A,
I don’t understand this thing religious people have about blaming God for all their troubles.
Why is that helpful?
It’s really immature to blame your parents for all your problems. Maybe the parent isn’t great and failed—what does it help for you and your psychologist to blame Mom and Dad? Take responsibility for your lives.

Shai, that’s exactly the point: for the overwhelming majority of religious people, God is not Mom and Dad… The custom of relating to Him as Mom and Dad is reserved only for people with a certain wo…..ldview!!!

Benjamin,
I’ve noticed there’s a tradition of taking swings at you, but I actually like you, so I won’t uphold the tradition.
I’ll just say: I don’t believe in the Haredim you believe in either (wow, I feel so witty ?)

My phrasing is right on target.
From what I read at the above link, you have no answer. More than that: beyond the fact that He chose free will for human beings, it’s clear that He arranged conditions so that the way of the wicked would prosper. Another point: hardening Pharaoh’s heart—yes, and intervening in the Holocaust—no? As for nature, He is all-powerful and could have arranged things so that all generations would not be packed with physical and mental suffering in all its forms, but He chose otherwise. He also chose for planet Earth to be practically face-to-face with a blazing star vastly larger than it, such that its volume is a million times greater, and according to scientific prediction our end will come through it. And merely thinking about this reality brings immense suffering to a thinking person.

From what I’m reading here, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Good luck.

You write that I need to work on my reading comprehension—do me a favor and tell me exactly in what way.

If you really want to make progress, I suggest that you formulate here, in your own words, the answer I offer to your question, and then restate your objections to it. But try to be careful to make the formulations clear: what exactly the question is, what exactly the answer is, and exactly why you disagree.

A. You distinguish between human evil and natural evil.
B. Human evil stems from the fact that human beings have choice, and therefore they can also do evil.
C. The very granting of choice dictates that there will be human evil, and preventing human evil would mean taking away choice—and that is what He did not want to do.
D. One may wonder why He does not intervene in extreme cases like the Holocaust. There is no good answer, except that the world was given to human beings to manage, and the responsibility is on them.
E. As for natural evil, He decided that the world would operate according to fixed laws of nature, *for His own reasons*. You suggest one reason: if there were no fixed laws, we could not function in the world.
F. The question then arises whether there exists a system of laws that would function exactly like the laws of nature in our world, but without the bad effects. If so, why didn’t He create that? But perhaps no such thing exists at all, and therefore He had no option to create a world without disasters and natural evil.
My objections to you:
A. I too distinguish between human evil and natural evil.
B. The world is devoted to wickedness. Assuming there is free will, it is evident that He arranged conditions so that the way of the wicked would prosper. He could have arranged conditions so that the way of the righteous would prosper, but did not do so. And I mean good and evil, not in terms of commandments. “The righteous person suffers because he is righteous.” And is it permitted for the righteous to proceed by deceit? She said to him: yes. [Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 13b]
C. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord” [Proverbs 21:1]. To harden Pharaoh’s heart against the children of Israel so that he would later be punished for it—yes; but to intervene in the Holocaust, or if you prefer, in Hitler’s heart—no? If He is capable but does not want to, then He is wicked.
D. As for natural evil, He is all-powerful and could have arranged laws of nature such that human beings would not be overflowing with physical and mental suffering in all its forms, including external appearance (ugliness is more common than beauty), but He chose otherwise. If He could not do otherwise, then He is powerless. If He can but does not want to, then He is wicked.
E. I would add that He also chose for planet Earth to be practically face-to-face with a blazing star whose volume is a million times ours, and that our end will come through it, and He did not do otherwise. And this very reality brings suffering—at least to me, as a thinking person.
F. It follows from all this that, despite the very minor corrections brought about by the sense of justice that exists in human beings, society—which reflects nature—is a heap of injustices and violations of justice. And nature is injustice incarnate. Therefore belief in the idea that God seeks goodness and justice is a contradiction than which there is none more foolish, or a falsehood than which there is none more vile.

By the way, I suggest you give up and join us atheists. You’ll get double pay for retiring. And by “A” I mean the position that negates religion. I used to be deeply religious, but I stopped seeing through illusions and dreams, and at least I gained freedom and peace of mind. God stood before a dawn of varied possibilities, and this is the world He created. Every path ends in death. Every friendship, every love. Torture, loss, betrayal, pain, suffering, aging, humiliation—and all of it has one ending.

Excellent. First of all, my compliments. You described my position exactly. But now you can easily see that your questions have been answered and add nothing new. Therefore my conclusion is that I was indeed mistaken about you. In reading comprehension, you’re actually excellent—but your logic needs improvement.
I’ll relate, of course, only to the points of objection.

B. What makes that evident? You’re making declarations, not raising a difficulty. In addition, you assume that He could have done otherwise, but that is precisely my claim—that you need to prove it. You can of course have an impression and express your own opinion, but there is no argument here. That very point is what I answered, and you have not raised anything new.
C. Here too there is nothing new in what you say. After all, I said that the only answer to the question of why He does not intervene is the desire that we conduct ourselves independently. To this I would add my view that divine involvement decreases over the generations, and today no longer exists. That is not wickedness but giving choice and autonomy to grown people. After all, by your reasoning He should likewise intervene in every murder of a single person, or even every theft or any other harm. So where would choice remain? The Holocaust is only a case that is larger in quantity. There was terrible suffering even before it.
D. “Ugliness is more common than beauty” is an impressive declaration, but utterly unsupported. In my estimation it is exactly the opposite. But as I said, even if you were right, it is not relevant to our discussion.
E. You have already decided what our end will be, and that we will not be saved, and now you have moved on to making accusations in advance (about a future event). Beyond that, you are again ignoring my question about proving the existence of a better alternative.
F. I have already addressed this declaration, which only repeats the previous points.

B. From observing the world, the evidence, and human history. We’re the advanced ones in evolution; I don’t even feel like reflecting on what things were like thousands and tens of thousands of years ago. Second, the burden of proof here is on you—you are the one claiming an all-powerful God. If He cannot, then He is powerless and deserving of pity, not prayer.
C. From the writings it appears that He did intervene. “I would add my view that divine involvement decreases over the generations, and today no longer exists.” If so, then why about 3,000 years ago? Why not 50,000 years ago? And why does it seem from the texts that He sets conditions specifically so that they will fail, for the sake of the reward of suffering that comes with it? And why is it that when He did intervene, He caused only suffering? By the way, this reminds me of the claim about why there are no miracles nowadays. Forgive me, it seems like empty pilpul to me.
D. Ugliness really is more common than beauty. Beauty is the minority. Even if in your estimation it’s exactly the opposite, that’s probably because you’re looking in terms of some other ratio. I’m looking in terms of the suffering this causes human beings. In practice, human beings suffer because of their ugliness relative to others. And as stated, this is relevant to the discussion, because it causes suffering.
E. It’s not me, it’s science. And again, if He is all-powerful, He could have created things differently. And even if not, He could have placed us near a star with proportions normal relative to us. Or under other conditions, without our being so close to a blazing star of fire. Nietzsche already said: God is a wicked being with a magnifying glass, and we are His ants.
F. I already wrote this, but maybe you missed it, so I’ll repeat it: I suggest you give up and join us atheists. You’ll get double pay for retiring. And by “A” I mean the position that negates religion. I used to be deeply religious, but I stopped seeing through illusions and dreams, and at least I gained freedom and peace of mind. God stood before a dawn of varied possibilities, and this is the world He created. Every path ends in death. Every friendship, every love. Torture, loss, betrayal, pain, suffering, aging, humiliation—and all of it has one ending.

One more thing that’s important for me to write. If you noticed or not, I’m the same A. (with the period after it) who sends messages here and there. In the past I came in good spirit, but apparently I interpreted you incorrectly and that created static and it snowballed. I notice from here and there, and now too, that you’re actually fair and upright and not what I described as “prideful.” Those outbursts were out of place, so I ask your forgiveness (here it counts as public). If there is already a Torah scholar, then I see you as a true Torah scholar in this generation. And now I’ll be able to study your articles more and respond to them more seriously. To conclude on this matter: thank you for the responses and for the fairness.

Many thanks for the compliments (by my sins I no longer remember, and in any case all is forgiven and pardoned to you) and for the suggestion. I really don’t see any argument here that I haven’t already answered (especially regarding His omnipotence).
In any case, it doesn’t seem likely that I’ll be getting paid for retiring anytime soon. 🙂