That was never a problem for me as a believer. I reasoned that God was the ultimate filmmaker. Traditionally, most stories have a moral to teach. Even today, filmmakers often see the craft as a means of conveying a lesson, or insight into human nature that can contribute in some positive way to society at large.

If a teacher or storyteller happened to be powerful enough to create an entire universe and life itself, he would, I reasoned, surely be able to create one so convincing that anything other than total suspension of disbelief in it would be virtually impossible. We lowly humans can even come awfully close in the medium of cinema. Who has not shed a tear or been frightened witless for a moment in the darkened room we call theatre, but then drove home physically unharmed afterward? Still we know that some movies (books, etc.) have the power to alter the course of our lives in subtle, or not so subtle, ways.

A perfect and loving and all-powerful God could easily create a convincingly real world for the purpose of our spiritual tutelage, after which we all drive home unharmed and deeply relieved that all the suffering was only imaginary, even though we retain the lessons.

The Problem of Evil (which I prefer to call the Problem of Suffering) is a very powerful logical conundrum for believers, and their inability to construct a theodicy to counter it, is telling.

However ... most believers are not concerned with logic.

There are a vast number of arguments against the bible. That book can be shown to be:-

• Internally inconsistent (in many ways)

• In direct contradiction of testable fact (in even more ways)

Basically the bible is directly refutable - and the bible is the only 'evidence' of god.

It is an argument that some people like, but it is not the strongest. However I think that in the modern world most people are ready to accept the idea of the weight of evidence, and it certainly adds a little to that.

No.. because I think it usually devolves quickly into "god works in mysterious ways"..
You can't argue faith with facts..

Not necessary.

The burden of proof (there is a god) rests on the theists.

My position atheist a (not) theist = (not a theist) is I do not accept the positive assertion that a god exists as this claim has yet to be demonstrated.

There is no god, god only exists in man’s imagination. No evidence exists to prove that there is a god, nor ever has. Evil as an entity is a religious construct...there is only good and bad, evil can only be used as an adjective to describe something that is very bad. If we just used bad, or heinous or any other synonym instead of evil, then this idea that Evil is somehow different from other words wouldn’t arise. It is completely nonsensical to even try to begin to make sense of any of the contradictory attributes that the religious try to pin on their god. God of love and vengeance, god who loves the meek but piles misery on the meekest by sending pestilence and famine, natural disasters and drought to them! And all of this is just explained away quite simplistically by the religious when they say. “Ah, but only god knows his plan for us”! He has a plan? Then he must be a master sadist , and his plan is to see how much suffering man can take before rejecting him....!

Atheists don't need proof against god and theists don't accept this as proof. Find something that swings theists and I'll pay attention.

Epicurus: "God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?"

I think it is a quite good case against a "loving" god and therefore against a Christian god but it doesn't rule out other deities. I think it played a big part in me not becoming religious. The usual reply you hear is that "god works in mysterious ways" or "who are we to question gods decision", which is nonsense, of course. I don't know how effective this line of reasoning is but different people respond to different approaches, so keep using it.
PS: I wouldn't use the word 'proof' because it isn't one and you shouldn't give religious people a way out of the argument by shifting the focus on how you can also not proof that there is no god.

I think that the problem of evil is one of the proofs against all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing Christian God. I have heard a few unconvincing apologetics about it. But there are so many other problems with the religion, I no longer bother about it. Why would this be any more problematic than all other logical inconsistencies in the Bible? I understand that it has the benefit of apparent logical implacability.

It isn't however a proof against malignant or apathetic god. But if Christian God does exist, there is so much evidence that "proves" that He is either malignant or apathetic, rather than all-loving. As an antagonist, God is a bit of an interesting and complex character.

I am A-theist and I do not need any "proof" against what does not exist. Evil is just a human condition by nature of how humans are.

If evil is not perfect and evil is not good, then you can't have an absolutely perfect and absolutely good creator god creating things that are evil, result in evil, or choose evil in any way. Even worse, you can't have an absolutely perfect and absolutely good god as the source of EVERYTHING when imperfect things, and evil things, exist. Apologists try to get around this with free will, but that defense brings with it a whole host of new problems. Does god have free will? If so, how can an absolutely good and perfect god choose to make things that are evil, imperfect, or result in evil or imperfections in any way (even by free will?). Moreover, why can't we have free will and never chose evil? In addition, theists often argue that we can't have any conclusive evidence of god because we need free will to have faith without evidence. And yet Satan had conclusive evidence of god, and the free will to reject him anyway.
...
If you take the first cause argument seriously, and you claim god is absolutely good and perfect (and claim god IS the first cause), you can't have absolutely good and perfect things causing IN ANY WAY something that is evil or imperfect. Going on and on about original sin and free will doesn't solve this problem, and in fact makes it worse in many ways.