God, the argument of unnecessary suffering

God exists vs God does not exist & occams razorOccams Razor is explained as such. .. "Occam's razor is a scientific/philosophical principle which states that one should never make more assumptions than the minimum necessary to explain something; or, if you don't have explicit evidence to believe that something is true, then you should not. The "razor" is used to "shave off" the unnecessary bits of a solution. Consider even just a general outline of some of the things that have and will continue to cause pain, suffering, injury, disability, despair and even death to humanity. War, disease, malaria, ebola, the plague, earthquakes, tornadoes, various cancers, alzheimer's, rape, torture, drowning, struck by lighting and even the more hardly news worthy item of death by choking on a chicken bone. Sam Harris points out. .. . "9 million children die every year before they reach the age of five. .. That's 24 thousand a day, a thousand an hour 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence some few children likely will have died in terror and agony" [2]Consider the following two propositions which are both compatible with the data. H1) God exists, yet choose not to stop those things from happening. H2) No God exists, as such no such decision making took place from such a God. Seeing that H1 requires more assumptions than H2, occams razor enjoins us to go with H2, that being No God exists and no such decision making took place. God and unnecessary sufferingConsider the following argument. .. .. .. .P1) If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not existP2) More likely, unnecessary suffering does existC) Therefore more likely God does not existP1) If God exists, then unnecessary suffering does not existRecall that unnecessary suffering is defined as. .. "suffering which is not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. "Christian philosopher Daniel Howard Snyder remarks, "on the face of it, the idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it? " [3]Denying P1) leads to the absurdity that it could be possible if God exists, the all powerful, all knowing, morally perfect God allowed say a child to have cancer, knowing full well that the suffering and death produced from having that cancer either will not lead to any greater good nor was necessary to achieve a greater good, in other words, pointless. P2) More likely, unnecessary suffering does existThe following are given to support of P2)Non conceivable William Rowe argues as such. .. "In light of our experience and knowledge, of the variety and scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinary, absurd idea, quite beyond our belief. "" [4]Presupposing unnecessary suffering or moral paralysisConsider the following scenario. In a small town in the past few months a few children have gone missing. After investigating for a while police and towns folk surround an isolated cabin in the woods. After going into the cabin they find a man with the dead bodies of the children. The man confesses to the kidnap and murder of the children. But the man says, you people will let me go and after you release me I will attempt to kidnap and kill another child. The people are shocked, this man is clearly insane. The man says hang on, isn't it true that God exists ? And isn't it true that God allowed me to do what I did ? and isn't it true that God would of only allowed me to do what I did if it would result in a greater good ? So he argues, release me, and if God allows me to kidnap again and kill again at least take comfort that God allowed it for another greater good, for if he allows it, it must be the case. Now the people don't release him, they are not crazy, but something bothers them, where was the error in his logic ? If we did believe that all suffering that happens was necessary for achieving a greater good it would lead to moral paralysis as we would not seek to prevent suffering least we prevent the greater good that was dependent on said suffering. Every time we stop or seek to prevent some suffering like stopping a child rape or giving medical treatment we do so on the assumption that such suffering is unnecessary or at least more likely to be unnecessary and thus by preventing such suffering we are not eliminating a greater good. But this only makes sense if you operate on the presupposition that unnecessary suffering does exist. Leading to even more absurdityIf we were to operate on the suffering only happens cause God is allowing it for a greater good we could at least logically advocate for a doctrine of create more suffering. Kill, rape, torture would be the motto and the more of it the better. Of course we won't. .. .. .. .. .. .. well most of us won't advocate such a thing, cause once again we presuppose that at least some of that suffering would not be necessary for achieving greater goods. Divine Silence Consider what Austin Dacey says. .. . "A loving father who must bring their daughter to the hospital to have a painful medical treatment will explain the reasons why he does what he does. If she can't understand the reasons he will at least make sure she feels his presence and comfort and receive some assurance that there is a reason even though she can't see it right now. So there is every reason to think we especially should be aware of any justification reasons that God has. What we in fact find is that many of those who go under go terrible anguish such as holocaust survivors report feeling totally abandoned by God in their time of need. Of course many victims of disease, starvation, natural disaster die very young, having never ever believed in him" [5]This gives us another reason to believe that the suffering is probably unnecessary. Closing RemarksI look forward to Cons reply. Sources [1] . http://rationalwiki.org...[2] [3] Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil? " American Philosophical Quarterly 36: 115-29. [4] Rowe, William, The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism, American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41. [5]