that we could argue for some justifiable good in both of these cases based on a ton of extra information, it becomes extremely problematic when we consider all of the cases that are similar in nature, considering we would have to believe in every single case, there is a very good explanation for it.

The child analogy attacks the first premise of the argument by saying that we are unjustified to make that assertion because the average human is in the same spot with God as a child is with an adult. It claims that humans have limited cognitive capacities that cannot understand the reasons for God to allow such evil. However, this is problematic because the limitations involved between an adult and a child are not required in the relationship between an adult and God. If it is hidden from us but we can understand it, then God can deliver these reasons and we would understand them. If it is apparent but we cannot understand it, then the question emerges as to why God could not give us these necessary cognitive abilities, considering that the anguish of not knowing the reasons for evil is an evil in and of itself. Heck, we do not even get any special reassurances in these cases that there is a reason, but God cannot reveal it to us at the time for whatever specific reason.

Again, your reason to reject Premise 1 is based on a faulty analogy. Therefore, it is not a good reason without you explaining what is specifically wrong with the line of thought I presented.

n other words, there is evil that does nothing — Chany

You're already assuming the conclusion here. Whether evil serves a purpose of greater good is the issue.

I do agree that there's a great amount of evil in this world: children are raped, tortured, enslaved, killed, etc. Whether this is "senseless" or not hasn't been established yet and given my analogy I don't think it's possible for us to know (yet).

No.

The so-called "problem of evil" is clear enough: Men and women are capable of behaving very, very badly AND they do. We do not like to think of our selves as so readily and thoroughly capable of evil, but we are. And we hate that.

I said earlier that we created god. We also created the devil. We off-loaded our goodness and badness onto god and the devil. It's a way of projecting our strengths and deficiencies on to external (nonexistent) beings.

WE are the problem of evil, and we are the problem of good, for that matter.

The problem of evil is that God is supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Saying God moves in mysterious ways solves the problem of evil if it means there is no evil.

No. — Bitter Crank

Why not?

The mind and intent of god are unfathomable to us. Therefore, we must think twice before we pronounce judgment on the world and all its contents. Evil may serve a greater good - we don't know. I read somewhere: "what if laughter were really tears?"

The problem of evil is that God is supposed to be simultaneously omnipotent and omnibenevolent. — Mongrel

I cannot even imagine the genius of Newton, Einstein, Euler, etc. Doesn't this inform me to lend some latitude to the god-evil issue?

Do you believe evil has ever been commited?

Do you believe evil has ever been commited?
6m — Mongrel

Yes but I don't know whether this has a divine purpose or not.

Yes but I don't know whether this has a divine purpose or not. — TheMadFool

So maybe the evil is required for some greater good?

So maybe the evil is required for some greater good? — Mongrel

Yes, may be.

Evil may serve a greater good - we don't know. — TheMadFool

This is just game playing. "Evil" has clear enough meanings, and so does good. Trying to confuse them is a waste of reasoning power.

Yes but I don't know whether this has a divine purpose or not. — TheMadFool

And I dare say that knowing whether evil had a divine purpose is way above your pay grade. You don't even know for sure whether a divine being exists.

This is just game playing. "Evil" has clear enough meanings, and so does good. Trying to confuse them is a waste of reasoning power — Bitter Crank

A good point. I will respond very blandly to your fantastic post.

We don't know whether evil is truly good or not just as a child doesn't understand why he got spanked.

And I dare say that knowing whether evil had a divine purpose is way above your pay grade. — Bitter Crank

My response is:

You don't even know for sure whether a divine being exists — Bitter Crank

That's a really bad argument... just for aesthetics. See, if all evil is necessary to achieve a greater good, then all evil itself is actually good. Preventing evil, would itself be a true evil, as you're disrupting the necessary process to lead to something better, and totes worth it.

It's a pretty morbid view, in my view...

You don't even know for sure whether a divine being exists — Bitter Crank

True enough, I don't know for sure. Which is why I have come to the conclusion that talking about the divine is a waste of time. For believers worshipping, adoring, seeking some experience of the divine is eminently worth while. But talking about it is not. The object of our reasoning is unavailable for confirmation or denial.

I'm not trying to be unpleasant. I'm trying to suggest that you stick to what can be reasoned about, and keep your categories separate. Good and evil are opposites, and if the words are to mean anything in reasoned discourse, their usage has to be kept crisp and clean. Mucking about with "well, gee whiz, maybe evil is masquerading as good" and all that leaves you in a muddle.

Very good point. If evil is for the greater good, stopping it would be evil too.

My reply is that evil that cannot be prevented/avoided has divine purpose. Not all evil. Those which we can prevent/avoided should be prevented/avoided. God (if he exists) has empowered us enough to prevent some forms of evil but not all.

It's a pretty morbid view, in my view... — Wosret

No, it is not morbid to investigate a matter thoroughly before judging. I'm exploring all possibilities here. I don't want to make a mistake especially when it comes to truth. I've seen a lot of posts in TPF about the possibility that our universe is a simulation. They've been serious discussions on the topic. That even when such an idea is completely based on a mere possibility. I only ask equal treatment of the god issue as well.

Which is why I have come to the conclusion that talking about the divine is a waste of time. — Bitter Crank

In an apparently meaningless existence talking about the divine is a rational choice.

Mucking about with "well, gee whiz, maybe evil is masquerading as good" and all that leaves you in a muddle. — Bitter Crank

But so many philosophical issues e.g. simulation theory, skepticism, etc. seem to turn around mere possibility. Why can't I treat the god-evil issue in the same manner. It's quite unfair to write pages and pages on simulation theory or skepticism or whathaveyou and deny this to an important central issue - god.

I suggest rereading my post, because you took that statement out of context. I was rephrasing the previous statement. I offered evidence for why this is the case.

You provided a refutation of my argument. You basically said an omni-god should know how to explain simple earthly matters to humans which is not the same as a child-adult relationship where the adult has no recourse to teach the underdeveloped mind of a child.

I then pointed out that it may be we're not ready for a divine revelation. That god wishes to hide some knowedge from us for our own good.

You claimed I assumed the premise of an argument. Your quote was still from when I was explaining the thought behind the premise.

Again, I already addressed this. Reread:

The child analogy attacks the first premise of the argument by saying that we are unjustified to make that assertion because the average human is in the same spot with God as a child is with an adult. It claims that humans have limited cognitive capacities that cannot understand the reasons for God to allow such evil. However, this is problematic because the limitations involved between an adult and a child are not required in the relationship between an adult and God. If it is hidden from us but we can understand it, then God can deliver these reasons and we would understand them. If it is apparent but we cannot understand it, then the question emerges as to why God could not give us these necessary cognitive abilities, considering that the anguish of not knowing the reasons for evil is an evil in and of itself. Heck, we do not even get any special reassurances in these cases that there is a reason, but God cannot reveal it to us at the time for whatever specific reason.

I'm saying the problem could be in our tool (human cognition) and you keep showing me works (arguments, explanations) made by that very tool.