"Logically, I can see why evil exists and why free will is so valuable, but to the extent of gratuitous evil, one that is generous and without purpose, why would God, in His infinite power, make an exception and spare the sufferer. Surely this would not collapse the entire system of free will?”

From this, I recognize a response for the evidential argument from evil also discussed in class, which is to what extent God owes us anything. Also, the idea that if God where to stop a gratuitous evil, does a positive good ultimately stem from that, or does evil still occur. God could prevent that one gratuitous evil, but that does not mean that another evil slightly lesser or nearly equivalent would occur. Even if it where to occur, perhaps God had slightly more of a reason to allow the gratuitous evil, then to not allow it at all. From there, God could always prevent another evil from being slightly less evil, but then where would it end?

I believe your argument follows as :

1. God is the greatest possible being.
2. If one is capable they should ensure that gratuitous evils do not exist.
3. God is capable thus he should end gratuitous evils.

My argument : against premise 2

1. God allows gratuitous evils.
2. Gratuitous evils should be stopped if they emit a positive good.
3. There is no evidence that stopping a gratuitous evil emits a positive good.
4. God should not stop gratuitous evils (2,3).

“If God is good and all powerful, wouldn’t He make an alternative option that involves no suffering?”

The question you stated here reminds me of one of the arguments I heard recently for soul-making theodicy. This is the idea that perhaps God tested Job so that even under extreme pressures, he could freely choose him, and grow in his faith. So, Job’s tormentation was not purposeless, it was specifically designed by God so that Job could be shaped into who he wanted him to be. God may have had reasons for suffering that Job was not aware of at the time and that none of us may be aware of but fit into the larger scheme of things. Job’s suffering may have existed to serve the greater good.

I believe your argument falls into this form :

1. Job faced suffering.
2. If God was good he would have spared Job of this suffering.
3. God did not save Job of his suffering.
4. God is not good. (2,3)

I believe the argument for soul-making theodicy falls into this form : against premise 2

1. Suffering is justified if it serves the greater good.
2. Soul making is the greatest good.
3. Suffering is justified.

In the case of Job, he was not “blameless”, he was human with all of the typical flaws that come with humanity, in Job’s case his flaw . God testing Job was to make him even more like him. God allowed Job to suffer so that he could grow through and from the experience. In Matthew 7-9 God says just this, “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”