You're thinking on an individual level, presumably a god has all of humanity to think about (at the very least, they probably concern themselves with all things that exist). If the after-life exists, then that child will have undergone a mere lifetime of suffering and then live forever in paradise. In the meantime, meankind on earth has been working to solve the problems of blindness and health care distribution, in the process learning about itself both physically and as a societal entity.
When you think about it, expecting god (or the universe) to invest its full attention in you and your problems is really quite entitled.
But let's suppose you had it your way and there was no suffering anywhere. How would god achieve that? I imagine the only way is to force everyone to do the right thing at all times, thus eliminating the concept of free will, and then what even are we? Who are we to demand both the freedom to act as we wish and freedom from consequences?
I was an atheist for a long time, so I get the whole 'God is a dick' thing, but when you sit down and think about it deeply I think you'll see that it is only true for a particularly disingenuous construct of god.
> You're thinking on an individual level, presumably a god has all of humanity to think about
That's even worse! All those dead children are just a way for the privileged people to understand how good they have it. Be grateful for what scraps I give you and reduce yourself to your insignificance, peasant!
I wonder how much child suffering you've indirectly (or even directly!) contributed to every day? Yet you are so ready to condemn a being who would merely allow said suffering.
Yet you create suffering throughout the world every day. Where were your clothes made? Where was your food grown? From what mines were the metals extracted for the computing device you're using to converse in this very thread?
Nevermind you, though. If we accept that the universe is god's creation, then we accept that the suffering we see is a product of that creation. Consider that this may be unavoidable, and perhaps even necessary. We don't know for what purpose creation exists, do we?
Consider that yes, there are challenges, yes there is suffering, but also that we have the tools to make it better. And yet, even though it is completely within our power to prevent children from being blinded by parasites, we do not. But hey, it's god's fault, right? I suppose that's easier than accepting that we're just not as good as we think we are. Much simpler to point at the sky and say 'oh, there's an omnipotent being who could snap his fingers and end this!', which may even be true, but never ask why it is that being might choose not to even though we ourselves have our reasons for not helping.
>> Yet you create suffering throughout the world every day
I did not create a worm which bores into the eyes of children and blinds them, en masse, and has done so for millions of years. I'm sure my actions have had negative consequences, but I'm not an omnipotent creator, nor am I arguing that I am perfect and benevolent.
> Consider that this may be unavoidable, and perhaps even necessary. We don't know for what purpose creation exists, do we?
It would appear that it exists in order for such a god to torment and destroy its creations. You're making my argument for me there - a god that invents these forms of suffering is clearly not a benevolent god, and may have all sorts of other motives.
>> And yet, even though it is completely within our power to prevent children from being blinded by parasites, we do not. But hey, it's god's fault, right?
The one does not preclude the other - we can be bastards for not fixing it and god can be a bigger bastard for inventing it in the first place and letting it and its kin run rampant for millions of years.
>> I suppose that's easier than accepting
Oh please, this is another line of argument I am absolutely not making "God is awful therefore we are perfect", where did I lead you to think that I was making such a bizarre argument?
I'm not sure what argument you're making. You've invented a version of god that is exactly the being you need it to be to say that it is malevolent. I invite you to consider versions of god that are not, that's all.
> I invite you to consider versions of god that are not, that's all.
You invite me to consider versions of god which are not personal, benevolent, caring gods.
That's fine, but this argument is precisely about such gods, the gods that people try to sell us in mainstream religions, and how reality precludes them.
I don't believe any of those qualities need be eschewed. Personal just means thinking of god as a person, benevolent meaning that they generally have good intent, and caring meaning they actually give a damn about our wellbeing.
All of these things can be true and yet still produce the conditions we observe. For instance, god could be flawed or not have complete control over their creation, or the purpose for their creation necessitates that a certain amount of suffering occur. Consider that parents could prevent their children, whom they love, from being injured or emotionally harmed, and yet they do not for a wide variety of reasons. In fact, they inflict a certain amount of suffering on their own child under the belief that it is necessary to reduce suffering in the future.
No, it means one that is interested in and has a relationship with the individual.
> For instance, god could be flawed or not have complete control over their creation,
Then they are not omnipotent, something we are usually told that montheistic gods are.
> Consider that parents could prevent their children, whom they love, from being injured or emotionally harmed, and yet they do not
Frickin eyeball worms.
I give up at this point, AFAICT you're just being obtuse for the sake of it.
A person that invented and released something that blinded children, causing agony as it did so would be considered evil. Hands down. It would be no defence whatsoever were they to say afterwards "You're not seeing the bigger picture! I'm helping humanity to help itself!". I'm not really aware of any moral code that would say "Oh that's OK" outside of some freakish eugenics mindset or maybe the actual Nazis. I'm not sure why you think a creator god should be allowed to do the same and still be considered "benevolent".
You're being stubborn, clinging to a singular notion of what god is in order to label it as malevolent. Of course the god you envision is malevolent, because that's how you designed it!
Sorry, no, that's repellant.