God does not exist

I thank Pwner for his very interesting and challenging variant of the argument from evil. The argument is logically valid so if I want to deny the conclusion I have to challenge one of the premises. I agree with 1 and 3. I disagree with with 2. My criticisms will focus on 2."Ultimately Benefit"First, I propose that the phrase "ultimately benefits" should be understood in a way similar to how Marilyn McCord Adams understands what an answer to the problem of evil has to look like. Mainly, she is concerned with how God can be good to those who have participated (both to the victim and the perpetrator) in horrendous evils. [1] (If anything, instances of child suffering like their rape are prime examples of horrendous evil.) Meaning, that these goods must be "patient-centered" - that is, they must be goods that are shared by the sufferer. Not only must they be goods shared by the sufferer they must be goods that make all the sufferings had by the person that threaten to destroy all meaning in their life meaningful through the defeat of those evils. The persons' life must be a great good to them on the whole and, eventually, the person must be able to recognize that fact. What Adams means by "defeat" of evils is this: she means a state where God integrates the evil into the persons life such that those evils as a part add an indispensable element to the whole overall that makes the good better would have been without the evil(s) added to it. [2]Connection-Building Theodicy [3] Second, I want to lay out the CBT. It is not being put forth as an entire or whole explanation of all evil - more of a partial explanation. (It could be combined with other theodicies like free will, soul making, etc) But I think it has a lot of value in answering this challenge nonetheless, so I will just focus on the CBT.1. Virtuous responses to evil create intrinsically valuable connections among persons, with the type of connection corresponding to the type of virtuous act.2. Some of these connections will last forever as an ongoing part of the conscious experience of both the performers and recipients of the virtuous acts [4]The basic idea of CBT is encapsulated in 1. and 2. above. These connections are intrinsically good relationships that can be had between persons. These relationships are very intuitive posits because people often claim to have formed special connections with each other through times of great difficulty. This often comes in the form of emotional, mental, or physical support. The type of connections important here are those of appreciation, contribution, intimacy (ACI for short). Appreciation would (obviously) be appreciation of a person who has done something for another person. Undoubtedly, a person isn't fully aware of how connected they are to others through their contributions both great and small to their life. No doubt this appreciation would grow the more they learned about how others did contribute to their life. For example, my appreciation of my parents sacrifice in raising me would tremendously grow if I found out that they had went without in order to give me opportunities they never had. Contribution would be when a person contributes to the welfare of another. Many people claim that some sense of meaning in their life would be lost if they did not contribute to the overall welfare of the world and help others. This contribution will often form a special bond between the helper and the helpee - i.e. the connection of intimacy.These ACI connections figure in the CBT so heavily because they allow for virtuous responses to evil that form intrinsically good connections that could not be had otherwise. 1. Connections of ACI resulting from one person sacrificially aiding another in times of suffering, especially when that aid involves some sort of sharing in the pain and suffering of the recipient.2. Connections of ACI resulting from one person helping another out of moral and spiritual darkness. 3. Connections of ACI resulting from forgiving and being forgiven. [5]If it is assumed that the connections can last forever - that is, from here into the eternal afterlife (and it's unclear why an afterlife should/would be ruled out given the God we are talking about) it can also be plausibly be assumed that the value of these connections as they grow and deepen over time can integrate these evils into an organic whole such that these evils are defeated in Adams' sense.Premise 2Now, what does all this have to do with premise 2? The answer would be that the CBT can provide a partial explanation as to why preventing child suffering is good even when the child will ultimately benefit.1) On the CBT the means in which a child will ultimately benefit from their suffering will be through a person preventing their suffering. That is, the way God ensures that any child will benefit from his or her suffering is through another person. That would be because those ongoing ACI connections that are formed between the child and their helper are partly what helps to defeat those evils in the first place. God integrates those sort of ACI connections formed through virtuous responses and weaves that into how that child would benefit. For example, it could work the following: suppose Steve sees a poor, malnourished, dispossessed, abused, and homeless child out on the street and decides out of the goodness of his heart to take this child into his home and care for him as he would his own children. Obviously, this would form significant ACI connections. Perhaps Steve sells his expensive Hummer and uses public transportation in order to have more money to put toward the child's welfare. Or perhaps he doesn't go out anymore. Perhaps Steve was at one time homeless himself so he can significantly empathize with the child. That might illustrate connection 1. Perhaps the child acts out in destructive ways and rebels against Steve's authority because he has a distrust of of adults due to how they have treated him in the past (that would be why the child is homeless; he ran away from an abusive home) but eventually changes due to Steve's patient and loving disposition and parenting. That would be connection 2. Perhaps the child eventually changes so much that he gets in touch with his former abusers and forgives them for hurting him. That would be connection 3. Vice versa, of course, the child could help Steven become a better person by teaching him to be more patient, loving and kind. He could also teach Steve the value of learning to do without more material possessions. In both cases, there are mutual ACI connections formed through virtuous responses to each other. On the CBT, the value of these connections would only deepen and grow in the afterlife. The above scenario is entirely speculative, of course. But I think it illustrates how a person preventing a child's suffering could figure in the ultimate benefit that God ensures that child will have.Thus, I think there is good reason to doubt premise 2 of Pro's argument and judge it to be unsound.Sources[1] Evils the participation in which (that is, the doing or suffering of which) constitutes prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole. http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] http://books.google.com...[3] http://home.messiah.edu...[4] ibid pg 2[5] ibid pg 3