Just got to point out sullas argument from the last page. In particular the explanation that if god prevented suffering --as in stopping a rape-- that would somehow open god up to the awfull possibility someone will ask him to iron his shirt; and god, apparently not the kind of guy who capable of taking things on a case-by-case basis, view it as two options:
1) prevent rapes, potentially iron shirts.
2) allow rape, do not iron shirt.
And option two is apparently the better.
I've thought you to be so much better than this, bohm. Perhaps you really are better than this and are just making a bad-faith argument. In any case, it should be obvious that a Cofty-style argument -- there exists suffering that a kind and omnipotent God could prevent and does not, therefore a kind and omnipotent God does not exist -- really does unravel itself to the argument that there exists inconvenience that a kind and omnipotent God could prevent ...
In other words, and since Cofty wants to suppose we have a pain-o-meter, we might be able to rank many types of suffering on a scale from worst to least. Mutilation is worse than rape, but rape plus mutilation is worse than mutilation alone but sexual mutilation is worse than eyeball mutilation unless you need your eyeballs to work in which case it's roughly equal. Or something. And on our scale, my wrinkled shirt is clearly very close to the bottom of the suffering scale.
But that's not Cofty's point. His point is that the scale does not read zero. So long as there is one goddam wrinkled shirt in the goddam universe, Cofty's scale will be stubbornly stuck at some positive number, making his point that a kind and omnipotent God must not exist.
My response doesn't minimize the real questions of suffering, but it does minimize the hollow syllogism Cofty is attempting. Indeed, the only answer that is useful is the one that goes back to the story of the Temptation. The Devil taunts Jesus with Cofty's argument: If you're God, feed the hungry people. All of 'em. And the answer then is the same one now: that's not what's wrong with us. Suffering is the symptom of a much more profound disease. The more profound disease does not have the sort of quick fix that, say, turning stones into bread can achieve.
But, were you to engage that line of thought, you would be agruing in good faith. And it's more fun to shout, "Fail!" So, given those options...