God is not to blame for suffering of any sort.

No-one is forced to use free will The point that I made was not that we are forced to USE free will. This statement does not even make any logical sense. How can you choose to use something if that something happens to be your ability to choose? I explained that we were created as agents of free will. This is not something that we received (i.e. a gift), it is an existence that we were thrown into. We did not choose to have free will because it's not possible to choose anything before you even have the to choose, and before you even exist. It's like a bank that gives you money without any choice of your own and then says that if you use this money in a way that is against any of the bank's rules, the bank will not only make you suffer unimaginable mental and physical pain in this life, but eternally in the next one unless you proclaim that the bank is your saviour and that this money was a gift. This life, this existence and the 'free will' that comes with it is by no means a gift, in any sense of the word and by any definition of the word. As I demonstrated earlier, there are many people who would choose not to have ever existed over possibly suffering eternal torture in the afterlife and inevitable and incredible pain in this life. You illustration simply doesn"t work, you are blaming the one giving the gift for it"s abuse by others. Electricity can and does kill if abused. Do you blame the generating company for supplying it, or the one abusing it? Very convenient how you not-so-subtly changed my analogy into one that revolves around an energy company. Perhaps you did this because everyone knows it would be wrong for someone to place an extremely dangerous item into your house without any choice of your own. Regardless, even with the energy company, the energy company gives you a choice to receive electricity or not. You ask, the energy company to supply it and pay them for it. This analogy does not work in the case of God. None of us asked God to throw us into this existence? You know why? Because we didn't exist. Furthermore, if an energy company were to design an electrical system that had as many hazards as this life, I would readily change it.Would you want to be nothing but a robot? I already answered this question quite comprehensively. I wish you had read my previous argument with more care.So you would criticise a parent who allows a child to be put through a painful operation, with a lengthy and painful recovery period just because the end restful means they live much longer, and have a much easier time doing it would you? Because that is what you are saying. Again, another case of changing my analogy. This time into one about an operation. If a parent had a choice, they would never allow their children to get sick in the first place. God created us and threw us into a world full of suffering, without any choice of our own. And we should then thank him for giving us a painful operation for a disease that he caused in the first place? This is ridiculous. You would thank a doctor who put you through a painful operation to save your life, but not if the doctor was responsible for giving you the disease in the first place.God did not give us the cancer, Adam chose to accept it by his actions, and his insistence on doing just what you are doing, blaming God for Eve"s mistake, not accepting his responsibility for not having taught her well enough, or relying on God to sort it out, so if you want to blame someone for what resulted to humans, blame Adam. Why did Adam get to accept a cancer on my behalf? How are Adam's actions my fault? This is another point you failed to address. And you are also missing the main point here: God created this system where it was possible for Adam to fail even though he did not need to, and with the knowledge that billions of souls would be tormented because of the creation of such a system. This foreknowledge and this act of creation, puts the blame for suffering squarely on God, and not Adam and certainly not me. I wasn't even there.n fact if it were an option we would insist on having it. The same goes for free will. That's easy for you to say. You seem quite well-fed, and since you can afford to use the internet I am guessing you're not in a bad financial situation either.Even if you didn"t want the electricity would you not just switch it on? Why use free will if you don"t want it? Can you please explain to me how I can possibly turn my free will switch off? These questions don't make any sense to me. You do not get to choose not to have 'free will'. You are created with it.Why should God not have wants? Because that turns him into a being that is not self-sufficient. It should not require the existence of any other beings. An All-Powerful God should not be affected in any way by our actions. Our actions cannot possibly benefit or harm a self-sufficient and all-powerful being. If they can, the being is not all-powerful or self-sufficient because now it is dependent on its own creations to fulfil its desires.No, not because of a bet. Satan challenged God. He said he would prove to God that human beings would not serve him. God said that they would and allowed Satan to influence human beings just to prove him wrong. In what sense of the word is this not a bet? And if God did not allow suffering because of this particular event, why even mention it? Your argument on this is parallel to that of a child blaming its parents for a long and painful operation, You already brought up this analogy and I have addressed it fully earlier in my response.Humans are in precisely in the same position, No we're not. God is not just the one giving the operation, he is also the cause and propagator of the disease of the disease. This is not true of the parents, who would prevent the child from getting sick in the first place if they couldYour option 3) would have resulted in even worse happening than is happening currently because it would have given Satan and those who followed him carte blanche to do whatever they wanted with no opposition or control. First of all, my solution was to separate Job and Sata (i.e. Not let them interact with each other). So in fact, Satan would NOT be able to do whatever he wanted (i.e. influence humans Didn't humans have enough temptations already? I mean give us a break Yahweh). Furthermore, the option God chose is in fact the option whereby Satan got to do whatever he wanted except directly cause the death of human beings.Would you suggest to the parents in my illustration above that they should simply do nothing and allow the child to suffer for the rest of its life? That is "option 3" in that case. I have no idea how yu could possibly conclude that separating two quarrelling children is the equivalent of letting them suffer eternally. This statement blows my mind.In fact he has, so far, been more successful than God, because humans have chosen to take an attitude like the one you display here. I am just trying to understand God's wisdom. And it does not make sense to me. If it did, I would immediately start serving and loving God and start believing in his existence. Is it my fault that none of this makes sense to me? Why would God think of me as someone who has an attitude as opposed to someone who tried to understand but was never able to?God did not give Satan completely unfettered opportunity to do as he wanted. Didn't you JUST state that my option 3 would lead to this same consequence? I thought that it was your opinion that it would be a bad thing. But apparently it's exactly what God wanted. Also please address my point about the fact that suffering through natural disasters as well as animal suffering is not necessary to allow for 'free will' to exist.