The problem of Evil/unnecessary suffering

I thank Con for their reply.Cons claims PlagiarismCon says..." If I am not mistaken half of his argument if not two-third of it is solely based on someone's else argument. And could easily be convicted of plagiarism" I have certainty not sought to plagiarize, never the less if I have not given appropriate attribution I am always happy to correct that. But I think we need to be clear here what plagiarism is."Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work" [1]Con strawmans the opening argumentCon says..." Opponent is arguing the fact that God does not exist because there is suffering in the world." & " If you are trying to prove that God does not exist because there is no interference from his end into our human realm..."Con makes things easier for himself here, by not attacking my argument but by creating a strawman as wikipedia explains..." A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position" [2]After all even I said..."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 as I also pointed out..."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)"Is my argument that suffering in the world proves God does not exist ? no. Rather the conclusion is that (P2) is more PLAUSIBLE than (P1).The Evil GodCon asks us to consider "evil God" as a possibility. Remember when I talk about "God" in (P1) and (P2) I am not talking about some vague notion of a higher power. Rather I have defined the "God" I am talking about in a more specific way that being..."God = An omniscient, omnipotent, omni benevolent personal being."In other words when P1 says...." We live in a world where God and suffering exists....that is the same as saying we live in a world where a An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal being and suffering exists.And conversely when P2 says..." We live in a world where God does NOT exist but suffering does is the same as saying We live in a world where An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal being does NOT exist but suffering does.As such even if we grant Cons "evil God" possibility as the explanation for suffering, that is compatible with (P2) but NOT (P1). Occams RazorCon has made no counter to the argument here about how (P1) makes more assumptions that (P2) and thus occams razor enjoins us to go with (P2)Moral ParalysisCan has made no counter that 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...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...