Despite this confident statement, there is an alternative that excludes the possibility of suffering without excluding life or free will. According to Christianity, and to Lewis himself, there is only one fundamental moral choice a person must make in life: "a single naked choice - of loving God more than the self or the self more than God" (p.20). So why not, then, set up the world so that that is the only moral choice we need to make? Lewis leaps from the conclusion (which I do not dispute) that distinctness and freedom of choice require the existence of an external world of matter, to the conclusion that that world must be set up in such a way as to allow people to harm each other. Once a physical world exists, we can recognize ourselves as separate from others, interact with them and communicate with them. Why then add the additional capability for evil people to use that world to unjustly harm the innocent, rather than structuring the world so that people who made bad choices could only harm themselves?

So, my own conjectures. First, I do not think God created a world with pain; I think God created a world with the potential for pain. That's a very important distinction. Additionally, God's foreknowledge of events does not render the distinction meaningless. Why, then, did God create a world with the potential for pain?

The idea of the Fall is the crucial concept. Pain is the result of sin, which is a morally wrong choice; that is, pain is the result of evil. I will quote Alvin Plantinga, one of the best American philosophers, theist or not. He makes a very conservative claim - a characteristic action of philosophers - but I see him as basically saying this: in order for God to grant humans the capacity for good, God had to create humans with the capacity for certain evil. Good chosen in the presence of potential evil is better than good chosen in the absence of potential evil; if God wanted humans to have the capacity for that better good, then God had to have created humans with the capacity for evil. This is from "Possible Worlds" from God, Freedom and Evil.

The heart of the free will defence is the claim that it is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil.

Some more Plantinga (from the same place):

The free will defender disagrees with both Leibniz [who says that this is the best of all possible worlds] and Mackie [who says that this is not the best of all possible worlds, and thus that God does not exist]. In the first place, he might say, what is the reason for supposing that there is such a thing as the best of all possible worlds? No matter how marvellous a world is - containing no matter how many persons enjoying unalloyed bliss - isn't it possible that there be an even better world containing even more persons enjoying even more unalloyed bliss? But what is really characteristic and central to the free will defence is the claim that God, though omnipotent, could not have actualized just any possible world he pleased.

Now, both Plantinga quotes are from the introduction of his essay; there's no space here to go into the technicalities. However, I've heard that Plantinga was successful in answering Mackie's claim that pain means the Christian God does not exist.

We're very ready to give as full a conception as we can to pain. But we don't do the same for God's goodness. Human choices cause pain, and that choice exists so that a certain good can exist. Saying that God should not have created humans with the potential for evil is nothing less than saying that God should be less good.

I'd like to reiterate that discussing why there's any pain at all is much different from dicussing why there isn't less pain. One's a good, hard question; one's a dead end.

Two things. Remember, Christians already think many people have ignored God's obvious manifestations. Also, even if sectarian violence was somehow ended, what's to say another sort discord among humans wouldn't replace sectarian violence? The amount of suffering in the world wouldn't necessarily be reduced. Christians believe in the Fall: Christians believe humans are successful at creating their own problems where problems didn't exist beforehand.

I plan on addressing in my next comment the question Ebonmuse asked. I must say that I speak with no authority; this is a tough question. But at least it's the right question. I'll mention - probably quote - something by Alvin Plantiga, who addressed the issue. If theological reasons aren't satisfying when it comes to the existence of pain, maybe purely philosophical reasons will be more so. As far as I know, they're considered to be good philosophical reasons.

* How often do atheists commit acts of violence against theists right now, anyway? The numbers must be dwarfed by the religious violence in the middle east alone.

In the latter instance, the world would have a concrete way to measure how much more pain they could possibly have and extrapolate that they live in the world with the least possible pain.

I'm confused about how the world would have a concrete way to measure to measure the amount of pain it could've had, but didn't. Many slight occurences throughout history have had grave consequences - good consequences, that is. Weren't there planes on 9/11 that didn't reach their target - that is, weren't there planes that did not cause as much pain as they were supposed to? It seems like their are many situations that could lead to more pain or less pain. Many times, events occur so that there is less pain then there could be. Should I say God is active and - in sheer love - has already reduced the amount of pain that could/should be present in the world?

That's why I'm confused. I still don't see how we could ever know that we live in the world of the least possible pain. I still see the only significant possible worlds being one with pain, and one completely without pain.

Only "God" can create such forms.

Including Western fundamentalism , this is a form of "closed shop" anti-competitive mentality which in some cases has developed into a phobia.

"God" was concocted by priests. They just want all the action and credit.

1. I just read a wonderful book titled "The Sparrow" by Mary Doria Russell. Mary was a Catholic that turned to atheism that later turned to Judasim. Her book is science fiction and is basically about jesuit priests that go on a mission to an alien planet. It was amazing! The focus on religious themes and theological quandries was awesome and challenging. I did a review of the book if you would like to read it.
http://sadielouwho.blogspot.com

2. There is a fabulous article written by a man I adore named Jerram Barrs. He's a professor at a popular seminary. He did a paper being critical of Christians that attck science fiction-fantasy. His particular emphasis was on Harry Potter. Take a look--it's great
http://www.covenantseminary.edu/resource/Barrs_HarryPotter_Persp.pdf

I'm not the one positing possible worlds with more or less pain. We should only talk about two worlds: the pain-filled world we do have, and the possible world with no pain whatsoever (because that's still a useful concept).

The position you're defending has resulted from a moral agent (GOD) creating a world in which events beyond human control result in misery and suffering. This misery and suffering gets in the way of God's primary purpose for humanity (to have a personal relationship with each individual). The presumed spiritual meritocracy in which agents with free will have equality of opportunity cannot, and demonstrably does not exist.