THIS was the point that began this discussion - a point that has been haplessly ignored by the believers who have posted, while continuously brought back to the board by non-theists here.
With the death of millions of kids from starvation each year do we not have to honestly conclude that one of the following is true regarding God -?
1- God is evil.
2- God cannot or will not hear and answer prayers.
3- An omnipotent god simply does not exist."
To address the first one:
1- God is evil.
IF you premise that God cannot be evil - then we must move to premise 2 or 3. IF you agree that God is evil, then we can stop here, declare that good people would never desire to worship an evil god and be done with religion/faith/worship based on principles.
The second:
2- God cannot or will not hear and answer prayers.
It cannot be argued that millions [perhaps billions] of good hearted people pray often, perhaps daily, even hourly in some cases for the situation that causes millions of kids to die from hunger every year to be resolved so that such does not continue. They clearly pray with the assumption that such could be resolved by god if he chooses. It could be that they misunderstand god, having incorrectly categorized him as 'loving'. Or it could be that he does not hear prayers. Or it could be that his answer is a simple 'no'.
So it follows, that since believers have discounted the first premise [God cannot be evil in their opinion], that if he is indeed god, he cannot or does not desire to hear prayers and answer them regarding these millions of starving children. If you find a way to justify this ignorance of prayer, or the ignoring of the pain and suffering of all these children, then you have agreed to this premise. [Although agreement with this premise might sound like a way out for believers, it isn't really. For only a monster would hear prayers and not act if he had the capacity to act.]
Which leaves only number three:
3- An omnipotent god simply does not exist.
NO further discussion required unless you can discount the result. Much of what has been offered by the believers here has been ad hoc hypothesis, seeking to shift the onus of proof toward those who accept only that which is already proven to have at least a substantive foundation. This discussion can only arrive at one of the above conclusions unless substance is provided that other alternatives are possible or likely.
Still, the burden of proof must rest with those who seek to defend invisible persons doing invisible things that are understood only by those who believe in the invisible person doing those things. That would be true, even if substantial 'evidence' were brought to bear, be it circumstantial. Yet, no such evidence has been brought to bear except in the form of opinion, faith, or suggestion.
To succumb to such irrational conclusions is the height of circularity [and I might add presumption].
If such could be demonstrated [let's say a particular boy was prayed for in all the world and his body strengthened, his ribs receded, his pale skin gained luster, and his starvation immediately subsided] that would still only be anecdotal. But if such evidence existed, then perhaps it would give way to double blind studies that showed that god could and does reverse the potential death of victims of starvation and famine.
But none of the above has been demonstrated - nor do I suppose it could be. Since the only means of reversal of starvation is to provide food, and only man has ever done so, it cannot be demonstrated that God ever did so - except in myths and legend and application of supernatural explanations to things that can be explained otherwise.
Still, the magnitude of the problem, millions starving every year for decade after decade, is much larger than any anecdotal solution, even if one could be proven. And hence the value of using such a basis for determination of the existence [or not] of god. For in spite of the continuous claims that it is mans' fault that these children are starving - not god's fault - this does not relieve the above premises. Still, one of them is correct. If you accept that this is man's problem - but there is a god who has handed it to man - then you accept premise #2. God simply ignores the prayers of the faithful who ask him to relieve the earth of starving children - or doesn't hear those prayers.
I maintain that acceptance of premise #2 is far worse than #1 or #3. For acceptance of #1 means that God is evil. So, we run from evil, we do not embrace it. #3 means that God is non-existent. God is not to blame, but just isn't here. But number 2 means that he does exist, but either can't or won't act. And who wants to worship an impotent God, or far worse a malevolent God of that sort? And yet, are not believers forced to accept premise 2? It appears so. They cannot dare acceptance of the other two, so they must embrace a monster, and accept congnitive dissonance as forever companion in order to excuse it.
Jeff