Ever wondered what food is for?
Food is energy ,you can't live with out it
every thing you do ,all the processes in you body demands it.
you can't be a highly functional organism with out food.

You can be a plant than, a low energy demanding creature.
What would you when need to survive?
Light?
In what case plants with a bigger leaves will take your sunlight
Water?
Others will have longer roots.
You can not exist in that case no suffering.

I guess imagining another alternative was too hard.

Why didnt God create a nature that does work that way? Are you of the opinion that suffering is necessary and it's not possible for God to tone it down even slightly?

Here's my formal stab at this:

1. If there is good and evil in the world, then (a) an all-good God created the world, possibly, AND (b) an all-evil God created the world, possibly.
2. If (a) an all-good God created the world, possibly, AND (b) an all-evil God created the world, possibly, then (c) there is good in the world created by an all-evil God, AND (d) there is evil in the world created by an all-good God.
3. There is good and evil in the world.
4. Therefore, (c) there is good in a world created by an all-evil God, AND (d) there is evil in a world created by an all-good God.
   
   
5. If (e) evil is the deprivation of something, AND (f) good is the creation of something, then (g) an all-evil God cannot create something, necessarily, AND (h) an all-good God cannot deprive something, necessarily.
6. If an all-evil God cannot create something, necessarily, AND an all-good God cannot deprive something, necessarily, then (i) an all-evil God cannot create the world, necessarily, AND (j) an all-good God cannot deprive the world, necessarily.
7. (e) Evil is the deprivation of something, AND (f) good is the creation of something.
8. Therefore, (i) an all-evil God cannot create the world, necessarily, AND (j) an all-good God cannot deprive the world, necessarily.
   
   
9. If (i) an all-evil God cannot create the world, necessarily, then (c') there is good in the world created by an all-evil God, is not possible.
10. (i) an all-evil God cannot create the world, necessarily.
11. Therefore, (c') there is good in the world created by an all-evil God, is not possible.
    
    
12. If (j) an all-good God cannot deprive the world, necessarily, then (d) there is evil in the world created by an all-good God, possibly.
13. (j) an all-good God cannot deprive the world, necessarily.
14. Therefore, (d) there is evil in the world created by an all-good God, possibly.

I'll have to look at that more closely but I don't see evil as the deprivation of something. I see evil and good on a continuum.

Fine, somewhere out there in space is a bacteria colony that live take light directly from the star and the minerals from space,it live in perfect equilibrium all of it cells gets the resources they need ,and it instinctive knows as soon one cells dies from helium poisoning to create anther one total identical,it never heard of survival of the fittest,or evolution,because it is completely irrelevant to her existence it just is orbit the star never evolving or changing,for ever ,wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

If you accept that nature as we know work in "survivor of the fittest"
when you must come to a conclusion that those who are not the fittest suffer.
but suffering and pain are not necessary evil or bad
it nature's way of say
"hey buddy what ever you doing now is not working /dangerous,you need to change that"
the child in Africa going to die miserably cause he can't get food.
but millions of others will get up in the morning go to work,produce a crap load of iphones.get paid ,buy food so they wouldn't get to that kid position,live on ,spore anther wave of offsrings and so on.
Also you asking why "nature isn't moral"
You need to understand that morality in my opinion is a product of how human being want to be treated by other human beings,be kind to your family
don't steal, don't kill,don't cheat on the exams ,don't bribe a judge ,sleep with you best friend girl and so on.
Human society hierarchy.
Nature doesn't care about any of it.
In fact it kinda weird of asking nature to be moralistic.

As for why God created nature the way it is,i can cheat a little and say to get conscious life,but it really just to point to obvious and to say "hey you see this ,this is what he wanted all the long"
i don't know what he want maybe he enjoys fire works and waiting for us to nuke ourself into oblivion.

As for you question is there too much suffering in the world and could have God made more easy for us?
I don't know what is he aiming for but as far i can see life isn't that tough.
and if ever gonna get that tough,i still enjoyed the ride.

Agreed. Duffe, you have a very strange definition of evil IMO.

IMO, good and evil can be defined as relative, or evil can be defined as the absence/deprivation of good. I think either position is as valid as the other and it's more a matter of belief, opinion or worldviews, than logical necessity.

I don't see how you can define evil simply as the absence of good. Rape is not evil because it is lacking in goodness, it is evil because it is vicious harm being caused upon another person.

Sure. Yahweh is an old-school tribal God. Since it did not originally have any claims for "universality", it is only normal that it acts in extremely parochial and meaningless ways (it is a "jealous" God for example, it has a "preferred chosen people" etc.). All of the old pagan Gods were essentially like that.

The problem began when a moron (i.e Paul of Tarsus) decided to create a universal God (i.e the Christian God) out of that local, tribal, and frankly speaking irrelevant, God named Yahweh.

As Nietzsche once wrote, the Gods were once having a feast, one of them suddenly shouted "I am the only God, there is no God other than me!" All of the other Gods laughed and they died, of laughing.

Translation: You can keep your tribal God and obey him out of a political sense. If you try to create a "morality" out of this blind obedience or if you try to "universalize" your tribal God, there will be insurmountable problems.

A huge earthquake happens in a world created by a God and millions of humans and animals die in great suffering and pain.

Now tell me what is relative about that. Are the movements of earth's crust good? Are they evil? Are they partly good and partly evil. The real answer is: It does not matter in the least: The end result of such natural and morally neutral movements is an earthquake killing millions of innocent lives. Suffering and pain is real.

If such meaningless pain and suffering is ultimately engineered by a God (by natural laws created by him etc.), then this God is, at least partly, evil.

Your definition of evil as absence of good does not make one iota of sense. They are both "real," only existing at the opposite ends of a moral spectrum.

At best you're incredibly naive, and that’s the polite way of putting it.

I'm talking causation/motivation; you're shifting to adjudication. If the rapist had more goodness then there would be no rape. It was the lack of or deprivation of goodness in the rapist that caused the rape.

What about neutral actions such as picking up a pencil. That doesn't have any good in it, which by your definition would make it evil?

If you defined "naturally" in such a way that the universe formed naturally by definition, then whether the universe formed naturally (according to your definition) would of course not be in dispute and I would agree, though this would have little bearing on what is discussed in RGT, where we use a (roughly) scientific definition, since one is available.

Likewise, if I define "good" as being whatever God wants, calls good or similar, then God being good (according to my definition) is an obvious and settled matter. However, if you define "good" in some other way, then whether God agrees with your definition or not could still be in dispute and the so-called "problem of evil" might exist for you.

You don't look like you get it. There is no "but wait" happening here. Whatever God does being "good" by definition does not make the same act "good" when just anyone does it. The "good" attaches to God, not the act itself categorically.

Back to the definitions: Good means to do what God wills. Evil means to go against the will of God.

If God tells you not to do something, that makes it evil for you, not God, to do it.

Fine ,I'll give you a serious answer, i view life as gift ,accept it for it is ,and have not expectations from it.

Other that saying I don't know what goes into creating immortal souls, I don't have much of an answer, and granted, that's not much of an answer either. That's an issue for the believers of various faiths to grapple with, more so for the intervening God, less so for the emanating God.

I bet you wouldn't feel that way if you were one of the starving African kids.

concerto,

what about times where god orders a person to do something that if he were to do it on his own it would be evil...does it become good when god orders it?

kill a tribe, take the womens etc...

Of course. The definitions again:

Good means to do what God wills. Evil means to go against the will of God.

Nope, i doubt i would live that long to come to this realization.

This is a serious question, not meant to offend you in any way...English isn't your first language, is it?

No, English isn't my first language.
But you missing my point,
Millions of people in our world had a full life and comfortably dying in their bed out of old age.
I stand by my point that life isn't that tough.
The kids that are dying in Africa are tragic,but it is immoral only if you judge God by "human" standards as "why didn't you help that starving kid?"
Instead of the system he use to create this life,uncaring nature.

is this an objective morality? seems like acts have no inherit goodness or badness, since god can make the same act good or bad depending on his changing will...

• The Bible says that God made manna fall from heaven to feed the Israelites. "Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you."
  
• The Bible says that Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding because his mother asked him to.
  
• The Bible says that Jesus fed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes.
  
• The Bible says that Jesus healed the sick.

Were those special promotions, only for the first 50 people who called the toll-free number?

Or were they ...