Natural Evil

[Neo-Scholastic]

But, I think the subject is likely beyond your comprehension at this stage of your development, and I'm not interested in spending any time furthering that development. I have more important things on my plate.

C'mon. Can't I have a couple of instigating rhetorical flourishes with out being insulted. I expected better from someone as intelligent as you. And who wears really cool boots.

[Angrboda]

@ChadWooters:

I'm sorry you if you felt that I was trying to insult you. I was simply expressing my suspicion that further dialog would not be sufficiently profitable for me to continue. As noted, I suspect your knowledge of hermeneutics and the philosophy of literary analysis is not particularly advanced, both from your approach here and our encounter in another thread. I could be wrong. Either way, I find your notion that having your ignorance or lack of skill pointed out on some matter to be an insult to be rather silly. I recently discussed the Occupy movement with some hot head during which he called me ignorant and nasty. In hindsight, I think that was accurate, as I know little about the Occupy movement, and I was heartlessly cruel in lampooning his arguments[1]. Granted, he meant this derogatorily, but being ignorant of some subject requiring skill and erudition is not an insult. I am ignorant on most things, and having flunked out of college, am not well schooled on even the subjects I have studied. I was simply pointing out what I felt was a very practical obstacle to profitable dialogue — a differential level of understanding of the sciences involved in textual interpretation. That you misinterpreted this as an insult only makes me more inclined to believe that you lack either the learning or skills necessary to have this debate. Seeing that your final barb about my remarks being unworthy of someone like me was probably the ostensible result of a simple misunderstanding, I will charitably ignore it.

Anyway, for your benefit, I will enlighten you more fully on the reasoning behind my choice. I, in general, do not find serious discussions on internet forums satisfying and fulfilling. I have basically decided not to participate in internet forums at all. However recently, I experienced an acute episode of mental illness and I needed something mindless to occupy my time until that episode passed. This forum has served that purpose, but now the need has passed, and I intend to reduce my participation down to zero. In that context, our dialog has become a casualty of greater strategic goals and my general avoidance of such discussions. Perhaps I was impolitick in the manner in which I announced my desire to disengage, and given my suspicions about your abilities in properly interpreting texts, I should probably have phrased it more diplomatically. I didn't, and perhaps that's on me. I tend to be rather blunt and intensely single minded, as well as socially somewhat poorly skilled. I apologize if I have judged you unfairly or negligently. It was not my intent.

[1] "Heartlessly cruel" is probably an exaggeration. I simply tend to be uncompromising when presented with careless, negligent, or just generally bad thinking.

---

A question occurred to me. Does it make any sense for God to be relatively clear in communicating his message through a book and a people (ignoring the unreliability of both), yet be so thoroughly inscrutable in communicating his message through nature and creation? Especially since, being omniscient, he knows that most humans will live under cultural systems that isolate them and alienate them from any biblically informed culture?

[Godscreated]

So you believe it's OK to keep me from believing in the God who has freed me from a life like your's. I don't think so. By the way why are you so interested in someone proving God exist, when you can not prove He does not exist, is your conscience bothering you to the point you need to know.
Assumption's part of an argument when something is assigned to God, and it does not matter that you believe to the contrary, it is what it is.
I'll never give up what I know is the truth, even if it kills me.

That line right there is the problem I have with Christianity. You know nothing of my life, yet you assume that your's is in some way superior because you are a Christian.

I have no problem arguing from the assumption, it's when it is asserted that I believe it for doing so, that it becomes unfair.

You are the on who asserted that my life is less, because of my faith in Christ. I'm only pointing out that I was once an unbeliever, now through my faith in Christ, I stand on the other side of the fence, I know the peace that exist in my life that was not there before. I see in your responses you do not have the peace in your life that is within mine, my responses use to be like yours. I did not mean that I'm better than you, what I am saying God has made me a better person. I stand on the other side of the fence looking back (hind sight) and recognize the difference in my life, a difference that I'm grateful for, which came through Christ, it's not what I did, it's what I accepted into my life.
I would not assume that you were a believer because you would engage in an argument that assumed God's existence, I may not be the brightest apple in the barrel, I however am not stupid.

[Welsh cake]

By the way you describe your life you do not exist.

There is no "I" after all. This organism is just a temporary biological, chemical and physical arrangement. Like the summer breeze, here today, gone tomorrow.

You have proven my point in your statement, if you are powerless to enforce judgement then there is truly no judgement, the only thing you can give is an opinion, which holds no water with One who omnipotent.

No, I haven't. You claimed the sinful can't judge the righteous. They can judge. Anyone can judge. Do they have the authority to enforce those judgements is a separate issue GC.

Those ants you think you have so much power over might surprise you, God has power over all mankind, let's see how you fair with army ants.

You'd think I'd trample an ant's nest just to prove a point?

Not sure what you mean by "family-to-be who have strayed," I'm talking about my relatives. As far as my spiritual family that is a given.

Relatives and descendants that have yet to be born.

I'm not preaching that is against the rules, what I'm doing is stating the facts as I see them, if you choose to ignore them that's your God given right. I've come here to learn and learning I am doing.

I was speaking figuratively. Is English not your first language or something?

Your denial of God does not have any bearing on His existence, it has no bearing on the fact He is your God.

Denial? Its a fact. I wasn't created by any god. I'm biological, not "spiritual", I came from my parents.

I don't have a god.

All I see is you running your mouth and senseless babble coming forth, and in that you have lowered yourself and raised up God.

Wow, I raised up your god I don't even believe in. Elevated him to a higher status. How powerful am I?

Even as a Christian I knew that assertion was silly, and I've long since out-grown your religion.

God has not left us, He does exist outside this universe

I don't care GC.

Demonstrate what is outside this universe or go "learn" somewhere else.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I’m sorry for whatever condition that pains you and wish you all the best.

As noted, I suspect your knowledge of hermeneutics and the philosophy of literary analysis is not particularly advanced…

My general experience in real life and on the web has ecouraged me to put as much as I can into folk terms. Most people I deal with are not as well-read as I and when I use “big words” they tend to think I’m talking down to them or trying to prove how smart I am. I recognize that not everyone has studied semiotics, reads biblical Hebrew, or are remotely familiar post-structualism or process theology. Using more common terms rather than academic nomenclature helps me avoid falling too deeply into bullshit. It also allows others to follow and contribute to the threads.

Does it make any sense for God to be relatively clear in communicating his message through a book and a people… yet be so thoroughly inscrutable in communicating his message through nature and creation

From an atheistic stance, probably not. Whereas, I consider divine providence so ubiquitous that that it escapes the notice of modern (post-modern?) humanity. In the words of my favorite hymn, “Tis only the brilliance of light hideth thee.”

[Angrboda]

As noted, I suspect your knowledge of hermeneutics and the philosophy of literary analysis is not particularly advanced…

My general experience in real life and on the web has ecouraged me to put as much as I can into folk terms. Most people I deal with are not as well-read as I and when I use “big words” they tend to think I’m talking down to them or trying to prove how smart I am. I recognize that not everyone has studied semiotics, reads biblical Hebrew, or are remotely familiar post-structualism or process theology. Using more common terms rather than academic nomenclature helps me avoid falling too deeply into bullshit. It also allows others to follow and contribute to the threads.

Understood. In high school I had such an intimidating vocabulary that I spent years learning to adjust my speech to the needs of my audience. I don't find that a problem with most of the people in the live discussion groups which I frequent. Yet when I'm being lazy or tired, the old monster comes out. And I'm particularly prone to it on the internet because I come here to escape and relax, not to work at it. Still, I receive sufficient compliments on the clarity and quality of my prose to suspect that I must be doing something right. I'm at my worst probably on irc. Perhaps you and I have something in common; I'm not even minimally read on process philosophy, but my current foundation for the bulk of my thinking about philosophy of mind rests on a framework which suggests that some form of process philosophy will likely form the most natural fit for the way our brains process information.

Does it make any sense for God to be relatively clear in communicating his message through a book and a people… yet be so thoroughly inscrutable in communicating his message through nature and creation

From an atheistic stance, probably not. Whereas, I consider divine providence so ubiquitous that that it escapes the notice of modern (post-modern?) humanity. In the words of my favorite hymn, “Tis only the brilliance of light hideth thee.”

I find this answer rather bizarre when given in the context of a discussion about the ubiquity of senseless and arbitrary ugliness in the world that is so extreme that even a talented and conservative fundamentalist religious scholar like Bart Ehrman was forced to find another answer.

(ETA: Though having just acquainted myself with the general outlay of Heidegger's existentialism prior to "The Turn", I can see where it would couple nicely with your appraisal.)

[Ryft]

I would dispute your accusation of creating a straw man because the quote is in context of your assertion that God is both omnipresent and [not] existentially part of creation when it comes to causation of pain and suffering (which is what we're discussing).

You need to give due consideration to the words that I use, for I try to choose them quite carefully—such as the word "existentially," by which I draw out the distinction that "God exists transcendentally but is active right in the middle of both prosperity and calamity." In other words, God is not ignorant of, perplexed by, or powerless in the face of human pain and suffering because, as he reveals throughout the Bible—which I provided you some examples of—he is ultimately in control of it all. But, again, "His existence apart from the universe does not preclude his control of and activity within the universe" (emphasis added). That is why your suggestion (Msg. 67) that God could be "detached from the causes" of pain and suffering sets up a straw man; such a suggestion posits a God different from or weaker than the one revealed in Scripture, who is not detached from the causes.

He either is part of the causation or he is not—and, frankly, equivocation on the matter that he can be both doesn't wash. ... There simply is no room for prevarication on the matter. He is either [fully] responsible, partly responsible, or not responsible.

I can only assume that you began responding to my post without first reading it completely, since I argued quite unequivocally that God is in control of both the good and the bad (humanly speaking, as you say), whether deliverance or judgment, peace or calamity, harvest or famine and so on. Nothing happens apart from the providence of God's will and purpose. "Are you saying that, yes, God is responsible for pain and suffering?" I am not sure how someone could read my responses and draw any other conclusion. When I cite biblical passages that state in very black-and-white terms that God is in control of it all, it is baffling how you could think that I have failed to communicate my position on the matter.

You [identified] falsely the question "where" is God (when it comes to pain and suffering) as a locational question and dismissed it as irrelevant ...

First, it is unfair to say that I did so "falsely," as if I knew what you really meant but tried to pretend you meant something different. Rather, it would be fair to say that I did not understand your meaning rightly and was therefore mistaken (e.g., "You identified mistakenly the question...")—although I think I understand your meaning now, given how you have subsequently fleshed it out. Second, I did not dismiss it as "irrelevant" but as incoherent, since God cannot be tied to spatial coordinates (which was, again, an apparent misunderstanding of your meaning).

Given [our] human perspective, what is God's role in inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering upon mankind, when he is in a position to prevent such things?

This commits the loaded question fallacy, akin to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Just as that question first assumes that I had beaten my wife at all and then asks when I stopped, so your question assumes that "unnecessary" or gratuitous pain and suffering exists and then asks what God's role in it might be. What I am doing is hitting the brakes on your question and raising a red flag over the assumption built into it. Since I had agreed that the fire does not happen apart from God's sovereign will, it is incoherent to suppose that he would prevent it or question-begging to suppose that it was gratuitous (unwarranted or purposeless). You cannot ask me to concede the debate prior to engaging it. I dispute that gratuitous evil or suffering is even possible, much less that it exists, just as I would dispute that I have ever beaten my wife. In order to ask about God's role in X, you must first establish that X exists or is even possible—for it would be utterly meaningless to ask about God's role in something that does not and cannot exist.

I am going to "appeal to emotion" again ...

I wish that you would not, since that is fallacious and thereby fails to address the question at issue. (It is also troubling to think that you would persist in a fallacy after has been identified and explained.)

The quoted biblical references speak of incidents which reveal a purpose for God's actions. But in cases where we can see no reasonable purpose for the infliction of pain and suffering, which are beyond human ability to avoid, what is your position on his reasoning?

First, the Bible is clear in its theology about the nature of God, sometimes describing in perspicuous black-and-white terms that he is in control of it all, that nothing happens apart from his will, and that he works out all things according to the purpose of his will. And then on top of that the Bible provides some unequivocal examples of those very truths in action (such as the case of Sennacherib). Therefore we are provided sufficient reason to trust God in circumstances where he has not explained himself.

Second, there is an analogy in how I would raise my children. I not only make it clear to them that there is a purpose behind the things I do, even if they do not know or understand it at the time, but also in certain cases I do take the time to explain to them what the purpose was. Consequently (just as I would tell them) they have sufficient reason to trust me in circumstances where I do not explain myself; and sometimes that trust is of life-or-death importance.

Third, just because they do not know what my purpose is in some circumstance, it does not follow that there is no purpose; for example, this could be a case where I simply did not tell them what it is. This is the very same point I made to you about God, that ignorance about the purpose for X does not establish that it has none. (Arguments from ignorance are invalid.)

So what is my position on his reason or purpose? That there is good reason to trust that he has one, and no reason to think that he doesn't.

... many things appear gratuitous.

Indeed. But the skeptic would ask himself, "Does the fact that it appears gratuitous mean that it actually is gratuitous?" And the answer is no, of course. Just because something appears to be the case that does not somehow mean it actually is the case.

[Assuming the existence of God as we are], we must bear in mind that we are expected to worship this deity.

That is a related but separate issue from the one we are discussing. Let us finish this one before tracking its related tangents.

If God is not morally responsible, then morality is a relative matter rather than objective.

Non sequitur. From the fact that there is no one to whom God can even be morally responsible, it simply does not follow that therefore morality is relative.

We may claim that whatever God does is inherently moral ...

I am not sure who "we" refers to here, but if someone claimed that then I would dispute it—as I did in my previous post: "That assumes a moral order above God to which his nature and character conforms," whether inherently or otherwise, which "begs the question against God being ‘the objective source of moral goodness’."

... which makes the comparison to [the immovable object and irresistible force] contradiction a false analogy, since neither the immovable nor the irresistible can experience being moved or resisted from their perspective ...

No, sir. They are mutually exclusive. Surely you understand what that means. In other words: (1) If an immovable object is a given, then an irresistable force is logically impossible. (2) If an irresistable force is a given, then an immovable object is logically impossible. This is analogous to our discussion, and it plays out like this: (3) If gratuitous evil is a given, then God is logically impossible. (4) If God is a given, then gratuitous evil is logically impossible. (This is due to the very nature of the God that is being discussed, who is self-existent [aseity], holy, sovereign, eternal, actus purus, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.)

Your argument does nothing to deflect the apparent lack of necessity to these actions.

This is the ignoratio elenchi fallacy, since I have indeed provided sufficient reason to think it is not gratuitous—from the fact that God is in control of everything and that nothing happens apart from his will to examples where God had chosen to reveal his purpose in select cases (in order for people to trust that he is in control of everything and that nothing happens apart from his will). Moreover, I have confronted your every objection to the contrary and carefully explained why they failed to make your case, not least of which is the complete absence of any proof that pain and suffering is gratuitous—not appears gratuitous, but actually is gratuitous. And I could not have made your task any easier when I said that "God" and "gratuitous evil" are mutually exclusive: you need only prove a single case of gratuitous evil or suffering and I lose the debate.

Shifting the burden of proof much?

You said, "If God is able but not willing, then the failure to act is considered malicious" (Msg. 67). But that is an incomplete sentence, as I indicated in my response: "If God is able but not willing... to what?" You did not finish that sentence. Given the context of our discussion, I assumed you meant "to prevent some gratuitous evil or suffering." And in case that is what you meant, I pointed out that it "[assumes] the very thing to be proved (that gratuitous evil or suffering exists at all)." In order to ask about God's ability and willingness to prevent X, you must prove that X even exists. Why? Because if X does not exist, then there is nothing for God to prevent.

This is not a case of me burden-shifting, but of me asking you to complete your sentence—carefully.

I would like you to clarify your position that [pain and suffering] doesn't exist ...

My argument does not deny that human pain and suffering exists, sir. It denies that it is ever gratuitous. And I grant that pain and suffering may appear gratuitous, but the issue is not about whether it appears gratuitous or not—which it obviously can and does—but whether it actually is gratuitous or not.

God has a purpose for it. Fine. We do not know this purpose. Fine. These concepts themselves must be then be established—validly—before an answer can be provided. You are skipping to the conclusion without a valid proposal that your axioms are indeed true.

What axioms?

Let me simplify your argument: "God can do what he likes because he is God. Deal with it."

Yes.

"Moral quality" is defined relatively by the recipient of action X, not objectively ...

That follows from your world view, perhaps, but this discussion regards the biblical world view.

[NoMoreFaith]

You need to give due consideration to the words that I use, for I try to choose them quite carefully—such as the word "existentially," by which I draw out the distinction that "God exists transcendentally but is active right in the middle of both prosperity and calamity." In other words, God is not ignorant of, perplexed by, or powerless in the face of human pain and suffering because, as he reveals throughout the Bible—which I provided you some examples of—he is ultimately in control of it all. But, again, "His existence apart from the universe does not preclude his control of and activity within the universe" (emphasis added). That is why your suggestion (Msg. 67) that God could be "detached from the causes" of pain and suffering sets up a straw man; such a suggestion posits a God different from or weaker than the one revealed in Scripture, who is not detached from the causes.

I highlighted that you picked out a sentence, which lists possibilities for the involvement of a deity. I also list the other possibilities, he is detached, or somewhat involved, there is not "both". Picking out one line out of the paragraph beyond context, a strawman does not build.

First, it is unfair to say that I did so "falsely," as if I knew what you really meant but tried to pretend you meant something different.

I likewise found it surprising you could mistake the context, asking where God is when it comes to pain and suffering as spatial co-ordinates, so we'll chalk it up to a misunderstanding and move on.

Given [our] human perspective, what is God's role in inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering upon mankind, when he is in a position to prevent such things?

This commits the loaded question fallacy, akin to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Just as that question first assumes that I had beaten my wife at all and then asks when I stopped, so your question assumes that "unnecessary" or gratuitous pain and suffering exists and then asks what God's role in it might be. What I am doing is hitting the brakes on your question and raising a red flag over the assumption built into it. Since I had agreed that the fire does not happen apart from God's sovereign will, it is incoherent to suppose that he would prevent it or question-begging to suppose that it was gratuitous (unwarranted or purposeless). You cannot ask me to concede the debate prior to engaging it. I dispute that gratuitous evil or suffering is even possible, much less that it exists, just as I would dispute that I have ever beaten my wife. In order to ask about God's role in X, you must first establish that X exists or is even possible—for it would be utterly meaningless to ask about God's role in something that does not and cannot exist.

So the obvious question is; What do you believe is God's purpose for doing so. He is in control of these things, so what in your opinion is the "big picture".
I think we can at least agree it had better be a whopper of a good reason.

Your reflections on responsibility seem to deflect responsibility through the point of view of the Deity, rather than the only conceivable view that we can hold to be evident, which is that from mankinds point of view.

What you are asking, in order to show pain and suffering is malicious, and/or unnecessary given the presence of an all powerful being, that we prove God has a greater reason for what WE see has malicious or unnecessary pain and suffering.

I am going to "appeal to emotion" again ...

I wish that you would not, since that is fallacious and thereby fails to address the question at issue. (It is also troubling to think that you would persist in a fallacy after has been identified and explained.)

I find it troubling that you would spend time to write that and yet completely miss that no appeal was actually made in the end.

I considered it, and didn't edit out this line, but I find it curious you are quick to jump on it, without comprehending no such statement was eventually made.

You are an excellent writer, but occasionally your need to "enforce logic" misses the point being made.

First, the Bible is clear in its theology about the nature of God, sometimes describing in perspicuous black-and-white terms that he is in control of it all, that nothing happens apart from his will, and that he works out all things according to the purpose of his will. And then on top of that the Bible provides some unequivocal examples of those very truths in action (such as the case of Sennacherib). Therefore we are provided sufficient reason to trust God in circumstances where he has not explained himself.

What utter bollocks If you excuse the phrase. The example of Sennacherib, where God saw fit to get involved in a local war, sending Gabriel, Scythe and all, to destroy an army because of a bit of heresy.. is not a good example at all. If nothing else, because God can't be bothered with that sort of thing in the last few thousands years.

This is off topic, but made me smile recalling this incident, a quote from the movie the Prophecy, "..whenever God wanted someone punished or killed it was always an angel that he sent to do his bidding. Knowing this, would you ever want to really meet an angel, always having one wing dipped in blood?"
Pretty chilling thought I always felt.

Anyway, you claim this provides sufficient reason to trust that a natural disaster has a reason? Exactly HOW does this story of God sending angels to go kick some blasphemous ass equate to natural disasters.

Second, there is an analogy in how I would raise my children. I not only make it clear to them that there is a purpose behind the things I do, even if they do not know or understand it at the time, but also in certain cases I do take the time to explain to them what the purpose was. Consequently (just as I would tell them) they have sufficient reason to trust me in circumstances where I do not explain myself; and sometimes that trust is of life-or-death importance.

There are limits to the trust a child should place in their parents, and quite frankly, if I caused pain and suffering to a child you would ALWAYS clearly explain why.
There is no part, as a parent, where you would inflict pain and suffering and fail to explain the purpose for doing so. Especially when if it were to involve final mortal death to something or someone they love.

I'm open to hear examples of when you feel it would be reasonable for a parent to hurt a child and not explain their reasoning for doing so.

Third, just because they do not know what my purpose is in some circumstance, it does not follow that there is no purpose; for example, this could be a case where I simply did not tell them what it is. This is the very same point I made to you about God, that ignorance about the purpose for X does not establish that it has none. (Arguments from ignorance are invalid.)

It does not however follow, that the child should still respect the parent when abuse continues with no explanation, or on extremely equivocated obtuse grounds. I expect no person to willingly accept unreasoned abuse.
In fact, most of the time, we call social services. It establishes that despite the parent, being the sole cause of the childs existence, it does not automatically warrant unfailing faith and respect regardless of the punishment doled out, unreasoned or obscure, upon them.

I'm happy for you that you have such faith there's a plan, based upon the assumption of gods existence, but personally I find such a view perplexing.

Indeed. But the skeptic would ask himself, "Does the fact that it appears gratuitous mean that it actually is gratuitous?" And the answer is no, of course. Just because something appears to be the case that does not somehow mean it actually is the case.

I believe that I have phrased this continually as "the appearance of", from our point of view, which remains to be the only relevant and evident status of events.

The appearance of gratuitous, or unnecessary pain and suffering may well just be the appearance of it, and perhaps there is a reason for it, if a God were to exist, be it any deity of particular flavour.
The paradox of pain and suffering in the presence of a loving creator can only be considered from the point of view of the afflicted.

I can make up a million stories to explain evil in the world, and to explain why it would not be gratuitous but this would never be considered a true explanation, and equally, you would have no right to deny the truth of whatever was stated. It simply comes down to faith that it is the truth, and frankly, faith has never been interested in truth, merely assertion.

We may claim that whatever God does is inherently moral ...

I am not sure who "we" refers to here, but if someone claimed that then I would dispute it—as I did in my previous post: "That assumes a moral order above God to which his nature and character conforms," whether inherently or otherwise, which "begs the question against God being ‘the objective source of moral goodness’."

I consider that you do consider God as inherently moral, in that he is the source of objective morality, even if he is not bound by it.
His actions, by being the source of objective morality would necessitate his actions as inherently moral, that is, if Morality comes from a God, then whatever that God does, is inherently moral, to himself.

... which makes the comparison to [the immovable object and irresistible force] contradiction a false analogy, since neither the immovable nor the irresistible can experience being moved or resisted from their perspective ...

No, sir. They are mutually exclusive. Surely you understand what that means. In other words: (1) If an immovable object is a given, then an irresistable force is logically impossible. (2) If an irresistable force is a given, then an immovable object is logically impossible. This is analogous to our discussion, and it plays out like this: (3) If gratuitous evil is a given, then God is logically impossible. (4) If God is a given, then gratuitous evil is logically impossible. (This is due to the very nature of the God that is being discussed, who is self-existent [aseity], holy, sovereign, eternal, actus purus, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.)

This does not address the flaw in the analogy. God does not answer to an objective morality, and is not required by any part of the listed nature to have our best interests in mind, nor to have any emotion regarding the pain and suffering of mankind.
An immovable object, or irresistible force remains immovable or irresistible regardless of perspective, whereas gratuitous evil does exist, by perspective. This is an important distinction which renders the analogy false.

What seems to be apparent to me, is that you are unwilling to accept gratuitous evil because you believe you can see things from God's point of view, rather than human.
But the only perspective you can actually claim, is that from personal experience. Any claim requires a specific interpretation of the bible to be true, which I doubt I need to expand upon.

This is the ignoratio elenchi fallacy, since I have indeed provided sufficient reason to think it is not gratuitous

Evidently not.

Moreover, I have confronted your every objection to the contrary and carefully explained why they failed to make your case, not least of which is the complete absence of any proof that pain and suffering is gratuitous—not appears gratuitous, but actually is gratuitous.

I never claimed it was gratuitous. I claimed it appeared gratuitous, and furthermore the biblical statements do not provide any explanation beyond elaborated versions of God moving in mysterious ways, which do not engender any rational for the faith itself.
As you say, the only rational explanation is point 3, if gratuitous evil exists, then God does not exist. If a) God Exists and b) Therefore there is no gratuitous evil, then it is reasonable to expect an explanation. No biblical quote convinces otherwise without a private belief and faith, which defy rationality.

And I could not have made your task any easier when I said that "God" and "gratuitous evil" are mutually exclusive: you need only prove a single case of gratuitous evil or suffering and I lose the debate.

I love it, any example is an appeal to emotion, and any lack of it is failing to provide examples. Cute.

This is an exceptionally disingenuous statement, since any example of gratuitous evil is simply met with an overly verbose method of saying we should merely have faith god has a plan he is not telling us about. Which is somewhat pointless to state to someone who essentially does not believe God is axiomatic.

My argument does not deny that human pain and suffering exists, sir. It denies that it is ever gratuitous. And I grant that pain and suffering may appear gratuitous, but the issue is not about whether it appears gratuitous or not—which it obviously can and does—but whether it actually is gratuitous or not.

Precisely. The only argument that can be had in this instance, is does God exist. You have faith there is, I see no reason to have such faith.

God has a purpose for it. Fine. We do not know this purpose. Fine. These concepts themselves must be then be established—validly—before an answer can be provided. You are skipping to the conclusion without a valid proposal that your axioms are indeed true.

What axioms?

That God exists. That God has a purpose that is beneficial to mankind.

You have stated that God is a rule unto himself, not bound by morality, which does not necessitate that his actions are beneficial to us, the only being whom can apply the feelings of pain and suffering in a meaningful sense.

Let me simplify your argument: "God can do what he likes because he is God. Deal with it."

Yes.

Since God is not bound by morality, why would we assume his actions have our interests in mind any more than an ant assumes humans will look after them.

"Moral quality" is defined relatively by the recipient of action X, not objectively ...

That follows from your world view, perhaps, but this discussion regards the biblical world view.

The biblical world view is yours, and your explanation why you do not feel natural evil exists. The bible was never mentioned in the OP, this discussion is only biblical relevant because you believe in it, and therefore the substance of our discussion.

I believe it all boils down to "do you believe in God". Which makes further debate somewhat irrelevant.
If you believe in God you can demand he's got a good reason if you like, but remain silent on what that reason might actually be, is not a substitute for a solid argument it exists beyond the fact if it doesn't exist, there is no God.
The probability slider is definitely not on your side in that instance, at least ........ from my perspective.

[Gambit]

That line right there is the problem I have with Christianity. You know nothing of my life, yet you assume that your's is in some way superior because you are a Christian.

I have no problem arguing from the assumption, it's when it is asserted that I believe it for doing so, that it becomes unfair.

You are the on who asserted that my life is less, because of my faith in Christ. I'm only pointing out that I was once an unbeliever, now through my faith in Christ, I stand on the other side of the fence, I know the peace that exist in my life that was not there before. I see in your responses you do not have the peace in your life that is within mine, my responses use to be like yours. I did not mean that I'm better than you, what I am saying God has made me a better person. I stand on the other side of the fence looking back (hind sight) and recognize the difference in my life, a difference that I'm grateful for, which came through Christ, it's not what I did, it's what I accepted into my life.
I would not assume that you were a believer because you would engage in an argument that assumed God's existence, I may not be the brightest apple in the barrel, I however am not stupid.

Well, what your above assumption fails to account for is that my life is perfectly peaceful. In fact, life has never been better. You cite your faith as the reason that you feel at peace, whereas I cite my freedom from faith as mine. I know it's sort of off-topic but here are a few examples of problems I have with religions and people of faith, in general:

• Institutions such as the Vatican, who are so rich it's disgusting. There is no need for any religious institution to own such riches.
  
• The fact that many people of faith have told me I am evil; devoid of morality; surrounded by darkness (More evil); and a number of other things - not because of my deeds - but because of a lack of belief.
  
• Religious people who excuse the wrong actions of their brothers and sisters - often going as far as to cover them up.
  
• Religions that preach that God has a plan for countries/people who suffer the most; which in turn, enables many people of faith to sleep with a clear conscience, while continuing to do nothing to help.
  
• Religions that help ensure that homosexuals do not receive the same legal rights as heterosexuals, based on the instructions of their holy texts.
  

So if I appear unhappy or angry while debating with you, the above reasons are unusually playing a part in my attitude. When I am not debating these matters I am perfectly placid. The attitude I display here is not because I am bitter from the absence of God, it is the presence of people, who (despite their claims to the contrary) think they are better than me morally; intellectually; ethically or otherwise, based on the fact that they believe in a God or Gods.

[Polaris]

I'm sure the Christian "free will" is just an illusion, as "God has a plan for us all".

You have just described Calvinism. I favor a type of Calvinism or did when I was agnostic...I can't through good conscience support Calvinism though because likewise, it promotes bigotry and a caste-like system.