Your assumption is that you know what's good and what's bad.
As a race we are gregarious. We depend on others and others depend on us. Early humans had to co-operate as a team in order to hunt. To make that work, there have to be certain rules and social norms.
Murder isn't one of them. It's wrong.
Would you have been better off as an adult who endured no suffering, no pain at all, in their younger years?
If I was a child who'd been beaten by rotten parents it might have scarred me for life. Would that have made me a better person? Who know?
An omnipotent entity could prevent it. But it happens.
Yes, for reasons you or I may never understand.
Or because no such entity exists? Then we wouldn't need reasons.
And some people are bad people. Either by nature or nurture. Now, if we were made in god's image.....I'm sure you get the drift.
That's right, free will came with that image. In part, we chose evil.
Free will is an interesting point. An omniscient being would know what you are going to do before you did it. In fact, with the omniscience, that being would know what you are going to do before you even existed. So you can't surprise god. That doesn't sit comfortable with the notion of free will.
Some people are just bad.
The explanation that fits with all this is that there is no omnipotent entity.
Or that there is.
That there isn't fits better.
That then removes any need to explain or understand what appears to be contradictory or conflicting information.
Occam's razor, if you like.
The only way we have contradiction is if we blindly accept that your assumptions are true—that suffering is bad,
I see no up side to 16,000 children dying every day from starvation no matter how it is painted.
Better that they weren't born in the first place.
I don't. I can't state that such an entity doesn't exist. No more than I can the FSM
Actually, you can, but with less than a desirable amount of confidence.
OK. I should have said that I can't state with certainty.....
You’re confident that dinner will be excellent based on experience that, while unproven, is good enough for you.
The same can be said of the faithful and their experiences.
I did say that either of my expectations could be wrong. I wasn't claiming proof.
And we do have some things aren't always as good as others. The battered and fried aubergine slices didn't get a hugely great review.
Would an omnipotent being, if such existed, get it wrong now and again.
Do you see that it isn't a like for like parallel?
You're still not with me on this and I don't mean that unkindly.
No, I’m not, and I say that as a trained and experienced scientist.
Yet you make assumptions about my assumptions?