God can exist even though there is suffering

Before I begin I want to correct one mistake of mine so far. I phrased poorly and did not mean to say that you have to assume God is real for the debate to go forward. I was trying to imply that the existence of God should only be debated in the context of suffering. The cosmological argument etc is irrelevant to this debate. I do not need to, as you have suggested, defend that Jesus existed (which by the way is one of the most undisputed facts that is silly to bring up -scholars only dispute he is the son of God) or defend accusations of hypocritical verses in the bible or issues you even touch on. " He must prove that 1) Jesus existed in a world that suffers 2) That God CAN in fact exi st and 3) that every other religion is wrong. Something he will spend a life time trying to do. That is his fault not mine, as I am an agnostic atheist." None of these 3 points are important to reflect on when approaching this - except in a better phrased way, point 2. My purpose, before i started this debate, was to show readers how a world where suffering exists does not mean that an all-powerful and all-good God cannot. Because i made it clear I am referring to the Christian God, I am not concerned with defending mine against theirs as it is simply not the topic in debate. You have made some very good points and raise fair questions of the Christian faith, and under a different debate I would have been happy to give you my understanding and clarify why I believe in the God I do. I am a Pastor and have a double degree in religion & philosophy as well as a diploma from bible school (don't let my profile fool you) and am adequately prepared to answer your objections. My resistance to do so - before you feel all superior about yourself - is that it was simply not the point. You have obviously missed it. You claimed your case is the following: " If we look at religion and its writings and agree by implication that Gods words are in those handed down by Moses, then its pain & suffering it has cased the world indirectly disproves God's existence." This is a very shallow and mediocre case to defend, but i do concede - does acknowledge the topic at hand - albeit in a very different approach to most atheist scholars on this subject. You did not need to show how God's words, you claim, have caused suffering on this world. You are meant to show how the existence of suffering means the all powerful and loving god that I believe in does not exist. But even if we take your claim, you actually make little attempt (or very poorly if you are trying) to provide any substantial accusations (on the topic at hand) that make your case very valid anyway. But before I finish, I need to look at myself also.. In the entire 4 rounds I have had to debate, I have not once given any reason or argument to defend my position. Not once have i offered a real reply or response to the unneccessarily offensive manner and accusations of the contender. I have not debated on suffering either and have given no reason for the readers to be persuaded in my claim. I do not intend this following comment to come out of arrogance, but my reason for this is honest and simply - It hasn't been worth it. I was hoping for a much better theological debate than this and am disappointed in the content and off-topic nature of my opponent. It hasn't been worth my time defending his comments, because they are not the topic of argument. Nor has it been worth outlining the defence to my claims (something that if done properly-takes effort and commitment to on both our behalf), because my opponent has simply missed the point and fails to understand my objective. Perhaps we are both to blame and I have not made enough effort to understand the confusing angle taken by my opponent. Sometimes I have been sucked into making sarcastic and mocking comments that haven't helped this cause and is not the way I should represent Christianity. However my summary will finish on this note, in that I thank my opposition for his time. I respect your opinion and appreciate the effort you took entering my debate. I don't expect to win this debate (simply because I have given any argument beside my one sentence in round 1) and nor is winning it important to me. As my opposition has the rights to the final word after this post, I suspect he will attempt to show my post as a sign of 'having no response' or 'conceding defeat' or something negative of this nature. I encourage my opponent to refrain from such a mentality or position because if so again - you will miss the point and not understand.