Matt Dawg got hit in the head and stumbled to the keyboardand managed to type out:
"The reason for suffering may be inscrutable but that does not mean it is gratuitous. Frankly, if God were indeed doing "nothing" this world would be in far worse shape than it is. And there would be far more suffering. To catagorically state that God is doing nothing or that there is no higher reason for something one would have to be God. Again, limiting a transcnending God to the here and now only hinders ones' ability to understand."
I did not categorically state that God is doing nothing for every example that could be given. What I did say is that in the example of the river blindness disease, a problem which God directly caused (if you believe in creation) God has done nothing.
The religionists claim to know god, I am asking them for what the reasons might be.
To be frank Matt, most of what you say is complete jibberish, you string together complex sounding ideas to impress.
This kind of 'we can't understand anything" philosophizing is a complete waste of time and shows that your agenda is to impress with big words but not to actually discuss the issue that has been posed.