The problem of Evil/unnecessary suffering

The argument is as follows. .. .. .. ..1) Either (P1) or (P2)2) More plausibly NOT (P1)C) Therefore more plausibly (P2)(P1) and (P2) are two mutually exclusive possibilities. The two possibilities are describe as follows. .. .. .. . (P1) We live in a world where God and suffering exists. Any and all suffering only happens if and only if God permits it. Also the suffering that God permits only happens if it is logically necessary for an adequate compensating good. (P2) We live in a world where God does NOT exist but suffering does. The claim that God does exist and only permits suffering if and only if it is logically necessary for an adequate compensating good is a rationalization to reconcile the false belief in the existence of such a God and the existence of suffering. Occams razor" Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 " 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. " [1]Take pretty much any instance of suffering. A child tortured, animals eating each other alive, an earthquake causing bricks to fall on people. Every bone broken, every rib cracked, every person blinded every spine severed can be made compatible with the claim that God allowed these things to happen, as per (P1)But these things are also compatible with the claim that God does not exist, and God did not prevent these things because he does not exist, as per (P2)Seeing that both hypotheses explain the absence of such a Gods action equally well Occams razor enjoins us to go with the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions. (P1) makes more assumptions than (P2) therefore (P2)Moral paralysis of (P1)If we operate on the assumption that P1 is true it leads to absurdity. Should we release child rapists from prison ? perhaps informing then we are sorry, we didn't realize that the suffering they caused was a necessary condition to bring about a greater good. A greater good that could only have been achieved by their raping of children. "Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal paediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Without the operation, dehydration and infection will cause these babies to wither and die over a period of hours and days. Today this operation is relatively simple, but not long ago these babies could not be saved . . . This baby (one born in the past with this) suffers for days, then dies. " (3) (Sinnott Armstrong,2004, P84). " [2]Should we seek to stop any and all medical treatment to children because their suffering is necessary to bring about a greater good ? Of course we won't. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .well most of us. It only makes sense and is more consistent to combat suffering if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist, and thus by seeking to prevent suffering you are not necessarily preventing some greater good. I look forward to Cons replySources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor[2] God? Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004, Oxford University Press, p84.