Who lets the children suffer?
God. By stating that God lets the children suffer I am not stating my BELIEF that God allows children to suffer. I am assuming a belief in God to propose an argumentative opposition to the original premise of the popular contemporary theistic approach to the evidential problem of evil. How else can one argue against theism? If person C believes xy, and when opposed states only x, person A must assume belief in xy to point out the flaw of belief y. Comprende? I can not point out any flaws in belief, or propose any contradictory ideas if I do not assume the belief.
1.Do I believe there is a God? No.
2.Do you? Yes.
3.Do children suffer throughout the world? Yes.
4.Is God all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good in modern Judeo-Christian beliefs, and as stated in the Bible? Yes.
5.Do children suffer? Yes.
6. Assuming your beliefs, if God exists is he doing anything to put an immediate end to the pain and suffering of said children? (without using human beings' generosity, which, obviously, doesn't help everything because children still suffer) No.
7.Assuming position 6, is God perfectly good, all powerful and all knowing? No, that is a logical contradiction.
8. Assuming position 7, does the modern Judeo-Christian God, and the God of the Holy Bible exist? No, or at least not in the way that he is described, for instance, he could be morally imperfect.
9. Are millions of people believing blindly in a God that is highly impossible? Yes.
10. Again, am I one of those who believe in God? No, because I just utilized your belief to show you logical fallacy does not mean I believe it.
If I am arguing against abortion, what would I utilize to argue? Maybe a couple of facts, but mostly I would use something along the lines of, "but if abortion was x then that means that abortion is y." or something along those lines. By using instances and occasions that could happen in the action of abortion, does that mean I believe that abortion is morally sound, or ethically unchallenged? Of course not.
Now you see why the non believers continually say, on this thread, that you haven't given us an answer? Because you're busy arguing about something as pointless as how I'm arguing against the belief in God. How many people, when arguing against evolution, utilize the view of something like evolutionary morality to argue AGAINST it? MANY PEOPLE. It's how you ARGUE. Can you even give me another way to disprove something without assuming it's true originally? It's not that hard to understand N.drew.
What does the way I argue a point have anything to do with anything? NOTHING. AT ALL. It's another way you subconsciously sidetrack the entire conversation by use of convenient semantics which you find some argumentative importance or value in something that is completely pointless. What do you gain by asking such a question? Hmmm? What do you know, now that I've answered your question? NOTHING. Just a bunch of wasted time for something that you ALREADY knew.