the problem of evil revisited

We have covered the problem of evil here many times. What I find mind boggling is why theists keep repeating the same arguments to excuse their imaginary make-believe world, a world where gods exist and these gods love them. It is to misunderstand an argument to think of it as a trap as this apologist writes.

Her first excuse is to attempt to convince us that

A morally good being prevents all the evil that he has the power and opportunity to prevent.

is a flawed premise. To bolster their case, they use an analogy of a surgeon. This unfortunately doesn’t help their case. In the case of the surgeon, we all know they don’t claim perfect goodness and they are working with the knowledge available to them at that point. This is not true of their supposed god which they claim apart from being infinitely good is all-knowing. To believe that a perfectly good god would let any evil come to creatures it loves to get some good is abhorrent to logic. Such a being if it were to exist, wouldn’t be infinitely good.

I think a person who writes

They assume that evil is not necessary and it in fact is not necessary. However because we have free will, we choose to do right and wrong

has lost touch with reality. Good and evil are necessary in a naturalistic world where there is strife between organisms of the same species or different species. In a world governed by an omnipotent god, even with freewill, we would expect an all good god to make its creatures to always choose between differing degrees of good, like between hot chocolate and hot coffee. These same people who excuse god for such gross failures would be the first to condemn their neighbours to jail for an infraction, whatever it is. They are however willing to bend backwards all the way to excuse their god. I don’t know who is powerless; their god or themselves.

To absolve god, based on the freewill theodicy is, too me, also not well thought out. If the theist holds to the claim that god made humans and nothing happens without god allowing it, or without his knowledge, it is careless to say god is not culpable in the commission of the mistakes/ crimes. The theist must show that god did not create humans as they are with the capability for great error or good before they can absolve god for the good or bad that man does.

The last argument that without god life would be meaningless is itself lame. How does belief in a god give life any meaning? Why does the theist who believes in god and its love be miserable?