> No, this would be squarely laid at the feet of an omniscient/omnipotent God.

Oh my, this is a vile distortion of logic and theology. The Bible is clear that the horrors perpetuated by humanity are because humanity rebelled against God, went their own way, and themselves made human living a horror.

> If God is all powerful and doesn't want to see the little girl suffer like this then he'd foresee it coming and adjust it.

So God should stop all suffering? He'll have to take control over everyone's bodies so we never stumble, never slip and fall, never have accidents, and never get injured. Science will cease to exist because cause and effect will become meaningless. That bridge in Miami that fell on those motorists and killed four of them (https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/vi ... 7086403921). God's fault, or the people who designed or assembled the thing? If God were to stop all suffering, we could jump off of cliffs without concern because God wouldn't allow us to get hurt.

Not only would he have to control our bodies, but he's have to drive our cars for us. You'll blame God if someone goes through a red light on slips on a snowy road.

People will be able to stab each other with knives and shoot each other with guns. God will not allow people to suffer.

But God will also have to control our minds. That way we won't misinterpret what people say, or say anything that could be misconstrued. Not only have we taken away science and all cause-and-effect, now you have take away our humanity. We're just robots. We don't mean anything we say because God made us say it so no one was suffering.

What exactly is it you want God to "adjust"—everything? Then you have just negated life. Some things? Well, where are you going to draw the line, and then some people are still going to be upset they weren't on the list. This is absurd. I'm not sure you thought through your position.

And so your points are also absurd. Are you claiming that if God doesn't stop all suffering He isn't God? I already showed that doesn't make a shred of sense. Does it mean he isn't loving unless he stops all cause and effect and makes us robots? That doesn't make sense.

You so glibly conclude that God is either not all-powerful or not all-good, but you haven't through through what you're asserting. Instead, God can both be all-powerful and all good and still allow a certain amount of suffering as part of a cause and effect world and people's behaviors governed by their own free will. And since it's absurd to think that God should just stop it all, there are things that an all-powerful and all-loving God can do: help people through their suffering, bring some good out of some of it, rally people to help those who are in need, give us enough intellect and reason and insights into science to create mechanisms to minimize such suffering, along with medical know-how to alleviate pain, medicate illness, and cure diseases and do surgery on people.

No, this would be squarely laid at the feet of an omniscient/omnipotent God.

If God is all powerful and doesn't want to see the little girl suffer like this then he'd foresee it coming and adjust it.

Your argument against this came down to:

"There are always pros and cons. We can’t assume that every case of evil can be eliminated without possibly eliminating a great good."

Which follows that because God hasn't stopped it, that it has some great good attached.

This leads me to believe one of the following to be true:

1. God is omniscient and omnipotent and doesn't care about the girl's suffering, or is not a loving god.
2. God is not omniscient nor omnipotent and can't help her.
3. There is some unseen greater good to the girl's suffering that we can't see.
4. There is no God.

Of these, 1 and 3 would seem to be a God that is at best apathetic and at worst sadistic.

Unless you have another option, which one of these is it?

God made volcanoes to relieve pressure on the earth's surface, or we would explode. They help to remove heat from the interior of the planet so we are more stable for life. We've heard some of the science during this recent eruption in Hawaii. Volcanoes provide nutrients to the soil. Volcanic gasses, I understand, are the source of water on the Earth.

In addition, a dynamic planet is better than a static one. I think we would all have to admit that the natural world is a dynamic environment, subject to variation and change, with a large number of systems (weather, gravity, water, land, wind) that interact, balance, and even depend on each other. Some systems seem to behave more randomly and chaotically (like the wind and land masses on fault lines), while others act more like order and purpose (the tides). It is within these two groupings that natural systems cause what people perceive as natural evil (tornadoes, fire, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.).

If you have ever tried to balance a salt shaker at a restaurant on one edge, or a chair on one of its four legs, you have discovered you might be able to succeed for a while, but eventually something (a jiggle, a breeze, or even your own movements) causes it to go off balance and fall. This principle was proposed by a meteorologist in the late 1960s who wrote a paper called, "Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wing in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?" This thought was so significant we now know it as the Butterfly Effect. Even if we had delicate sensors in every square foot of the globe and its atmosphere, we would still not be able to faultlessly (100%) predict the weather. The "Butterfly Effect" would always be present to present a force we had not foreseen or a force we knew nothing about.

Our world seems filled with the "Butterfly Effect," not only in the weather and geological phenomena, but even electrical impulses, the firing pattern of neurons in our brains, ecosystems, and such things. They behave occasionally in wild ways (the Zika virus, cancerous growths, plagues of disease). They also result in natural "evil," as previously mentioned. But "evil" is a misnomer. Unless they were purposely caused by a free agent, we cannot attribute the label "evil" to them, because they are just natural occurrences.

Should God stop all of these phenomena from happening? Absolutely not. Such a dynamic world is essential for life as we know it. God would want to create this kind of world (a dynamic one) if he were creating the best possible world. For instance, since both our circulatory system and nervous system are beneficial chaotic systems, there is strong scientific evidence proving that dynamical systems are beneficial to life. The heart can recover from occasional arrhythmias because it doesn't always follow the "rules"; the body can create new arteries; our brains can recover from some injuries because neurons can sometimes create new paths. Not only that, but if the brain were static, creativity wouldn't be possible. Natural processes (trees, snowflakes, clouds, shorelines, faces) couldn't produce novel outcomes, as they now do.

While God might have created a static world, he would have at the same time eliminated all reason, creativity, and scientific inquiry, because our brains wouldn't be able to think in new paths. And if in his sovereignty he overrode all possibilities of evil, he would also be overriding all possibilities of good. As much as we detest suffering, this would not be a desirable world. Natural science, engineering, and education would be nonexistent; courage and excitement would be absent. Careful structural design would be meaningless (no earthquake or tornado would ever be allowed to hit a building, and God would stop any building from ever collapsing on a person). Medical arts wouldn't exist, since disease would never harm or kill.

Therefore, even an omnipotent God cannot make a dynamical world in which natural "evil" cannot occur. It is not only self-contradictory and absurd (He is incapable of both), but also ultimately intensely undesirable, if not impossible, as a form of existence.

> The true problem is being able to determine with certainty what authentic gratuitous evil is

We don't have to have absolute certainty. We don't use certainty as a metric for reasonable belief in most other domains of knowledge.

"Natural evil" just means "natural suffering". It is suffering that is not due to any moral failure. When volcanoes cause suffering, it isn't anybody's fault. But why would God put us on a planet with volcanoes in the first place?

What's all this talk about crutches? Where did THAT come from?

> it's not actually "a greater good" that's being eliminated

So you never go to doctors because of the risk of death? If that's true, then I understand why you object to my analogy. If you go to doctors, then you have a defeater for your own case.

> Crutches

What's with all the talk about crutches? My point had nothing to do with crutches.

> Likewise, basically every "greater good" that God would eliminate in the process of fixing evil is likewise comprable to crutches.

There is nothing true about this. You cannot possibly be in a position to determine every greater good in every circumstance and the intents and strategies of God, along with the "evil introduced" and all of the circumstances pertaining to every situation. Your "like every greater good" is a conclusion far beyond your reach.

The problem with your greater good example is that in that case, it's not actually "a greater good" that's being eliminated, but rather an evil introduced (inability to walk without crutches, risk of death during surgery) that depending on circumstances, may be considered worse than the pain in the leg.

The greater goods that most people refer to with this arguement instead always turn out to be things that don't have value of their own, but only have any value at all because they reduce evil.

Crutches are a "greater order good" that can only be given to people who can't walk, but the crutches themselves and the emotional response to being able to walk again have no value themselves. If everybody could walk easily, crutches would be obsolete, and this would be a good thing.

Likewise, basically every "greater good" that God would eliminate in the process of fixing evil is likewise comprable to crutches. Worthless and have no value of their own, only being useful for the purpose of alleviating evil that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

This is an unspeakable tragedy perpetrated by people. God is not to blame for the evil of people and their demented and barbaric practices. These parents, the men, the employers, the gangs—these are the evil ones, the perpetrators of horror.

Her suffering is not and was not perpetrated by God. God didn't bring about this suffering for a purpose. I didn't say, and wouldn't say, that her suffering serves a purpose. Your apparent sarcasm and bitterness and leading you in the wrong direction and to the wrong conclusion. Don't drag God into your skewed perspective.

A young girl of 6 years old was sold by her parents who couldn't afford to take care of her and her younger brother. In her culture boys are more valuable. She spends most of her life between ages 6 and 12 being raped, sodomized and abused by men before she becomes too old. After that she is blinded and severely maimed before being out to work as a beggar in a street gang she is sold off too. She dies at age 15 after catching an easily curable bacterial infection, developing a fever and wandering deliriously into the street where she is struck by a car. She spends the night battered and bleeding to death in a trash strewn gutter.

Of course, her pain serves a purpose and I'm sure she understands that. God is a merciful god.

> But gratuitous evil is.

The true problem is being able to determine with certainty what authentic gratuitous evil is, and what events qualify for it. Since there is a possibility that some good could potentially come out of any particular situation, can we really say with confidence that situation A is irrevocably gratuitous?

"Natural evil" is most likely a misnomer. If there is a volcano on a deserted island, can we justifiably identify it as evil? But if there is one on a populated island, but no one gets hurt, is the volcano evil? And if someone gets hurt, are we now to blame the volcano for being evil or God for an event of gratuitous evil? It turns out that "natural evil" is only generally considered evil if there is circumstantial or accidental collateral damage. But this is false thinking because for natural evil to be truly evil there has to be immoral intent from a personal cause. And in the case of a volcano, for instance, you cannot prove such causality.

Evil in general is not strictly incompatible with a good God. But gratuitous evil is.

> the other side has to hold that if there is ANY evil, there is UNJUSTIFIED evil, and that ALL of it is unjustified

No, one does not have to hold that all evil is gratuitous. As long as there is any gratuitous evil, that is strictly incompatible with a perfectly good God, because a perfectly good God would not allow any gratuitous evil.

Some evil seems gratuitous to me. Mostly natural evil. This is good evidence that there is no perfectly good God. Additionally I see no good independent grounds for thinking God is perfectly good that could serve as a defeater for what I perceive to be gratuitous suffering.