I would just like to clear a few things up, this first of which being that God cannot be proven through science, simply because of the nature of what God is. To suggest otherwise displays a flawed understanding of God. To explain this, I will need to make a qualifying statement on the nature of God. Now, there are rational* proofs for God, the one I will be using here is "the Unmoved Mover". Now, I'll assume that we all agree that the universe, all physical matter. or more simply, time and space initiated with the "big bang". This would mean that everything that is physical and exists within time began in that moment. Now, how could something that exists within time and space initiate time and space? I'm assuming that we all accept that nothing moves unless acted on by an outside force. So, if time and space were to be set in motion (the big bang), then something that was not physical, and did not exist within time must necessarily* have moved them. An unmoved mover. Something that was capable of tipping the first domino, without being a domino itself, and without anything else acting upon it. The Unmoved Mover is what Catholics recognize as God.
Now, if we accept this definition of God, we can see why it is silly to claim that since there is no scientific* proof for God, He must not exist. That argument may apply to Zeus, but not God. Next, I would like to address the claim I read earlier that God would not allow suffering, and should -with his infinite power- mind control everyone to be perfect, or something along those lines.
Now, if we accept that God is perfect, we cannot claim that he should eliminate suffering from the world. Suffering is the result of free will. God gave us free will so that we could choose* to love him. This is important to understand. If someone were told to say they loved you with a gun pointed at their head, and under the threat to be killed if they did not comply, would that statement of love for you mean as much as if they had chosen to say they loved you willingly? God gave us free will so that we might choose* to love him, as freely choosing makes it a higher form of love. Now that this is understood, the presence of suffering in the world may be addressed. If God gave us the power to choose to love him, then we must be able to reject him as well, otherwise we wouldn't have free will now would we? When we choose to love other things more than God, suffering is brought into the world. God gave us free will, which is intrinsically good, when used for its proper purpose: loving God. It is through our own actions that we corrupt its purpose and hurt ourselves and those around us. To add another point, if God is perfect and gave us free will, then if he had to go back and utilize control over us, wouldn't it imply that he had made a mistake? To suggest that a perfect being would contradict itself is to misunderstand a perfect being. Lastly, i would like to address the nature of good and evil.
I'm just going to jump to the point, as this is too long already. Evil is the absence of good, just like cold is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light. Evil is "present" when an object or an action lacks some good that it should have had. Now, what is good? Good is that which fulfills its purpose.For example, a spoon with a gaping hole in it would not be a good spoon, as you couldn't use it as a spoon. The next logical question to ask then is what is something's purpose? Something's purpose is to do that which makes it unique. A spoon is a spoon because it scoops liquid to be placed into the mouth. Nothing else does this. Let's not get into arguing on the different types of spoons, their matter is different, but their form is the same. So good is that which fulfills its purpose, and evil is the absence of good. Now we can backtrack to the free will argument for suffering. If free will's purpose is for loving God, then when we choose to love other things more than God (such as ourselves, money, etc.) then we're not using free will for it's purpose, and evil is a necessary consequence of that.
Now, I'm afraid I've grown tired of typing, and have attempted to explain a topic that books have been written on in a few paragraphs. Please feel free to peruse my line of reasoning, and take careful notice of the fact that I never once cited the Bible as a means of knowing God. I hope your perspective has been broadened in the pst few minutes you spent reading, and I hope you have a nice day
