This is an issue which I for very long had no intention whatsoever of dealing with, because it is so complicated and (more importantly) because it is represented by people on either side who love to spend their precious time shin-kicking and name-calling. (Christopher Hitchens, you are guilty of this.)
What does faith in God require? I would say : the burden of proof is on the theists because they assert the larger number of required entities. I believe Occam's razor applies here because it is the only reasonable attitude an entity in our bewildering position can take - an existence we have no explanation for. We understand aspects of this existence, but know nothing of causes or explanations. Hence, it is one thing to assert that there must be a creator (which can reasonably be supposed to be the simplest explanation) and totally another to assert that it is a specific Creator who was specifically involved in our history. Christians especially have a lot to prove - specifically, they must prove that belief in their God is an attitude compatible with being a rational human being.
The clarifications for this discussion: First, that any theistic argument must prove that faith is compatible with rationality, because this is a rational discussion. If the discussion leads to the conclusion that faith and rationality are incompatible, then it shall follow that faith necessitates a non-rational world view and hence is outside the realm of discussion.
Second, that the argument here is specifically about the Christian God and not a creator-figure in general and hence to prove that a belief in a God that is all-powerful, all-good, and who came down to Earth as Jesus Christ is not incompatible with a rational world view i.e. principles for action derived from logical deduction and induction.
The first subject of discussion is the problem of pain. There is an agreed-upon standard for good (1)- including but not limited to health, absence of needless pain, presence of pleasure, and the presence of such conditions for as many people as possible. This view is utilitarian but seems to be the underlying assumption many people make when discussing the problem of pain. It means that actions which cause pain without ensuing benefit are to be judged as not Good, and any situation in which people are in needless suffering is to be judged as not Good. There is another standard for Good often propounded by Christians which is to be defined as spiritual well-being - closeness to God, absence of sin, presence of virtue, and perhaps importantly in theology, the presence of free will which chooses the above mentioned qualities. (2) Evil is to be defined as the lack of these characteristics. (3)
The problem of pain goes as such: The hypothesis of a benevolent creator who is all-powerful cannot be accepted due to the prevalence of pain and suffering in the world. A creator who is benevolent would do all in his power to alleviate suffering and hence cause Good by definition (1). Hence, the existence of suffering (not Good) means the creator cannot be all-powerful or cannot be benevolent.
The rebuttal to this argument takes a few forms. First, that suffering in the present may be justified by future Good that we are unaware of or incapable of understanding. Hence, the supposed Evil in the world does not exist.
Second, that Good cannot be experienced without the possibility for the opposite, and that the possibility of evil was created along with Good. Third, that suffering (not Good by definition (1)) exists to create Good by definition (2), which is to lead people to repent and to lead virtuous lives.
My first point is that accepting definition (2) of Good invalidates the premise, or at least compromises it. If we accept that only definiton (2) of Good is true, then the Evil accepted in the premise does not exist because disasters, starvation and suffering are not considered Evil - a person may be starving but still be close to God, for example. Which is not to say that the lack of Good does not exist at all, for there are surely plenty of spiritually poor people. A quibble - on to the argument.
My second point is is that the second rebuttal is incompatible with an all-powerful God. It supposes constraint on his Creation - that he had to create the possibility for evil in order to accomodate Good, even if he did not create evil. I actually agree that it is logical for a creator to have done this if what he wanted was human beings capable of Good. But this creates difficulty with the Christian God because it supposes Him subordinate to logic. The Christian God must be all-powerful and unknowable by human reason - and if He is subordinate to our logic then we must know, by virtue of knowing His constraints, Him.
My third point deals with the third rebuttal. In this case I believe the Christians are guilty of inexcusable definition-switching. Either Good exists or it doesn't, and either definition (1) or definition (2) are true, but not both, since it is a logical impossibility for a starving person who is nonetheless devout to be in a state of both Good and Evil. Either his devoutness and closeness to God confirms his situation is Good, or his suffering confirms his situation is Evil by our definition (3).
Their argument goes like this: If Evil exists to ensure Good (2) then the overall situation is Good because it results in Good and hence our God can be all-good and all-powerful and yet allow Evil.
Yet the premise 'Evil exists' is predicated on definition (1), which I have proven is incompatible with definition (2). So either we take definition (2) consistently, which raises the issue 'why are there un-devout, unholy people?' and also makes the argument sound like this:
'Un-devout, sinful people exist to make other people repent and become closer to God'. Which may be logical in some way but is hardly what the Christians seem to be arguing since all people, by their doctrine, exist to be close to God.
If we take definition (1) consistently, which means there is no Good done by suffering and hence the Christian God is rendered yet again incompatible.
Another thing which is problematic is that accepting rebuttal (3) in any form means that we no longer have any moral impetus to alleviate physical suffering, as it is no longer considered an Evil by definition (2). As most Christians accept the view that it is Good to help the suffering, this is an inconsistency that must be addressed.
Not finished but maybe i'll continue this sometime!
