How can God be all-good and allow so much evil in the world?
IMO: Not a valid anti-God argument.
(1) God's nature usually isn't determined by taking an inductive survey of perceived good/evil acts in the world. God is good by definition. Otherwise; an argument for Evil God could be made through induction.
I am afraid that this argument is deeply flawed. We do
know the nature of God. God is not
good by definition. This is a lie that weak, fluffy-bunny Christians like to believe – but it is neither true nor does this erroneous belief help them towards Salvation. God tells us that he is
(ii) Creates evil (i.e. is the source of evil)
(vi) A lover of war
(vii) Creates the blind, deaf and lame.
(viii) Causes earthquakes, droughts, disease, rivers run red with blood, kills the firstborn, etc, etc.
According to the Bible, 613 commandments were given by a god on Mount Sinai, (Ex:19 - 32) That god could have been Yahweh or could have been El, the whole of the Elohim or Baal Haddad. Most Christians say there are 10 Commandments but would fail to name some of them.
We can assume that contravening any of the 613 is considered a sin. The NT adds a few more sins and two (?) more commandments.
Sins and evil must go hand in hand. So by seeing what God says he is and what he doesn’t like (cloth of mixed fibre, bastards, people with broken noses, etc) we can see what he does like and what sort of a being he is.
(2) Good/Evil would be illusory in a purely naturalistic world
Do you know the meaning of “illusory”? Do you mean “relative”?
So then to even ask the question of 'why is there evil' you would have to presuppose a moral conscience.
You are getting yourself in too deeply: “evil” is what people don’t like – there are grades of evil.
But such a conscience could actually be used to argue for an ability endowed by a moral creator.
Not really. Nothing is added by adding a god. As far as I am aware my dog has no god, yet, in reacting with people and other animals she knows what is good and what is bad for her.
It would be more difficult to argue that a purely physical system would produce a moral dimension of thought.
That is simply not so. Laws, morals, rules, manners, politeness, are all part of the same behaviour pattern. They are invented and agreed by society for mutual benefit. There is simply no need for a god.
1. The premise that God is all-good, is simply not true. If this is not true, then nothing that follows from it can be true.
2. If there is an argument that includes a deity, that argument is either improved or unchanged when omitting that deity.