Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
I don't mean this to argue otherwise - it is my personal belief that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God with reason alone, thus why the argument has lasted for millenia. The mass of texts written to do one or the other are worth, in my opinion, for nothing much besides exercising your mind.
Not it doesn't. It assumes there's at least one moral compass.
Or to put it another way, perhaps you're asking for a three dimensional array, but you want its contents to only have two-dimensional qualities. Or you want force and acceleration, but no mass.
You want a God that hands out straightjackets and drugs. I think he has a higher goal than that.
I can't really empathize with someone who sees no value in suffering. Suffering is not the ultimate evil, and pleasure is not the ultimate good. Go read some Cicero. He tears Epicurus a new one in much better language than I can muster.