Bigotry

I don't understand bigotry. I figure it is an inherited genetic trait and the bigot has no choice but be a bigot. Education doesn't seem to help; they just rationalize and go to web sites produced by other bigots for reinforcement.

Skepticism about God

Skepticism (non-belief without evidence) of anything important is the default.  It is the burden of those who assert God to prove there is one.  Otherwise non-belief is the only rational way to go.

I don't think there is a God because of the massive amount of suffering in the world, and because assertions about him lead to self-referential contradictions (if you don't know what I''m talking about here then your belief is indeed shallow and based on sand).

However, as I said, is someone asserts something important, they have the burden of proof.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

By the way, I would not demand proof of God, just good evidence and an explanation of the problems with his existence I mentioned above.

Evil atheists

That Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were Communists we know, and therefore they were atheists. I'm sorry if it is so that not all atheists are moral saints.

It is true that they were also politicians, and did allow a certain amount of religious freedom (in fact a good deal more than Western propaganda likes to say) but this was all for pragmatic reasons. They were and repeatedly said they were atheists.

I am an atheist too -- in the "hard" sense that not only do I not believe in any gods, but that I am as convinced as it is possible to be that there is none. Okay? Do I lose my credentials just because I tell the truth about atheism? Were the whole world atheist, the world would be no better than it is. There would be other frauds and superstitions and so on. In fact we see more and more of this as religion fades out in countries like the States.

Moral or ethical standards (goodness versus evil) are not related in any way I can see to belief about God. Just as it is stupid for theists to claim that their belief makes them more moral, it is also stupid for atheists to say that their non-belief does.

Why Mars is small

Yes the Martian atmosphere was stripped by the solar wind, which was a consequence of the planet not being large enough to keep its interior from cooling off, which caused it to not have a magnetic field, which allowed the solar wind to hit the planet directly. I'm sure you know all this: I just clarify for general benefit.

The theory seems to be that Jupiter and Saturn did a little dance early on, preventing Mars from reaching proper size and preventing the formation of a planet where the asteroids are. Bode's Law is largely thought now to be just coincidence, but I suspect the scientists have jumped the gun a bit, since the idea that the planets would space themselves, all else being equal (which in most cases it probably is not) makes sense.

The universe's purpose

 I don't think the universe has a purpose. It just is as a result of natural processes; we just are for the same reason.

I look at all the "wasted" space in the universe -- not just the vast distances in space, but the immense void that is the typical atom, and another that is the typical nucleus (if the nucleus were the size of the solar system, the "particles" in it would be no bigger than a few asteroids, if even that (they may be dimensionless points). Why does the universe waste all that space? It doesn't need a "reason" for what it does, it just does what it does.

If we need purpose in our lives, we have to provide it. This I think we can do without going too deep (go too deep and you defeat yourself).

Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process

There was a time when the President nominated and the Senate restricted its review to the nominee's qualifications and judicial experience.  Now it is how they will vote on issues.  Of course a nominee cannot answer such a question, but they still try to find out.  America is going downhill into a political morass.

I think provided the nominee is qualified and excellent, the nomination should go through without a political storm.  I suspect the American people may punish a Senate and a party that is seen to do otherwise.  I would hope they would.

A possible reason "they" may not be out there

I think the most common event to happen to life is for it to be wiped out within a few million years of its beginning. We have the moon stabilizing our orbit, we have our magnetic field. protecting our atmosphere (which is probably why any life on Mars met its doom). we have been lucky to not have volcanic episodes like the one that resurfaced Venus a quarter billion years ago, and have been lucky that colliding objects have been not quite big enough to sterilize the earth (although a few have been almost there).

There also seem to be several specific events in evolution where the probabilities are extremely small. Now that it happened is plain, so we know it is possible, but I think that is all we can safely say. Actually I rather like the idea of our being essentially alone -- it will make for a safer universe and one we can do what we want with.

Some political philosophy

I've seen at first hand how one party systems work, and they aren't too bad and are getting better (cleaning up the nepotism and corruption that they started out with). In these systems nowadays pretty much anyone who is willing to put in the time and who graduates college or does military duty successfully (and of course has a clean nose) can become a member of the party. The members are in a hierarchy, each selecting from among themselves who is to represent them higher up, and so on. They periodically purge certain types, mostly the corrupt. It seems to work and avoids the ugliness of campaigns and parades of idiotic voters.

On the other hand, there is an obvious potential for dictatorship. The system needs, I think, balances on police and other enforcement agencies that it doesn't now have. I personally experienced this.

So now I'm living under a long-term dictator, of a most benign sort, in a liberal society where there is very considerable tolerance, and economic progress every bit as good as in China or Vietnam -- Cambodia -- without censorship and prudery (except children) and a more easy going economy (you can actually use American dollars). So I conclude that so long as the dictator is popular and rational and not brutal, it can be a better government too. I do hope he has made arrangements for a peaceful transition when he passes. It is also a monarchy, and the king does have some influence -- not legally, but ethically -- he can speak out against things he doesn't like -- the British monarch wouldn't dare.

The biggest problem with the American electorate, besides their stupidity, is their venality. They don't vote for the person best for the country, they vote their pocket book, and see nothing immoral about that. The politicians even encourage it, by bragging how much "pork" they can get for their district (or how they will get them special tax breaks). This is utterly corrupt -- worse in my mind than the cop demanding a bribe.

Monarchs who stay out of politics and keep a dignity and stature the people can be proud of can have great influence and help the country a lot. They can also be the focus for resolving a constitutional crisis, which otherwise can lead to violence. The States have the Supreme Court for that purpose, but they are slow to act and have become politicized since Bork.

All told, it depends on the quality of the person. Hence systems where choices are made by people who already have long connections with each other seems to me the best route.

Elections are a farce and legitimacy an illusion

Something is needed to give the government an illusion of legitimacy, since we no longer think the first-born son is the only legitimate ruler. It is an illusion. Your vote can be and far more often than people imagine is stolen. I have seen close elections and inevitably they end up with the guy from the party that controls the election bureaucracy winning. I remember in particular a whole ballot box of Democratic votes in a close Gubernatorial election in Seattle showing up where the local judge force them to be included even though it meant more people had voted than had been listed as voting.

Now of course this is only possible in close elections, but they can be extremely significant -- look how Bush won in Florida and thereby got the Presidency, or how Kennedy won in Illinois with the same result.

The biggest problem though is the electorate itself. They vote based on impressions they get from a debate, with little if any knowledge of the candidate's voting record, and no sense at all of what the person is like. At least in things like Congressional leadership contests, the candidates are personally known to the voters, and so more sensible people usually win.

I can't think of how many times one or another candidate has won an election simply because he or she came out with a particularly effective campaign add. Why do you think so much of political advertising is so negative -- when everyone says they don't like them? It's because if you can tarnish your opponent with something, even though untrue or not the whole story, you win. 

I repeat -- elections are a farce and the ensuing legitimacy an illusion. If I could think of something better I would be all for it. As it is, the process needs radical reformation.

About lawyers

I have a few things to say about lawyers. First. they are intelligent. You don't get into law school, let alone get the degree, without smarts. However, think about all the smart kids in their last years of undergraduate work. Some will become academics or scholars of some sort, some will become teachers, others will become engineers or work on computers or architects or doctors. Then some will go to law school. Why do they go to law school? Being a lawyer is a prestige although not very well liked profession, and it is extremely remunerative. If you are even reasonably good at it you can make hundreds of thousands, and lots of them make millions. Also, since the legal system is designed and enacted by politicians who are mostly lawyers, the system is tilted in your favor in all sorts of little ways. Now, then, the other professions also usually make good money (except scholars and teachers -- the two society needs most). They all contribute to society except lawyers, and generally those who enter the other fields have altruistic and idealistic reasons. The only reason a young person enters law school is with the aim of making money. I suppose there are a few exceptions, but I never met one. The US is particularly infested. Most countries still prohibit legal advertising and ambulance chasing, and under Code Napoleon there are no juries easy to fool and confuse, and the lawyer has a greatly diminished role even in criminal cases and particularly in civil cases. In America, as we have seen, if you have enough money and can get really good lawyers, it is not that hard to get away with murder.  That is the main reason things like health care, education, municipal governance, and even law enforcement are so much more expensive in the States, with only average and sometimes below average outcomes.

A problem I often run into is that some people just assume their "common sense" concepts are right and anything else is nuts.

I must admit having "common sense" problems (or at least I use to -- I don't now) with the idea that matter has the effect of "warping" the space-time around it, so that the earth orbits the sun because of geometry, not force.(Of course there is the alternative quantum particle exchange view, but I only mention this so as to keep someone from "correcting" me).

The common sense view is of a force -- an invisible hand that reaches out from the sun and holds the earth in place. I can see why Newton was criticized -- what is this hand that does its thing through the vast emptiness of space?

Something people won't admit is that the universe was not designed, and if it was designed, it was not for our benefit in understanding it. That we can't understand something -- even if it seems outrageous and we can't see how it could possibly be -- is not grounds for dismissal. It may be grounds for demanding extraordinary evidence, but even here we need to have the humility to accept the verdict of the experts.

Gay, queer, and the dictionary

When writing, the author does not dare use the word "gay" or the word "queer"in any context except reference to homosexuality. To say, "We had a gay time at the party," or, "That house gives me the creeps -- it makes me feel queer all over," just cannot be done without the reader being distracted from what you want to say onto the idea of homosexuals being around.

In short, the old meanings have been destroyed by the new ones, even though we still find the old ones listed first in the dictionary.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and no country on the planet has it. They all have institutions that temper the will ("tyranny?") of the majority. Hence elected representatives rather than direct votes on all issues, hence courts who can overturn things, hence a Constitution, and so on.

The problem with government is choosing who governs, and obviously inherited aristocracies and strong monarchies are really bad ideas. So Churchill didn't like democracy because he saw how foolish it was and ended up letting Hitler get much further than he felt should have been allowed. Still, he realized he could not suggest a better solution.

There is a tradition in political philosophy begun with Plato that says only a small and carefully selected few should govern. The problem is who decides who is to be in that small few and who does the selecting, and how do you prevent the choices from becoming corrupt or inherited. Still, my inclinations are toward that sort of system, seeing the stupidity with which most people cast ballots.

I think lawyers and politicians are by definition unqualified to make political decisions, yet we find in most countries that they are the ones in power. You have to have known a few of them personally to realize that they are (at least the politicians -- there are lots of good lawyers). Most of us like power and have opinions, but we don't have the drive to power that motivates politicians -- indeed, we don't even understand it -- it is a form of sexual drive that most of us either lack or only have a bit of.

The problem with faith

The problem with belief (faith) is that doubt is inevitable. This causes the thing psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" and it is not pleasant. It leads to guilt and fear. 

I try to maintain a distinction between opinion and belief, although I know the language is against me a lot of the time, still the distinction is a real thing. I find that by meditating on something I very much want to believe but have problems with, I can flip a switch in my mind and bring about real belief, so that I no longer think the thing is probably true but am sure it must be true -- I believe it.

Then there arises the unpleasantness of doubt, as some thought or maybe some event shows me that my belief might not actually be right.

The way to avoid all this is to take the attitude of the Buddhists, that nothing is certain, that belief is foolish, that the best we have are opinions, supported by good reasons, that we can hold with varying degrees of confidence, but never absolute confidence. 

All memes (systems of thought typified by religions) have ways and tricks whereby they protect themselves, and faith is one of the worst of these. They make it a sin to doubt and a virtue to forget one's doubts and return to the fold, which is then followed by the brain giving one a flood of chemicals that we experience as joy and peace and misinterpret as God's spirit. This is one of the ways religions keep going in spite of their absurdity in the modern world.(Of course they also use propaganda (emotional appeals), indoctrination (especially of children), peer pressure, and violence here and there.

AIDS and gay men

A large portion of men would be womanizers, going from woman to woman to woman, if the women would permit it.(Nowadays this is somewhat the case in colleges, but still women have a different agenda).

Now put such a man in an environment where the women have his agenda, and assume he is young and good looking. He will be like a kid let go in a candy shop.

This is a characteristic of maleness, not gayness. Female gays are not promiscuous, but a lot if not most male gays are, and they are in an environment where everyone around them has much the same agenda.

Now come a virus that dies instantly when exposed to air, so the only way it can spread is through sex (and a few other ways where no exposure to air happens). Give the virus a good long gestation period so people can have it and spread it a lot before they know they have it.

Put together typical young male in the gay environment and the evolution of such a virus, and you have a recipe for the disaster that happened. There are a lot of diseases that young gay men get out of proportion to the rest of the population. They are young and eager and full of hormones and really quite uninformed.

Skepticism versus cynicism versus faith

Skepticism should, to any intelligent, thinking person, be the default. Unless you have good reason to think something is true, then it probably isn't. The burden should always be on the person claiming the truth of something -- the doubter has the right and intellectual duty to doubt.

Distinguish skepticism from cynicism. The former is the healthy, correct attitude, the latter goes too far and won't accept truth even when there is good evidence for it.

This is the problem with the concept of "faith," which the religions make a virtue of but which is really a vice -- a way people have of excusing their believing what they want to believe and avoiding the intellectual responsibility of questioning and always doubting.

Freedom from religion

It seems to me a claim to freedom of religion doesn't mean much if there isn't also freedom from religion, by which I mean the ability to not have a religion and suffer no political or legal consequences. Protecting this liberty seems to me one of the most important functions a court can have.

The idea that public property be used to celebrate religious events, such as posting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall or celebration of Christmas in a public school, are violations of the First Amendment, regardless of whether atheists exist or not, as there are other religions that this sort of thing also offends. Private property should be used for such things, and government should not pay for it.

I have to remark on an aspect of this -- the Buddhists and the Roman Catholics have a running competition in Vietnam as to who can erect the most grandiose and remarkable statues (icons) all over Vietnam. The government doesn't allow proselytizing, but somehow the erection of these statues is not seen as proselytizing, so they do it everywhere. I must say the happy fat Buddha (Maitreya) and the beautiful, peaceful Quanyin on her lotus blossom are more pleasant to the eye than all the bloody Jesus statues and all the Mary's with bleeding hearts. Catholics seem to be a religion of blood.

Still, they both distract from the scenery and despoil a lot of beautiful views.

Christian sacrifice and curses

We have not just mankind but the whole world under a curse of suffering and death -- because Adam disobeyed. Even if you take the Adam and Eve story as allegory, it still is just not credible. Curse? That is something of primitive magic. Why? What has the gazell brought down by the lion anything to do with sin or disobedience? What has the death of millions of men, women, animals and forests killed in a volcanic eruption have to do with it all? It just didn't hold even a drop of water.

And then we have the idea that this is lifted (although strangely the suffering is still around) by the human sacrifice of a god or of God (depending on your view of the Trinity) dying in order to somehow, I can only think magically, lift this.

Of course the idea of sacrifice, even human sacrifice, to mollify and bribe the gods was common enough -- humans when faced with things out of their control invent ways to at least think they are doing something -- but isn't Christianity supposed to be above and superior to such primitive things?

Is giving God a name idolatrous?

One distinction to keep in mind. "God" is a title, not a name, like "President" or "Buddha." "Allah is a name -- "There is no God but Allah." That in and of itself is problematic -- that the one and only omnipotent God should have a proper name. There is a good deal of confusion on that subject in the OT, and the Jews ended up with a couple of names for their God, but they clearly didn't like it and made the names, rather superstitiously, taboo to speak out loud.

It seems to me that naming God is a form of idolatry -- a picturing of him of sorts.

Dumbing down

There is an element of anti-intellectualism in the American culture. Smart people are "eggheads" and so on. Obama is one of the smartest, most academically successful, men in modern politics, but he goes way out of his way to conceal it. If I were interviewing candidates for a job, this is what I would look for, but not if you are a candidate for the Presidency.

Electoral reforms

Oh no doubt about it; a large part of the Republican base is composed of racists, religious bigots, homophobes, jingoists, and the like. This has always been a problem for me since when one of those wins the primaries and is the candidate I necessarily have to vote for the Democrat. 

I think both parties are beholden to Corporate interest -- if you look at the fact that most Corporations write big checks to both parties one can see this.

This illustrates two problems with the American system. The Bill of Rights needs amending to allow regulation -- strict regulation -- of all campaign contributions and of the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns (as it is now such regulation is difficult to get around the free speech guarantee). All this money really is just bribery in a different form.

The other problem is partisan elections. A better system would be for all the candidates to be listed in a single ballot with each person having one vote, then any candidates getting less than a given percent removed and a second election, continuing the cycle until someone gets a majority. In other words, no parties, no primaries where the extremists dominate, forcing candidates to the center.

Infinite God and my atheism

I think it likely there exist in the universe alien civilizations with technology far beyond us, who would seem like deities were they to come here, but that doesn't mean they are deities.  I would put Zeus and all similar beings, if they were real, in the same category.  They are powerful and if they demand worship one would be wise to give it, but I would remain at heart an atheist.

How would God differ?  He would not just be a superman with great power.  Now, would he qualify as "God" if he were infinite?  Even then, no.  I can in theory have a stack of books that stretches (assuming space is Euclidean) up infinitely far, and contains an infinite amount of knowledge in them.  But is that all knowledge possible.  No, because I could also have a second pile next to it that contains even more knowledge, again infinite.  The same could apply to a being that knows an infinite amount of stuff -- it would have no way of being sure it knew everything there was to be known -- there could be infinite amounts of knowledge completely outside its ken.

No -- to really be God and cause me to stop being an atheist, this God would have to be all-knowing -- but I just showed that such a state would be impossible.  Even with infinite knowledge one could never be sure there didn't exists realms or even whole universes outside this God's knowledge and impossible for it to reach. 

This is just one of the problems with the idea of a real God.  Of course Christians, when presented with these problems, redefine their God into something more limited, but then all he is is a superman or advanced technology alien.  Not God and I remain an atheist.  Just a little intelligence is needed to see all this and stop the silliness, although in all probability any response I get to this will reflect inability to think about infinity with any clarity.

Global warming

Pure carbon dioxide is lethal in the sense that you suffocate. Carbon monoxide is lethal for complicated reasons (it substitutes itself for oxygen on the hemoglobin molecule).

I think the lesson is that carbon dioxide is necessary. What that means is some carbon dioxide is good, too much is bad. 

The same applies in the atmosphere. Water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, but it cycles in a period of weeks, so no matter how much water we put in the atmosphere we just get it back. The cycle time for carbon dioxide is thousands of years is not more, so when we put it in the atmosphere it stays there and accumulates. Although the amounts we put in are small compared to the amounts already present, the increase has immediate effects in causing the earth to hold more heat and warm up, again by just a small amount (a few degrees). Add to that the warming effect of methane produced by domestic animals and we are putting ourselves in danger.

The risks can and are sometimes overstated and exaggerated for political purposes (Al Gore is one of the worst here and his behavior in discrediting genuine concerns with his exaggeration of it for his personal purposes disgusts me).

But he is not the only one playing political games with the fate of mankind. While I don't expect extinction of humanity, if what is happening goes on we are likely to have a severe century or longer setback in human progress, just to cover the costs rising sea levels will cause.

I am hopeful technology will save us. Fusion, better fission reactors, solar, wind, carbon dioxide capture technologies, greater efficiencies in energy use, and other things may or may not arrive in time. In the meantime measures like taxing gasoline more, removing the oil depletion allowance (a hidden subsidy for the oil industry), maybe a carbon tax, taking a more reasonable approach to nuclear plants, and scores of other measures that could be taken would all improve the eventual outcome.

How to be a famous philosopher

One conclusion I drew reading almost all the famous philosophers is that you have got to be arrogant out your ears, not tolerating any objections (the ethicists are usually an exception). 

You also have to be inventive and very assertive if you want to get famous as a philosopher, even if you know you are wrong, don't admit it. Thereby you get famous as others quote you in order to refute you.

Creating universes from nothing

I think I will discourse a little on conservation of matter/energy. This is a principle that was only discovered in the nineteenth century, and it was discovered empirically, using induction, not by deduction. Maybe that is why God didn't include it in the Ten Commandments.

Now, it is for sure that when someone looks at the output of a particle collision, and finds the output doesn't total the input, then there is assumed something wrong. Matter/energy is so almost always conserved that the assumption is always that that is the case. This was in fact how neutrinos were predicted, and later found.

However, quantum uncertainty makes it a certainty (now I like that -- uncertainty makes a certainty [grin]) that so-called "virtual" particles pop into and out of existence all the time. This is a misnomer -- while they exist they are real and have demonstrable effects. It is in fact this creation of particles at the event horizon of a black hole that caused the scientific community to realize they eventually evaporate.

What you do, when you want to make a universe, is you make it from nothing. The universe is "the greatest possible free lunch." There is good reason from observation, and excellent reason from theory, to say that all the conserved quantities (mass/energy -- gravitational charge --, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum) when taken for the universe as a whole total nothing. Positive gravitational energy is balanced by negative ("mostly dark") energy, electrons balance locally (positive and negative charge), motion is essentially in all directions, and the cosmos is not observed to rotate. 

However, to get a universe you need do nothing but wait. Quantum uncertainty will see to it that it will happen now and then.

I have posted my understanding of this as best I can: those with knowledge of the area are welcome to nitpick at any mistakes.

Causation is not always so

Something came from nothing. Being an atheist isn't hard when you realize that all creationism depends on are intuitive ideas we picked up as children, such as everything has a prior cause. There is no logical reason for this. It seems to be the case, most of the time, and that really is all that can be said. It also seems the case that anything that goes up must come down, but it isn't always the case.

Something people need to learn is that just because one cannot see how something could be doesn't mean it can't be. It may be just your ego rejecting things not understood because your pride won't allow it.

Guns, guns, guns

I have to comment on the morality of having a gun.

It turns family disputes into murders.
It turns depression into suicide.
It turns child curiosity into dead children.
It turns home "defenders" into either manslaughter prisoners or dead from their own gun.
It turns accidental or confused Alzheimer's or intoxicated people into corpses.
It turns criminals who have done nothing worthy of execution into corpses.
It make mass murderers and the insane much more efficient.

People like to brag about how they are responsible gun owners.  There ain't no such thing -- the very ownership of a gun proves that.

Having a gun around, people, is an invitation to disaster and therefor an evil act.  Please no ""tu quoque" on me here -- two wrongs don't make a right.

Mormons and coffee and tea

When I went through the sessions as a teenager with a couple of Mormon "Elders" (young men on their two-year missionary assignment) I was told that tobacco, alcohol, tea and coffee were prohibited. 

When I asked why, health reasons were cited. I'm pretty sure there is a passage somewhere in the Bible predicting that false profits would come telling people to not eat certain foods.

Well we know that (except in excess) coffee contains all sorts of good things for us, and unfermented tea is wonderful for our health (fermented tea seems to be good too, although not as good). This makes the idea that the ban came from God ridiculous on its face.

At the time I learned of all this, I was a typical teenager given to an occasional beer, and could see no harm except alcoholism, so I thought it should be allowed for anyone without that problem. Of course we now know that even a drink a week is linked to some increase in cancer, so I abstain. This is probably excessive on my part.

I think we have a moral responsibility to take care of ourselves, using reason and moderation, and I do not think it is the business of any church to dictate to anyone on these matters, only to give advice and good example.

The American immigration issue

America needs immigrants, and if you people would get over your prejudices and fears you would see that.  The population is aging and there is not going to be enough workers to pay to give the elderly even a decent life.

Yes it would be really smart to be selective in who comes -- as far as skills and English and health and so on, as countries like Australia do.  Anyone who meets standards along those lines should be encouraged and even subsidized to immigrate. 

Still, it is not possible to keep out people with the initiative and determination to get in.  Hasn't the country by now learned the futility of trying to enforce laws where there are millions who break them?  Be realistic even if you are inhumane and bigoted.

It is just simply not sane to think America could deport all the illegals there now -- twenty million is it? -- That would require a Fascist type of regime and would destroy the US economy and result in all sorts of civil disturbances and be totally inhumane, making the country be seen worldwide as a pariah.

Testability as a scientific standard

The fact is that science is what scientists do, and to be a scientist one must be objective, smart, trained in a scientific discipline, and not rely on supernatural or magical concepts. Science has produced a lot and made our world, while most people go through life ignorant and even disparaging it.

The requirement that scientific ideas must be testable to be scientific is often used, I think wrongly. Obviously tests and the ability to make predictions improve the likelihood that an idea will be incorporated into the body of scientific theory, but testability is not by itself grounds for rejection, maybe just grounds for putting it on the shelf to wait until tests become available.

Suffering and God

Suffering is of course one of the root problems of theology. A fundamental principal of ethics is that if one has the ability and opportunity to intervene to stop an evil, one is morally obliged to do so. 

No one claims the Abrahamic god lacks either the ability or the opportunity, yet suffering goes on and on and on. The cases where insect larvae eat their victim from the inside out are a good example.

It doesn't do to say we earn what happens to us -- too much suffering is just bad luck, such as earthquakes.

This was one of the appeals during the Enlightenment of the Deist god who created the world and then went away. Of course with the advent of evolutionary theory, the reason for the suffering (survival of the fittest) became apparent as nothing more than natural, so Deism lost its appeal.

The Christian theory of course paints God as a monster who allows all the suffering and so on for his personal glory.