Natural Evil

[NoMoreFaith]

"Where" is a spatial question that is intelligible only in the context of spatial coordinates. Given that God created and upholds this space-time manifold, it follows that he transcends it (or exists independent of it); how, then, is it meaningful to ask specifically "where" God is? (Hint: The question is meaningless.) The very reason why God is omnipresent or immanent throughout all space and time is because he is not existentially part of creation.

If we state that God transcends, or exists independently, then why is it not fair to state that he would be detached from the causes of pain and suffering.

Being detached and attached to the causes of pain and suffering. This is not an optional set of answers that has "other" as a possibility for a God any more than the fallacy of creating square circles.

He either has no hand in it, has a hand in it, or is at least sticking a finger in. Equivocated declarations that hint towards a fourth option is simply logically impossible.

He transcends, and is omnipresent, which by default places him as part of the cause of pain and suffering (such as the aforementioned fire).

You'll have to excuse me, but when pain and suffering is involved, God magically appears transcendent and/or independent, but when "Goodness", charity is involved, he's bang in the middle of it.
This is unreasonable in light of an omnipresent creator, because it implies that he opts out of it (which I'll get to).

The only reasonable position (which I suspect is closer to what you feel) is for God to be aware of the pain and suffering and mourn it, but recognise its necessity for some "transcendent" reason.

Due to the multitude of differing reasons on the difficulty of pain and suffering I would argue that the answer inevitably becomes further equivocation on "Gods reasons cannot be understood by man".

At least atheists acknowledge when they are doing so and appeal to be excused, rather than being blind to the idea an appeal was made at all.

You did. Here. This time. But you peruse these forums just as I do; you know how pervasive the appeals to emotional arguments are (e.g., hand-wringing about all teh baybeez) and that there is almost never that acknowledgment. But it is to be expected: if your argument has no logical punch, deflect using an emotional one.

I do agree, but I do not believe it is possible to present an example of unnecessary pain and suffering without resort to presenting an example which is emotional in nature.

My point was to clarify what Gods role in pain and suffering actually is, which is better served in this case through example.

My main issue with the concept of God in the context of pain and suffering, is based upon moral responsibility for positive action.

I would argue, that the more power you have, the greater your moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering becomes.
As the ultimate power, some say omnipotent power, leads to an ultimate, moral responsibility to prevent pain and suffering. Reasoning based that suffering prepares us for the afterlife, or any such thing, does not prevent this moral imperative.

Like Epicurus, we have to question, if he is able but not willing then the failure to act is considered malicious.

So from your point of view, what would refusal to act upon a moral imperative of this nature?

The question, of course, is based upon the assumption that God is a perfectly moral being, since many consider him to be the objective source of moral goodness.
If the same moral imperative on power exists, and this imperative comes from God, then we must consider God to be hypocritical.