What gives a person faith in God?

[rubliw]

That's a very narrow perspective, don't you think?

No, honestly I don't, but you are certainly free to think otherwise

Why would a theist claim that every evil brought about a greater good? If God has given us the ability to respond to evil in a positive and productive way, it depends on each individual responding in a positive and productive way - that will vary with each person. The potential for every evil to bring about a greater good (or just a greater understanding of good) naturally always exists - whether or not each individual exposed to that evil will react as he or she ought is another story, but they each have the ability to.

That all instances of evil must be logically necessary to bring about some greater good is a conclusion, I believe, that follows from the basic nature of the theist deity.   If the deity could bring about a desired good while permitting even just a little less evil, then He would, because He is perfectly good.   And it seems like He would have a lot of leeway to do so, since He is also all powerful.

And not all evil is the result of human choices, nor is all evil actually known to humans and therefore provides no opportunity for individuals to respond in productive ways.   Natural evil, like the suffering of non-human creatures, arguably has been the most plentiful type of evil throughout the history of the world, and there really isn't anything to be done about it.  Humans weren't even around to "respond productively" to the unimaginably plentiful instances of it.

It's what always annoyed me about atheism - very narrow-minded and wholly unimaginative scenarios used as examples to illustrate that no God could possibly exist. No concept at all that if there is a god, then naturally that god's thought processes are infinitely more complex than those of his creations must also be considered. The atheist makes no room for any other possibilities that he is capable (or desirous) of understanding.  If evil fails to bring about a greater good, it's not the fault of evil or good or God, but the fault of those who exposed to the evil and choose an inferior response.

Ah, but I haven't concluded that the existence of the theist deity is impossible.   My conclusion is that the theistic deity is unlikely to exist. Believe it or not, I do make room for the possibility that the responses you have given (and others have given) are true, but I weigh them against other possibilities.  The myriad of responses to the problem of evil can make for some interesting thinking, but needless to say, I am unpersuaded by them.    I remain convinced that the world would look far different and contain much less evil, had it been created by the theistic deity.   Note I am not saying that it wouldn't contain any evil, just less.

Instead of asking why does God permit so much suffering, we should be asking why do we humans permit so much of it?

Humans aren't perfectly good, nor are all the happenings in this world under our direct providence, so its not so strange that so much evil is permitted by us. Most of it isnt even under our control.   Its certainly unfortunate, but its not strange or surprising.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

No, the devil is the master of this world.  Why do YOU think God left him here?

More importantly: who invited him?

Is God just mean?  Does He enjoy watching people suffer?  Everything we know of God and Christ are the opposite.  Everything done for humans is done for our own good.  How can this not include the devil?

 

Good prevails in spite of evil, not because of it.

What do humans do when faced with evil?  A few join it, but most fight it.  Most join God.

 

I would love to see evidence of that, biblical or empirical.

Just as we do when faced with pain and suffering, some enjoy it, most fight it.  Those things are gifts to help mankind, and each individual person, SEE the 2 sides, and join one.  Otherwise, we'd all be a clueless as an infant.  How would we know about good, and love, and compassion if we never had any taste of the opposite?  Seriously, think it through.  How would anyone learn?  How would anyone ever freely choose God if there were no choice?

So if they never tasted the fruit they never would have had free will? They could never have been content/obedient/happy if they had not first been selfish, eaten the fruit and then lied about it?

Then let us sin that grace may abound.

[Varokhâr]

No, honestly I don't, but you are certainly free to think otherwise

That all instances of evil must be logically necessary to bring about some greater good is a conclusion, I believe, that follows from the basic nature of the theist deity.   If the deity could bring about a desired good while permitting even just a little less evil, then He would, because He is perfectly good.   And it seems like He would have a lot of leeway to do so, since He is also all powerful.

Why? Especially when we consider that the mind and thought processes of such a being might very be (and in all likelihood are) unknown to us, and also much more complex and possibly oriented towards goals we cannot fathom - why not permit the possibility of more evil?

Also, how do we know that the sum total of evil in the world today isn't a "little less" as it is? We presume that there could be a "little less" evil, but how do we know that God hasn't already beaten us to that particular punch? Especially as, again, God's mind is most likely far beyond ours, how can we be so certain that He hasn't already seen to that? It would therefore be presumptuous to assume that God doesn't exist on those grounds.

And not all evil is the result of human choices, nor is all evil actually known to humans and therefore provides no opportunity for individuals to respond in productive ways.   Natural evil, like the suffering of non-human creatures, arguably has been the most plentiful type of evil throughout the history of the world, and there really isn't anything to be done about it.  Humans weren't even around to "respond productively" to the unimaginably plentiful instances of it.

I agree, but whenever people speak of evil in the world, only the evil that affects humans is considered. That sort of evil, particularly that which results from our own actions (ie, malice), is what we can control.

As for evil in the non-human world, why is any of that "evil" to begin with? Sure, it might very well be evil and, especially if the account of Genesis is true and evil only entered into the world after the First Sin, even the evils and sufferings of the non-human world might be a result of that. But, what if it is not? What if those things which we observe in the non-human world and you are labeling "evil" are, ultimately, not evil at all, but rather how the non-human world was designed and intended to function? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it might seem evil when one animal devours another - but is it actually "evil"?

Especially when we consider that when we speak of "evil" we normally imply malice, it would be difficult to prove that any animal acts out of malice towards another. If indeed they cannot do so, then the "problem of evil" shrinks by orders of magnitude.

Ah, but I haven't concluded that the existence of the theist deity is impossible.   My conclusion is that the theistic deity is unlikely to exist. Believe it or not, I do make room for the possibility that the responses you have given (and others have given) are true, but I weigh them against other possibilities.  The myriad of responses to the problem of evil can make for some interesting thinking, but needless to say, I am unpersuaded by them.    I remain convinced that the world would look far different and contain much less evil, had it been created by the theistic deity.   Note I am not saying that it wouldn't contain any evil, just less.

Again, why? Why would it contain "less" evil? How do we know that it already doesn't?

Especially if we consider that God might have guided suitable human minds throughout history along a path of moral refinement and has inspired many religions and philosophies for the overall edification of the human masses, how do we know that such isn't the method (or one of them) by which He sees to it that there is "less evil" in the cosmos?

Humans aren't perfectly good, nor are all the happenings in this world under our direct providence, so its not so strange that so much evil is permitted by us. Most of it isnt even under our control.   Its certainly unfortunate, but its not strange or surprising.

Actual evil, or malice, is a different thing, I believe, than that which the non-human world experiences. Thus, it is indeed incumbent upon us to take responsibility for own actions, always bear in mind that God has equipped us to refuse to do evil (ie, malice) towards one another, and therefore that actual evil is indeed our own responsibility. The fact that nature is a harsh place or that non-human creatures must devour, displace, or destroy each other in order to survive might be the result of sin entering the world, or might instead simply be how the non-human world was designed to function.

[MrsSmith]

More importantly: who invited him?
 

Good prevails in spite of evil, not because of it.
 

I would love to see evidence of that, biblical or empirical.

So if they never tasted the fruit they never would have had free will? They could never have been content/obedient/happy if they had not first been selfish, eaten the fruit and then lied about it?

Then let us sin that grace may abound.

Without the choice to sin, there is no grace.

Without the choice of evil, there is no good.

Without the choice of rejection, there is no love.

Without the ability to choose, there is no free will.  If there'd been no tree, there would have been no free will. 

You cannot have the good without any of the bad.  Maybe in Heaven, but not here...and not with normal people.  It just isn't possible.  Even in near-paradise in the Garden, mankind had to be able to choose...and chose poorly.

[MrsSmith]

MrsSmith,

The points in your post are, for the most part, reducible down to one of the most popular and well-worn responses to the problem of evil:  that evil is necessary to facilitate some greater good.   That greater good may include empathy as you said earlier, or "soul building", or free-will, or any number of other things.  But the burden that is placed on the theist by the problem of evil is enormous and I don't think that response is good enough.  Nor is any other response that has been dreamed up to date, in my opinion (I've pretty much heard them all).

One reasonable thing to infer about God (based on His omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence) is that He would go about achieving His goals using the least amount of evil necessary.   In other words, if He could realize his goals by permitting one less rape, one less baby deer painfully killed in a forest fire, one less starved child, or even one less hangnail, He would.  So with that in mind, the theist and the atheist find themselves in the following positions:

Theist:  Every single instance of evil in the world was necessary to bring about a greater good
Atheist: At least one instance of evil in the world was not necessary to bring about a greater good.  

Given the sheer amount and intensity of suffering and evil in the world, the latter seems far more likely to me.  In fact, it looks like many instances of evil in the world did not (or will not) bring about some greater good.  

You've stated this before. Unless you've managed to become God in the last few months, you still have absolutely no foundation for judging.  No human can possibly judge exactly what is necessary to maintain the growth of good.  In point of fact, humans are very poor at judging exactly what is evil.  Today, Muslims consider the marriage of their women to non-Muslims as a horrible evil.  A few decades ago, people considered marriage between 2 different races as horrible evil. 

Today, we look at the horrific story of an abortionist that murdered born infants in cold blood, and see horrific evil.  But, if that man's actions are one brick of the wall that eventually shuts off abortion in this country, his murders have the possibility of saving literally millions of human lives. 

You can look at the evil that happens and assume you actually know something, but without an eternal perspective and an intimate knowledge of every human heart, past, present and future, you can't know anything at all. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Without the choice to sin, there is no grace.

Without the choice of evil, there is no good.

Without the choice of rejection, there is no love.

Without the ability to choose, there is no free will.  If there'd been no tree, there would have been no free will. 

You cannot have the good without any of the bad.  Maybe in Heaven, but not here...and not with normal people.  It just isn't possible.  Even in near-paradise in the Garden, mankind had to be able to choose...and chose poorly.

You mistake potential for necessity.

[ExGeeEye]

Each of us, at some point, and perhaps at several, knowing that an act we were contemplated was somehow wrong (whether we called it unethical, immoral, illegal, sin, or whatever), went ahead and did it anyway.

This is evil in action.

The more monstrous types of evil that we still shudder to contemplate, or speak of only in hushed tones, is different from out petty misdeeds only in degree, and each of us is capable of all of it given the power and the belief of impunity.

Evil exists because we, collectively, choose daily to practice it.  God could, of course, destroy each of us any time we began to think on evil acts; but he is patient and will wait (which gives those of us who will time to repent unto forgiveness).

To speak to the OP: Faith "is not from [ourselves], it is the gift of God" to those to whom He, in His Righteous judgment, will give it (Ephesians 2:8).

Lord, add Your Strength to these weak words of mine. 

[seahorse513]

I think it is a feeling one has. When I put up the Nativity set at Christmas , listen to Christmas carols(OH Holy Night) or any other inspirational songs(Amazing Grace) A feeling I have inside me, that comes alive and good. The feeling I get from giving to others less fortunate(Salvation Army). Being the best person I can be.....
To err is human....to forgive is divine

[MrsSmith]

You mistake potential for necessity.

The choice is necessary.  Without choice, there is no freedom.

[Varokhâr]

Each of us, at some point, and perhaps at several, knowing that an act we were contemplated was somehow wrong (whether we called it unethical, immoral, illegal, sin, or whatever), went ahead and did it anyway.

This is evil in action.

The more monstrous types of evil that we still shudder to contemplate, or speak of only in hushed tones, is different from out petty misdeeds only in degree, and each of us is capable of all of it given the power and the belief of impunity.

Evil exists because we, collectively, choose daily to practice it.  God could, of course, destroy each of us any time we began to think on evil acts; but he is patient and will wait (which gives those of us who will time to repent unto forgiveness).

To speak to the OP: Faith "is not from [ourselves], it is the gift of God" to those to whom He, in His Righteous judgment, will give it (Ephesians 2:8).

Lord, add Your Strength to these weak words of mine.

Well-said!

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The choice is necessary.  Without choice, there is no freedom.

Perhaps you mean, "the ability to choose is necessary."

[rubliw]

Why? Especially when we consider that the mind and thought processes of such a being might very be (and in all likelihood are) unknown to us, and also much more complex and possibly oriented towards goals we cannot fathom - why not permit the possibility of more evil?

Also, how do we know that the sum total of evil in the world today isn't a "little less" as it is? We presume that there could be a "little less" evil, but how do we know that God hasn't already beaten us to that particular punch? Especially as, again, God's mind is most likely far beyond ours, how can we be so certain that He hasn't already seen to that? It would therefore be presumptuous to assume that God doesn't exist on those grounds.

I agree, but whenever people speak of evil in the world, only the evil that affects humans is considered. That sort of evil, particularly that which results from our own actions (ie, malice), is what we can control.

As for evil in the non-human world, why is any of that "evil" to begin with? Sure, it might very well be evil and, especially if the account of Genesis is true and evil only entered into the world after the First Sin, even the evils and sufferings of the non-human world might be a result of that. But, what if it is not? What if those things which we observe in the non-human world and you are labeling "evil" are, ultimately, not evil at all, but rather how the non-human world was designed and intended to function? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and it might seem evil when one animal devours another - but is it actually "evil"?

Especially when we consider that when we speak of "evil" we normally imply malice, it would be difficult to prove that any animal acts out of malice towards another. If indeed they cannot do so, then the "problem of evil" shrinks by orders of magnitude.

Again, why? Why would it contain "less" evil? How do we know that it already doesn't?

Especially if we consider that God might have guided suitable human minds throughout history along a path of moral refinement and has inspired many religions and philosophies for the overall edification of the human masses, how do we know that such isn't the method (or one of them) by which He sees to it that there is "less evil" in the cosmos?

Actual evil, or malice, is a different thing, I believe, than that which the non-human world experiences. Thus, it is indeed incumbent upon us to take responsibility for own actions, always bear in mind that God has equipped us to refuse to do evil (ie, malice) towards one another, and therefore that actual evil is indeed our own responsibility. The fact that nature is a harsh place or that non-human creatures must devour, displace, or destroy each other in order to survive might be the result of sin entering the world, or might instead simply be how the non-human world was designed to function.

I'll paraphrase your questions below, and provide my take on them.

How can we know whether the evil in the world isnt actually "a little less" (or as I would say it, "necessary for some greater good")? 

Well, what does it for me really is the incomprehensible volume and severity of evil in the world.  I think this tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that much of this evil is just gratuitous.   And if the theist thinks there is a good reason for all of it - well, I think the burden is on him to demonstrate it.

Why should animal suffering be considered evil?

Well, regardless of what most people do, philosophers distinguish between moral evil and natural evil.  Natural evil is evil that is not caused by the actions of a moral agent.   This category of evil includes things like the suffering caused by disease or natural disasters.   It also includes the majority of animal suffering in the world, which was not inflicted by moral agents like human beings.   This type of evil is considered in the problem of evil, because they are situations that an all-good being would want to minimize to the best of his ability. 

So the incalculable abundance of animal suffering in this world is something theism needs to account for in someway, and I don't feel that they've come up with a plausible answer.

What if God's mind is just beyond ours, and we can't see His reasons for permitting evil?

I've touched on this topic in other threads, as this is a standard reply to the problem of evil which, in philosophical circles, is categorized as "skeptical theism".  Its pretty much a whole topic of its own, so instead of going on about it more, I'll just give a small quote from one the best atheist blogs out there, which sums up the problem I have with these sorts of replies:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8831

In a world so obviously indifferent to our pain or pleasure, Christians must embrace an incredible double standard to believe a God of the universe is perfectly good. They must say that many good things happen because they understand God’s ways and he wanted those things to happen, but they must also say that all bad things happen for reasons we can’t know because we don’t understand God’s ways.

[ExGeeEye]

Most Christians I know believe God has a perfect will, a permissive will, and a singular purpose.  These terms are the ones I use, as I understand their meaning; "professional" theologians (who may not have Christianity, or even theism, as an agenda) may have other terms for the same things.

God's Perfect Will:  no one, from Lucifer onward, would ever have sinned; Adam and Eve and such descendants as might have been would still be living innocent, immortal, and naked in Eden; and none of the abominations which have and will exist in the universe would do so.

God's Permissive Will: Lucifer, Adam, Eve, and all of us have had our opportunities to obey-- or not-- rules as simple as "acknowledge my supremacy" (Lucifer); "don't eat the fruit of that one particular tree" (Adam and Eve); the 10 or 613 commandments of the Jewish Law; and the three basic commandments of the Age of Grace, from which spring all other proper moral codes, among which are things prohibited not because they are wrong sui generis, but because in the time and place they violate the spirit of the three basic commands.

God's Singular Purpose: to work through both the good and evil which we humans do to bring the greatest number possible to salvation before closing the book on evil in all its manifestations, at which time all who have willfully persisted in evil (including Lucifer aka Satan) will be sent to eternal punishment; at which time a new heavan and new earth will replace those extant for His-- and our-- eternal enjoyment.

[Varokhâr]

I'll paraphrase your questions below, and provide my take on them.

How can we know whether the evil in the world isnt actually "a little less" (or as I would say it, "necessary for some greater good")?  

Well, what does it for me really is the incomprehensible volume and severity of evil in the world.  I think this tips the scales in favor of the hypothesis that much of this evil is just gratuitous.   And if the theist thinks there is a good reason for all of it - well, I think the burden is on him to demonstrate it.

Again, how can you know that for sure? Seems like more of an arbitrary statement than one that allows for the very real possibility that a superior intelligence already has seen to it that there is less evil than there might otherwise be.

I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there absolutely is, full stop, too much evil in the world for any god to possibly exist, or that there is too much evil, period.

Why should animal suffering be considered evil?

Well, regardless of what most people do, philosophers distinguish between moral evil and natural evil.  Natural evil is evil that is not caused by the actions of a moral agent.   This category of evil includes things like the suffering caused by disease or natural disasters.   It also includes the majority of animal suffering in the world, which was not inflicted by moral agents like human beings.   This type of evil is considered in the problem of evil, because they are situations that an all-good being would want to minimize to the best of his ability.  

So the incalculable abundance of animal suffering in this world is something theism needs to account for in someway, and I don't feel that they've come up with a plausible answer.

Again, how can you be sure of any of that? Especially given the distinction between moral evil and natural evil (or between actual evil and mere natural processes), one can easily understand that the former is necessary for the natural world to function whereas the former is a result of actions taken by beings who have been given the ability to make both good and bad choices.

Thus, that ability to choose, to respond to moral guidance and edification, represents part of an all-good being's minimization of evil, by operating through the free will and noble consciences of His human creations. I say "human" specifically since only "moral evil" is relevant, here; other "evils" are necessary for the world to function and thus not actually "evil" in fact.

What if God's mind is just beyond ours, and we can't see His reasons for permitting evil?

I've touched on this topic in other threads, as this is a standard reply to the problem of evil which, in philosophical circles, is categorized as "skeptical theism".  Its pretty much a whole topic of its own, so instead of going on about it more, I'll just give a small quote from one the best atheist blogs out there, which sums up the problem I have with these sorts of replies:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8831

Meh; just more claims that because bad things happen, God can't possibly exist. I recall such arguments from my own days as an atheist and they are just too narrow to be acceptable, always proceeding from the arbitrary position that if bad things happen there can't be any good or rational reason for it.

It's too much like an impudent child stamping his feet and arbitrarily stating that his parents don't love him because they punished him for misbehaving, even though that punishment served a corrective and ultimately positive purpose. It's the application of the Leftist mentality to religion, insisting that the world ought to be a padded nursery wherein no one ever gets hurt and everyone gets what he or she wants and because it isn't, there can't possibly be any good or rational reason for the state of things.

[TexasCop]

Faith was a circuitous route for me.  Growing up, my mother was very insecure in her faith.  She bounced us kids around from one denomination to another.  I started life as a Baptist, later becoming Jehovah's Witness (she even tried to make us Amish at one point) and then on to non-denominational.  Talk about growing up confused!  When I met my wife, she was in a very conservative Church of Christ church (long hair, dresses only, etc.)  I tried to get into that with her, but I was in the Army and they told me if I ever had to kill anyone, regardless of how justified I may be, I'm going to Hell.  Obviously I don't believe that, so I dropped out. 
 
After not attending church for over 10 years, my wife agreed to go to a more mainstream Church of Christ.  I sat down with the pastor and told him my past and my fears.  He showed me in the book of Romans how what I was told by the other Church of Christ was wrong.  I still wasn't convinced. 
 
Then one day I looked up into the sky and thought about the immense stretch of space out there and all it holds.  I began to think about the miracle of life.  Not only with humans, but EVERYTHING.  Using pure logic, I realized that this isn't all an accident of atoms colliding.  There HAS to be a higher being.  I was baptised March 28th, 2006.

[debk]

Faith was a circuitous route for me.  Growing up, my mother was very insecure in her faith.  She bounced us kids around from one denomination to another.  I started life as a Baptist, later becoming Jehovah's Witness (she even tried to make us Amish at one point) and then on to non-denominational.  Talk about growing up confused!  When I met my wife, she was in a very conservative Church of Christ church (long hair, dresses only, etc.)  I tried to get into that with her, but I was in the Army and they told me if I ever had to kill anyone, regardless of how justified I may be, I'm going to Hell.  Obviously I don't believe that, so I dropped out. 
 
After not attending church for over 10 years, my wife agreed to go to a more mainstream Church of Christ.  I sat down with the pastor and told him my past and my fears.  He showed me in the book of Romans how what I was told by the other Church of Christ was wrong.  I still wasn't convinced. 
 
Then one day I looked up into the sky and thought about the immense stretch of space out there and all it holds.  I began to think about the miracle of life.  Not only with humans, but EVERYTHING.  Using pure logic, I realized that this isn't all an accident of atoms colliding.  There HAS to be a higher being.  I was baptised March 28th, 2006.

Congrats on being baptized.

I am not picking on you in the slightest when I ask this....where you also questioning God's existence or did you believe in God, just questioned the religion?

I ask because you are a Mason, (and a Shriner?) I was in Rainbow Girls, Job's Daughters, and became an Eastern Star in my early 20's. (My dad was DeMolay, Mason, and Shriner, and my mother was in Eastern Star.) I would think it would be difficult to be in any of the organizations if one did not believe in God. 

[TexasCop]

I've always believed in God, but found myself doubting Him because of the confusion between religions.  Every religion and denomination swears it's the way to do things.  How confusing is that?  All along I just needed to find one that fit me. 
 
You're right, it always amazes me when people equate Masons with devil worship.   

[debk]

I've always believed in God, but found myself doubting Him because of the confusion between religions.  Every religion and denomination swears it's the way to do things.  How confusing is that?  All along I just needed to find one that fit me. 
 
You're right, it always amazes me when people equate Masons with devil worship.   

I've only been Episcopal and Catholic, so no confusion.

Yeah, I'm not sure where that "devil worship" thing ever came from either....but it is amazing how many believe it to be true.

[TexasCop]

When I tell people we HAVE to have a Holy Bible in order to open our lodge, people are like wha-wha-WHAT?  I thought y'all killed goats!  Nope, rode one, though!   

[Splashdown]

More importantly: who invited him?
 

Good prevails in spite of evil, not because of it.
 

I would love to see evidence of that, biblical or empirical.

So if they never tasted the fruit they never would have had free will? They could never have been content/obedient/happy if they had not first been selfish, eaten the fruit and then lied about it?

Then let us sin that grace may abound.

One of the most beautiful prayers in the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is the Exsultet, the song of praise during the Easter Vigil. The prayer calls all of heaven and earth to join in the celebration as the Easter Candle is lit for the first time. A line from the prayer stands out to me every time I hear it...

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

A pretty powerful statement, centuries old.

[Gratiot]

Yeah, I'm not sure where that "devil worship" thing ever came from either....but it is amazing how many believe it to be true.

I think the mainstream view, while not stemming from but certainly was revitalized by the book:  Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin.  Which is quite an ahem interesting, baptist theology leaning read, regardless of if you read the revised version by Ravi Zacharias or Hank Hanegraaff.  Both, whom are interesting authors in their own ways.

If I recall, it actually referenced how many of the major denominations had outright bans on their members being masons, with the noticeable exception of Southern Baptists.  Which supposedly stemmed from a majority of their preachers at the time, also being Masons, and led to a major controversy with Walter Martin.

[rubliw]

Again, how can you know that for sure? Seems like more of an arbitrary statement than one that allows for the very real possibility that a superior intelligence already has seen to it that there is less evil than there might otherwise be.

I think the burden of proof is on those who claim that there absolutely is, full stop, too much evil in the world for any god to possibly exist, or that there is too much evil, period.

I agree that the burden of proof would be upon those who claim, full stop, that the existence of so much evil absolutely disproves the existence of God.  A claim like that sets the bar extremely high.   But it isn't my position.  

My position has been that there are instances of evil which do not seem to be necessary for any greater good, so they probably aren't, and count as evidence against the existence of the theist God.   And more than that, its my position that the sheer abundance of it tips the scales in favor of the belief that God does not exist.  The bar is much lower here and the stakes are a little different.  The argument, if successful, requires one to accept that the existence of God is less likely than the non-existence of God, but not the conclusion that God is impossible.

Again, how can you be sure of any of that? Especially given the distinction between moral evil and natural evil (or between actual evil and mere natural processes), one can easily understand that the former is necessary for the natural world to function whereas the former is a result of actions taken by beings who have been given the ability to make both good and bad choices.

Thus, that ability to choose, to respond to moral guidance and edification, represents part of an all-good being's minimization of evil, by operating through the free will and noble consciences of His human creations. I say "human" specifically since only "moral evil" is relevant, here; other "evils" are necessary for the world to function and thus not actually "evil" in fact.

What is necessary for this world to function isn't really the crux of the problem.   An all-powerful being has the power to create any possible world.  So its not a matter of asking whether natural evil is necessary for THIS world..  its about asking whether an omnipotent God could have created a world which both accomplished His divine goals, AND contained less (or perhaps even no) natural evil - because If he could have, he would have.  

Think about the burden this places on the theist... out of any possible universe imaginable, the theist is committed to the belief that THIS one, a universe with such a seemingly over-abundance of natural (and moral) evil, is the best possible world that God could have instantiated in order to accomplish his goals.  The bar for that claim is extremely high - almost as high as the bar for the claim that God is incompatible with any evil, full stop.  Raising a few potential possibilities (soul building, etc) isnt enough for me.  I need strong reasons to actually believe them and to actually believe that gratuitous looking evils in this world are not as they appear to be.

Meh; just more claims that because bad things happen, God can't possibly exist. I recall such arguments from my own days as an atheist and they are just too narrow to be acceptable, always proceeding from the arbitrary position that if bad things happen there can't be any good or rational reason for it.

The quote I pasted was meant to address something else.   Theists often claim to know all sorts of things about God, His values, His intentions for us and the world.  However, they they also tend to claim that He is mysterious and unknowable when certain arguments come up, like the problem of evil.   So that seems like a double standard to me.  

Also, when one starts relying on the mysterious God defenses, things get difficult for theism really quickly.  The ability to say much of anything conclusive about God and his purposes, good or bad, is severely undermined.  Many philosophers even argue that mysterious God defenses ultimately lead to the complete destruction of moral reasoning!

It's too much like an impudent child stamping his feet and arbitrarily stating that his parents don't love him because they punished him for misbehaving, even though that punishment served a corrective and ultimately positive purpose. It's the application of the Leftist mentality to religion, insisting that the world ought to be a padded nursery wherein no one ever gets hurt and everyone gets what he or she wants and because it isn't, there can't possibly be any good or rational reason for the state of things.

Look, its not about stomping my feet and woefully wailing about the state of the world.  I love my life, and I think it rather amazing, to be honest.  I'm thankful to be in this world. It just looks like a godless one to me.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Are you the best you, you can be or are you the best you, you want to be?

[Splashdown]

Think about the burden this places on the theist... out of any possible universe imaginable, the theist is committed to the belief that THIS one, a universe with such a seemingly over-abundance of natural (and moral) evil, is the best possible world that God could have instantiated in order to accomplish his goals.  The bar for that claim is extremely high - almost as high as the bar for the claim that God is incompatible with any evil, full stop.  Raising a few potential possibilities (soul building, etc) isnt enough for me.  I need strong reasons to actually believe them and to actually believe that gratuitous looking evils in this world are not as they appear to be.

Actually, to most of us theists, at least those of the Christian variety, the best possible universe would be heaven. We of the Catholic persuasion call this world "hoc lacrimarum vale," the vale of tears.

If you consider, again I'm speaking from a strictly Roman Catholic perspective (sorry to my bretheren of other denominations), that "hell" is the absense of the love of God, and Heaven is the state with complete love of God, evil exists in this "universe" where man has chosen to move away from God. That's overly simplified, but there it is.

And I'm not sure what you mean by God's "goals." That's above my pay grade.

[rubliw]

Actually, to most of us theists, at least those of the Christian variety, the best possible universe would be heaven. We of the Catholic persuasion call this world "hoc lacrimarum vale," the vale of tears.

If you consider, again I'm speaking from a strictly Roman Catholic perspective (sorry to my bretheren of other denominations), that "hell" is the absense of the love of God, and Heaven is the state with complete love of God, evil exists in this "universe" where man has chosen to move away from God. That's overly simplified, but there it is.

And I'm not sure what you mean by God's "goals." That's above my pay grade.

Well, one of God's goals, from the Catholic perspective, might be to create heaven and populate it with people who freely choose salvation.  

It may be the case that he needed to create an imperfect world populated it with free beings first, in order to accomplish this goal (aka, the "soul building" response).    Otherwise we wouldn't have this world - we'd just have heaven.

The key inference that the POE builds upon is that God would go about this soul building project (or any other goals he may have) while permitting the smallest amount of evil possible.