God, the argument of unnecessary suffering

I thank ssadi for their reply.God exists vs God does not exist & occams razorRecall the following two options that are compatible with the data referred to in the previous round...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.I didn't pick up anything from Con that argued against occams razor.God and unnecessary sufferingP1) 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 existCon did seem to agree here, the main point they make here is that we should factor in the future. That's fine but I add a caveat, it's always possible to refer to the mere logical possibility of something, in this case that God allows x,y,z for some unknown to us greater good that would not of other wise happened in the future. But the mere logical possibility does not give us any reason to believe it is true or even more likely true than false.Counters against P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering existsHeaven/after lifePutting aside questions whether heaven or an after life exists, even if we grant the existence of such how does that help Cons case here ? Con never really explained, just asserts that heaven some how makes all those previous sufferings necessary.I think it gets worse, I think heaven creates even more problems for Con. You end up creating some frame work where in this world/life God has to allow suffering because it is necessary for a greater good but in another world/life doesn't allow those things and presumably there is no loss of greater goods. In order to reconcile this frame work of two very different worlds requires all sorts of ad hocness to make it work and thus more and more unlikely to be true.The medical analogy, gangrene handConsider Cons medical analogy, in the analogy a persons hand is cut off because of gangrene, the implication being this was justified cause it stops a worse outcome. This analogy fails as do so many others as a justification for God, because God could prevent the gangrene or cure the gangrene without having to resort to loss of hand.The reason we may cut off a hand is because that is the best we could do, due to our limitations. Limitations that don't apply to an all powerful, all knowing, supernatural agent.Economic justificationConsider where Con argues..."By not preventing illnesses, God provides sustenance to millions of doctors and other personnel of hospitals. Would anyone give money to doctors if they didn"t become ill? God makes others give money willingly/unwillingly to doctors by sending them illnesses. There are also other factors that make doctors give money to others etc.Q: They wouldn"t become doctors etc., if there were no illnesses.A: What would they become then?"Well then the more illness, the more need for doctors = better for the economy ? this is risible.Cons argument also seems to play into the broken glass fallacy explained as such..."In Bastiat's tale, a man's son breaks a pane of glass, meaning the man will have to pay to replace it. The onlookers consider the situation and decide that the boy has actually done the community a service because his father will have to pay the glazier (window repair man) to replace the broken pane. The glazier will then presumably spend the extra money on something else, jump-starting the local economy. (For related reading, see Economics Basics.)The onlookers come to believe that breaking windows stimulates the economy, but Bastiat points out that further analysis exposes the fallacy. By breaking the window, the man's son has reduced his father's disposable income, meaning his father will not be able purchase new shoes or some other luxury good. Thus, the broken window might help the glazier, but at the same time, it robs other industries and reduces the amount being spent on other goods." [1]Arguments in support of P2: More likely, unnecessary suffering existsNon conceivable Presupposing unnecessary suffering or moral paralysisRecall how I argued when we seek to stop various sufferings, we do so on the presupposition that by preventing the suffering in question, it will not or at least more likely will not prevent a greater good, other wise we would not seek to prevent the suffering in the first place.Con didn't seem to dispute this, as such consistency of presupposing the existence of unnecessary suffering gives us another reason to believe why it's more likely to be the case.Leading to even more absurdityAlso recall that..."If 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."Con didn't seem to dispute this.Divine Silence Also recall the lack of comfort and understanding from God when people go through anguish. Yet another reason to believe the suffering is unnecessary.Con didn't challenge on this point.Closing RemarksI claim the various arguments to support that unnecessary suffering exists is more likely true have gone untouched, and Cons counters have shown to be flawed.Sources [1] http://www.investopedia.com...