[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think he 'orchestrated' the holocaust.

God lets man have his own free will. If Hitler wanted to kill a bunch of Jews, well, God wouldn't divinely intervene and suddenly strike him down. Nor will he intervene in nature....earthquakes, floods, etc, etc...all happen because of nature was made to act like that. Science will prove this.

That is just my personal belief.

The Free will argument, by people much more knowledgable than I.

1. If God exists, he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good.
2. The existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of God.
3. Suffering exists.
4. God does not exist.

To make the argument clearer, consider the following clarifications. An all-knowing being will be aware of suffering; an all-powerful being will be able to prevent suffering; and a perfectly good being will desire to prevent suffering. If suffering exists, then God - who is characterized by the three attributes stated in point 1 - does not exist. It is possible for some other, non-Biblical god to exist, but he cannot be all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly good, though he may be one or two of these.

Read the link below...
The Free Will Defence

and...

The argument from evil (or problem of evil) is the argument that an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God would not allow any--or certain kinds of--evil or suffering to occur. Unlike the logical argument from evil, which holds that the existence of God (so defined) is logically incompatible with some known fact about evil, the evidential (or probabilistic) argument from evil contends that some known fact about evil is evidence against the existence of God. For instance, one version of the argument contends that the biological role of pain and pleasure is much more likely on naturalism than theism (e.g., Paul Draper).
Other versions of the evidential argument concede that God could have a morally sufficient reason for allowing certain evils to occur--e.g., to ensure that some greater good is achieved as a consequence of an evil. However, proponents add, God would only allow as much evil or suffering as is absolutely necessary in order to achieve greater goods. But when we look at the world around us, we find prevalent instances of apparently gratuitous evil--pointless evils from which no greater good seems to result. According to proponents, the existence of apparently gratuitous evil provides strong evidence that God (as traditionally defined) does not exist (e.g., William Rowe).
For thousands of years theologians and philosophers have developed elaborate theodicies--responses to the argument from evil which retain belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God. According to the unknown purpose defense (UPD), God allows apparently pointless suffering for some reason that we can't comprehend. The free will defensesoul-making theodicy (SMT) contends that God allows some evil because it builds positive character in the victims or in others which outweighs the negative value of the evil itself (e.g., John Hick). (FWD) maintains that God has to allow the existence of some evil in order to preserve human free will (e.g., Alvin Plantinga, Robert Adams). Finally, the soul-making theodicy (SMT) contends that God allows some evil because it builds positive character in the victims or in others which outweighs the negative value of the evil itself (e.g., John Hick).


Read link

Evidential Argument