Is god bad for not helping some areas of the world? (assuming that he exists)

I would like to begin by noting that Pro has failed to provide key definitions for this debate. In order to keep the debate running effectively, I will begin by firstly defining the following: 1. God = an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-powerful being My own arguments may be found in the counters provided to Pro's arguments. Argument 1: God has a divine purpose for everything This argument is practically impossible to refute because it holds the adamant position that everything in existence is part of God's divine Will. That being said, all the evil in the world could be attributed as "good" to God in Pro's book. Obviously, this is an evasive argument. I will base my refutation on Rowe's inductive formulation. It is noteworthy, however, that Pro's argument centres solely on a Christian God, making no mention of other deities such as the Islamic God, the Hindu gods and goddesses, or the Hellenic gods such as Thor or Zeus. There (probably) exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. Therefore, There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Quod erat demonstrandum) Argument 2: Humanity is sinful, so God is justified in putting humanity through adversity as a "test" I will attempt to refute this using the formulation below. Premise 1: God has created humans in their entirety, including the physical, cognitive and psychological tendencies of humans. Premise 2: Among these psychological tendencies, is the propensity to "sin". (Sin = a misdemeanour in God's view) Conclusion: God has created evil. If God has created evil and the propensity to commit evil acts in humans, it would naturally follow that testing and punishing humans for the same thing is a sadistic thing to do. Naturally, this is not in line with the concept of a "good" God. In addition, the idea that God created sin (synonymous with evil), accorded humans with the propensity to sin, punishes them for the same propensity to sin, and then tortured His only Son so as to forgive human sinfulness (which He created in the first place), is incomprehensible (it is either irrational or capricious, and as we have established that God is perfect, it has to be the latter, which contradicts, once again, Pro's claim of an all "good" God), and I hope that this is obvious to Pro. Pro also makes contentious value judgments about what we "have to" do. I will not be addressing these because they belong to an entirely different debate. What Pro has acknowledged, however, is that his line of thought is based on faith, which he defines to be his perception of reality (presumably as based on a religious source), but in the absence of logical proof or available evidence. This argument is similarly unconvincing. The argument from faith includes that God provides humans with the opportunity and strength to overcome even the most extreme adversity (this being the subject of the debate). Firstly, this is an idealistic representation of adversity faced by much of humanity. There are obvious examples of death by starvation or malnutrition leading to disease in millions of people across the world, which clearly indicates that such people did not have the "strength" or means to overcome this adversity. Conclusion: With this I conclude that God is indeed "bad" for failing to eradicate evil or maintain the welfare of everyone on Earth. References: [1] Rowe, William L. 1979. "The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism," American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41.