In a sense, but it's not meant to overthrow the premise simply challenge it as requiring to be justified rather than assumed.
It doesn't nullify the argument, it is a volley to put the burden of support into the hands of the one forwarding the argument. Because in order to move from its premises to its conclusion it is up to the one presenting the argument to demonstrate the truth of its premises.
The key word here is seemingly, because you're essentially presenting an argument from incredulity. Because you don't understand the purpose does not mean that no purpose exists, it simply means that you do not understand the purpose.
This may be a semantic issue, because I'm curious what you mean by "unjustified" and how you arrived at the conclusion that such suffering exists.
So they think they're more intelligent than a being with omniscience? That they're able to balance every possible consideration?
I'm starting to doubt your sincerity in the claim of wanting to regain your Christian faith...since you seem to be looking for excuses to persist in your unbelief, rather than challenging the premises of your own argument to see if they are actually true. Believers are willing to accept that we are not omniscient, and trust that while we may not know why such suffering exists God does. Since you are arguing that there is no good purpose, it's up to you to demonstrate that statement is actually true rather than to take it as a given.
I understand that it is problematic, but when we're considering eternity 10,000 years is the blink of an eye, 4.5 billion years is but a single breath. So "it's taking too long for my liking" is more of a personal issue. And this is not to be dismissive of the experience of pain, but the answer to such pain is not philosophic wrangling but acts of real comforting and support.
Do you believe there is more suffering in the world where Christianity has dominated today than 2000 years ago, no change, or less? How do you think Christianity has contributed to this change, if it has?
Considering skeptics can't figure out whether or not free will exists to begin with, I'll take their criticisms of the conditions necessary for it to exist with a grain of salt.
It's a challenge to the premise that the only meaningful action God could make regarding evil is its prevention. More about challenging whether or not premise 1 is true than about positively arguing against the trilemma. Since Christianity forwards a God who has taken meaningful action regarding evil, the notion that a lack of such action in the form of a lack of prevention challenges omnipotence is false.
The Epicurean trilemma is a form of argumentation based on premises that many consider reasonable. The responsibility to demonstrate the validity of these premises does not fall solely on the one presenting the trilemma, but also on those who propose exceptions or justifications for the existing evil. If someone argues that there is a greater or unknown purpose for evil, then it is that person who must provide convincing evidence for this claim, not merely assert that 'there may be a purpose.
You say that I present an argument from incredulity, but saying that we cannot comprehend or understand the purpose of evil and therefore cannot judge its justification is an argument from incredulity in itself. It is based on the assumption that our inability to understand something means we must accept that there may be a just reason. However, without concrete evidence of such a purpose, this argument becomes an appeal to ignorance. Simply stating that an unknown purpose may exist is not enough to justify extreme and seemingly unjustified suffering. Tell me, Fervent do you (and also other knowledgeable Christians on this forum) see any reason for a child to be born with congenital diseases and others that I listed in my OP, such as Tay-Sachs disease, Cyclopia, Ethmocephaly, cancers, and the many others I listed? Do you see any reason for God to allow the death of children and women in the gas chambers of Auschwitz? The tragedies I also listed, etc.? As I said, I just want to begin to understand why, if God is good and omnipotent, He allows these things. If I cannot at least comprehend or accept this in some reasonable way, then why did God give me reason and understanding to question these things?
When I refer to suffering as 'unjustified,' I am suggesting that there is a discrepancy between what is observed in the world, in terms of pain, injustice, and suffering, and what would be reasonable to expect in a scenario where an omnipotent and benevolent God is present. In other words, suffering is “unjustified” in the sense that its existence seems to be incongruent with the idea of an all-powerful and loving God.
Understanding the issue of suffering is not about claiming intellectual superiority over an omniscient being. Instead, it is an attempt to understand and reconcile observations of the world with the beliefs and premises that shape our understanding of existence. Skeptics acknowledge that humans have inherent limitations in their understanding of the universe and metaphysical questions. While we may seek knowledge and explore different perspectives, we are still subject to flaws and limitations in our understanding. The idea of omniscience implies knowing all things, including the future and the thoughts and intentions of all beings. However, skeptics may question the very possibility of this absolute knowledge, given the complexity of the universe and human interactions. Furthermore, even if we accept the existence of an omniscient being, we can still question how this knowledge relates to the issue of suffering and injustice.
Doubting my sincerity in seeking to regain my Christian faith does not contribute to the discussion. I genuinely say that I would like to regain faith in the Christian God. But as I have already said, people are simply not obligated to believe what I write here. Doubt is an essential part of critical thinking and the pursuit of truth. Questioning premises and seeking evidence are valid and necessary approaches to evaluating any belief system, including Christianity itself. My intention is not simply to find excuses for disbelief, but to understand if the premises upon which Christian faith is based are true and can be justified. And no, I cannot demonstrate that these claims are indeed true; otherwise, I would not be here with the intention of reconsidering faith. However, they are more reasonable than simply asserting that there is a "good purpose" in suffering when we do not even know if there is any purpose for extreme sufferings like those I mention in my OP.
I understand that, from the Christian perspective on eternity, long periods like 10,000 years or 4.5 billion years may seem insignificant. However, for humans living in finite time, the perception of delay has a real and significant impact. Arguing that restoration is happening slowly may be "comforting" in a metaphysical sense, but it does not offer a practical solution for those who are suffering here and now. The issue is not only about some form of absolute or timeless time but about how ongoing suffering is justified and addressed in the context of finite human life here in the world.
No, I do not believe there is more suffering in the world today than there was 2000 years ago. Back then, the world was marked by significantly lower life expectancy, high infant mortality, untreated diseases, frequent wars, slavery, and legal and social systems that were often brutal and unequal. It is true that Christian morals and ethics have influenced many positive aspects of our society, such as the creation of hospitals, works of art, science, culture, charity works, social justice movements, and so on. However, it is also important to recognize that throughout history, Christianity has been used to justify acts of oppression, violence, persecution, inquisition, and intolerance. And I also see no reason for the Christian God to have allowed sufferings that occurred before Christianity and those that occurred after Christianity.
It is true. But the difficulty in determining whether free will exists is not exclusive to skeptics. Even within religious and philosophical traditions that advocate for the existence of free will, there are considerable debates about its nature and implications. The uncertainty surrounding free will is a universal problem, not restricted to any specific group of thinkers.
Even if we accept that in Christianity God took significant steps against evil, that does not explain why He did not choose to prevent evil completely. If God is truly omnipotent, He should be able to create a world where evil does not exist, or at the very least, significantly minimize the amount of suffering and injustice.