The Problem of Evil and the Free Will predicament

Aside from the blinding lack of evidence within any and every assertion inducing the supernatural, the problem of evil and suffering is one of the most pronounced stumbling block for most religions. Trying to reconcile the flaws of this world with a supposedly benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being serves to be a profoundly difficult conundrum for theists to satisfactorily resolve.

Of course, Epicurus realised this over 2000 years ago, and expressed it more than sufficiently, too:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?                                                                                                                                                          

As a quick addendum to the above argument, here's a piece from a wikipedia article concerning the problem of evil:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

 The typical theist response usually goes along the lines of free will. For instance, if a god were to remove our capacity for committing evil (or just evil in general) it would thus inhibit our ability to choose to do good, ergo no true free will.

However, I have a number of objections to this.

Firstly, and most importantly, there is no evil in natural suffering, unless of course someone enabled it to happen. If a rockslide crushes a town or a tornado demolishes a living area, there was never any malevolent intention for it to happen. There was no devising or scheming on natures part, there was no underlying motive and there were no decisions made for it to occur. It just happened. Without deliberation. Without purpose.

As you should see, it has nothing to do with free will. It is an entirely unintentional event. It is also entirely preventable and with zero impact on free will. Yet rock slides and other natural disasters occur every day. Why? Does god enjoy watching his lego blocks crumble? Does he not consider it unjust that he is allowing millions to suffer from excruciating agonies and to die mercilessly and unnecessarily because he is, for whatever reason, unwilling to give us a world that doesn't spontaneously erupt every so often? Where is the benevolence in enabling such unnecessary misery?

There is none. If God could prevent such atrocities, and if he doesn't, he is accountable for his inaction which results in the deaths of billions. He is responsible. Designing a world susceptible to such disasters and then inflicting their influence upon his creations by allowing them to happen does not fit well on the resume of an all loving entity.

There are many more questions I could ask. None of which can be thoroughly resolved unless adopting the perspective that there is in fact no god to allow for this to happen in the first place. Well, either that or gods a royal prick.

Secondly, not intervening when someone is suffering from the evil of another individual because you're concerned about their "free will" is not an admirable characteristic. Allowing a child to be abused for the sake of the abusers freedom to do so is NOT acceptable. It is NOT benevolent. It is NOT the right thing to do. I really can't stress that enough.

If I knew of a child that was being physically and sexually abused, would you consider me a good person if my excuse for refusing to take action was: "oh, well I didn't want to take away the free will of the parents, you see. Forcing them to succumb to the law would turn them into robots without any choice of their own. It's better if they choose to do the right thing on their own."? No. Of course you wouldn't. You would cast me, and rightly so, as a despicable person who is just as malignant and pathetic as the parents abusing their child.

Yet, this is not how people view gods position on the issue. People disregard the rights and free will of the actual child being abused in favour of the free will of the abuser by defending this "free will" stance. I sincerely object to this. I find it abhorrent.

Thirdly, is god omniscient and omnipotent? Is it then not reasonable to assume that an all knowing, all powerful individual would be able to create a perfectly harmonised and peaceful world without affecting free will? If not, you'll have to redefine the terms of his omniscience and omnipotence. They seem to be limited.

Lastly, you cannot absolve the creator of responsibility if the creation succumbs to the nature that was originally instilled by the creator. If someone programs a computer to design and propagate viruses and malware, you blame the programmer, not the program. As Lawrence Louis of American Atheists says; "If the creation (i.e human beings) transgresses law established by the creator, it is due to the weakness that was instilled in the creation by the creator. Adam and Eve would not be weak enough to succumb to the temptation of the serpent unless they were created weak."
___

If such a being exists, it is not worthy of praise or rituals. A being who sets up his faulty creations for such horrific suffering and then using this as a basis of judgement is nothing but an over powerful, malicious tyrant. I will not bow to anyone that willingly allows what I see in this world daily to happen. Such a being deserves nothing.