This has been said a 100 times in this thread already but I'll try again.
Lack of proof does not = the lack of a thing. that's a logical fallacy. evidence simply does not exist in one way or another to disprove or prve that statement.
And it's also logically fallacious to consider something true despite a lack of evidence.
No, no, no it's not. That's called a premise. Otherwise nothing would be true and logic would really be useless.
Lack of proof does actually = lack of thing(or at least lack of any relevance)
Now you're doing the same thing as G-Flex: confusing logic with empiricism and reality. Logic has NOTHING to do with reality. That's the fun thing about it. The concept of "Relevance" is totally irrelevant to logic itself. I totally agree with what you both say,
except that it's a logical fallacy, because it isn't.
Andir raises a point that's often used: "If your God allows suffering, he must be evil and not love you."
I let the person I love the most, suffer on a daily basis,
because I love her. My daughter wants cookies. All day long, every day, if it were up to her. Because I love her and know the consequences of that diet, I refuse to give them to her. Which makes my daughter sad. So now I inflicted suffering on her, even though I love her.
Also compare the temporality of life to an infinity of time in heaven. That's less than the blink of an eye worth of suffering. That should be bearable. Yes, God allowed the holocaust to happen, and he's not evil for it.