The Problem of Suffering

I have to first begin with agreeing with you to some extend as I also think that it isn"t possible to actually disprove the concept of god as it is inherently impossible to prove the non existence of an entity. Therefore I would hold to say that the problem of suffering contradicts the proposition of the existence of such an all loving, all powerful and all knowing god and allows us to dismiss this god concept as not fitting the data of our surroundings. I have with your argumentation so far a few problems but to be sure to not misrepresent your argument I still need some explanation. Therefore I will just state my thoughts on the things you touched on in the knowledge that I may misinterpret your strand of argumentation. To begin I think that it is problematic to argue with free will, because we do not actually have any evidence from any science that such a thing as free will, especially libertarian free will, can exist or for that matter does. Therefore I would directly doubt your argument on the basis that if we boil down in our study of the way we think and seem to make decisions it does not support the prediction that your argument makes, namely that there is free will. Then I think it is also problematic to square an omniscient god, who knows everything with the thought of free will. If god knows all of the future which it means for him to be omniscient you can"t actually freely choose to do something else than he already knew you would do. This wouldn"t then be free will anymore. Else you would lose the property of omniscience. Now to the question of suffering itself. If god is omnibenevolent and wishes only the best it again contradicts his seemingly open acceptance of both suffering in this world and especially the next one. To just say that it is unjust or not moral to force people into a union with him is not really an argument as the proposition of the god also includes that his rulings are what is morally right or wrong meaning that it is just a matter of taste on gods part whether he prefers the save way of a union or the seemingly inefficient way of free will. And if we here include again his all loving character we see that it seems way more reasonable to argue that a save way would be preferred by such a god. If we accept that god for some reason preferred a free society it still doesn"t show how this squares with the scope of suffering there is. The whole animal kingdom is filled by suffering and evolution, the mechanism that build us, is also as cruel as it gets. There is nothing in all of this that would even hint at an omnibenevolent being behind it all as it is unnecessary suffering. Now If you want to argue that we can"t know how much suffering is needed as we do not know gods mind and that this may be the best configuration to achieve a maximum number of people accepting god, it would be enough to show one possible world that would be even a bit better to refute it, as an omniscient, omnipotent god would have been able to do it that way too. It is absolutely obvious that there is so much suffering in the world that if it weren"t there wouldn"t have any impact especially in the animal kingdom but also in humans. If just before a person dies of some horrible disease it would always stop their perception of that suffering, even without communicating it to anyone else it would be a better world. It wouldn"t make any difference to the outcome but would be less cruel. Therefore an omnibenevolent god should if existing have rather picked that one. This is not to say that this specific example is important but the general idea behind it. I am looking forward to your reply.