Human suffering, according to the problem of evil. This is a classic philosophical issue.
The problem of evil, in formal terms, of your question, is:
1. Evil Exists. (Suffering)
2. God is supposed to be Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnibenevolent.
Thus:
3. God does not exist.
I think we can all easily see that bad things happen to people. People die. They are killed by other people and by natural events. One can argue for two kinds of evil: Evil caused by natural events, and evil caused willfully.
Are we going to blame God for incidents in which one person willfully does evil on another? Some would argue yes, God could step in and stop it. But if God always stopped you from committing evil, you would have no free will. Not only would you lack free will, but the world that God created, supposedly in our interest as an omnibenevolent being, would lack moral significance. It would lack significance because no matter your choice, you would be forced to do good. (God steps in). As God is also supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, he would by definition also know how to create the best possible world, and be capable of doing so. Evil done by humans increases the moral significance of our world. The choice between good and bad is more significant when there are many more bad choices. If we still choose good, then we prove our character even more so than if there were few bad choices. Furthermore, this world allows for freedom of will. But what about the victim? Again, it provides an opportunity for moral character. Instead of retaliating, if the victim forgives the assailant, moral significance is gained. Again a choice is presented.
So we move on to natural suffering. Disease, disasters, and such. Human choices are not responsible here. Why would God allow an earthquake to destroy a city? In this situation, we identify two potential benefits of the event: the first is that it gives knowledge of how to do evil. That may seem detrimental to you. Let me give an example. I witness a rock fall on somebody and they die. I now know that rocks falling on people can kill them. With this knowledge, I have acquired a new way to kill people. But if I resist doing that, it increases my moral character as I have just chosen between good and bad. Such choices occur daily. We understand that lightning is fatal, thus electric chairs. We understand that punctures are fatal, thus swords, guns, and so on. Given knowledge, we can do evil. Resisting that evil grants us further moral significance. The second benefit is the knowledge of preparation. If I know that when the ground shakes, a volcano is going to erupt, then in the future, I will run when I feel the ground shaking. If I understand that certain types of terrain are succeptible to mudslide, I will not build my village there. This preparatory knowledge actually saves people.
So the refute to the defense of God against the existence of evil: Come up with a situation in which people do not learn from the suffering (even in time, suppose bones are discovered- this counts as learning when they figure out how the person died), and in which the suffering does not present a new means for which evil can be inflicted.
Edit: THIS is how I like to debate. No kiddie jokes, no BS name calling, just pure philosophy with premise, conclusion, evidence and counters. I'll post up the Universe one tomorrow, work tonight.
+
