It's highly unlikely that we were created by some omnipotent being who can control everything, but it's also highly unlikely that everything just popped up out of nowhere. Like Robby said, we won't know the truth until we die. I really don't care what awaits outside this world though, because if there is an afterlife like Heaven, Hell, or Limbo that's cool (except for Hell). If there's nothing after we die then it will be like sleeping, you don't know you've fallen asleep until you wake up.
I believe that God as A Christian God could not exist. I have not yet seen a valid reason that the problem of evil is wrong. If we were put in this world as a test as most people will reply, why does the omniscient need to test us, surely he would know instantly what we are like. Why make us with evil, just to punish us for it later? Why not just create us with no capacity for evil and place infinite people in infinite heaven? And then, would we even need not to be evil? An evil person could just be separated from everyone else, and placed in infinite happiness, like they are.
The general response to why god doesn't remove in us the capacity to do evil is "Free will" but it still runs counter to the whole omniscient thing. Otherwise that would be a cold bastard--or alternatively the kid with the magnifying glass that likes burning ants.
Prehaps because there is a higher level of existatnce that we can't comprehend untill our souls escape the limits of the physical and mental aspects of living. Once our mortal restrictions are gone our spiritual eyes can open fully, and will be able to comprehend eternity.
It honestly depends on how the initial 'god' concept is framed by the person asking the questions. You can make unfalsifiable gods, where there is no way to prove its non-existence ~ this is the case with most of the big monotheistic gods today.
Ultimately you have to define 'god' before you ask a question like this. For instance, if you're talking about a Christian god then I don't think one exists because of the logical flaws between its stated properties. The problem of evil is a common response to the supposed omni-benevolence of the Christian god because if the Christian god created everything it also created evil. It also created the 'need' for a balance between good and evil etc. etc. You could go on.
I went on sort of a tangent, but what I'm trying to say is you need a clear-cut definition of what god, or what a god is before you beg the question "Does he exist".
God created free will, giving us the ability to choose our paths. 'Evil' isn't nessissarily a creation of God, it's a construct of mens minds. Yes God created the concept, but God also gave us the choice to avoid it. God gave us free will, so God also had to give us alternative to God, other choices so that we can actually use our free will. Creating the concept ment that Lucifercould choose to be something other than good, thar's all that evil is, non-good. Since lucifer became satan he began to temp others to do not-good, aka 'evil,' because he's taking something away from God.
You are addressing my tangent, but anyways. Does that not make God akin to someone giving a child a lighter as an exercise of that child's free will? You could argue in defence that human beings themselves are similar to children in a way when it comes down to the moral constructs that we hold at the moment.
Anyway, what you're essentially using is the free will argument. Because I just woke up I don't have the motivation to type for an hour so look at THIS.
In summary, Platinga (who was the guy who raised forth the point you're marking) addressed the point that "that being omnipotent, God need not have created this world but could have chosen to create one containing no evil" and created a respectable response to such an issue.
However, he did not address the fact "that being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about" and that "God should be held responsible for every evil that exists in the world he did create" because ultimately he created everything.
To avoid sounding like a copy paste machine here, go back to the example of the child and the lighter. You could say that the child is exercising his free will with the use of the lighter, but the person who gave it to him in the first place should be held fully responsible for the damage it may cause because ultimately he was the person who gave the child the ability to hurt itself initially.
It works more like this: God says "If you play with the lighter you will get hurt. If you come with me you won't get hurt." and then God puts the lighter in a high place, so that the child can see the lighter. but has to climb up to get it. Then Satan comes along and, being a nice, kind older brother, brings the lighter to the child, so that the child can play with it as he wants to.
Why doesn't God just delete Satan This falls back to the omniscient property of God. He would've known (in this example) that Satan as you put forth would bring the child the lighter ~ yet he lets it happen? That's not omni-benevolence or all-loving, that's apathy.
Property A in the argument represents this: "that being omniscient, God would have known down to the very last detail all the evils (natural as well as moral) that would bedevil the world he planned to create, including all the evils his creatures would bring about"
No, God, like a good parent, left the lighter out so that the child, if he/she chose to play with it, would learn from the experiance. God won't deleat Satan because satan is another of his children, and still loved by god. Enter jesus. The younger brother, who is, as the youngest sibling often is, tyhe good one. He says give me the lighter and gets burned instead, he then takes you to God, who can heal your burns.
Lol, this analogy is great ~ it really does, if I may, highlight the absurdity of the entire redemption aspect within Christianity.
As you have said, these important concepts (Satan, Jesus, You, God) can represent a family where the father (God) has put the lighter in a high place so that the child (You) don't burn yourself. Your older evil brother (satan) decides to take the lighter and give it to you (the naive child). Your good little brother (Jesus), takes it off you and in the process burns himself so that you yourself didn't burn yourself so that now he and you have the ability to go to your father (God) and become healed.
I've already represented the first flaw in this string of righteous events. God, being omniscient decides to IGNORE Satan as he tempts his other children towards sin. The general response to this is that Satan is also one of God's children and God does not destroy him because he loves him. Well, if one of my children was constantly opening up the opportunity for my other children to be harmed I'd argue with full justification that I'd kick his ass and lock him in a room or something. Just because I love him does not preclude my ability to punish and isolate him for some time.
The fact that God literally does nothing as Satan carries out his supposed bidding demonstrates the immense apathy that God holds towards Satan's temptation to sin.
Secondly, I also have a problem with the first line in your latest response. "No, God, like a good parent, left the lighter out so that the child, if he/she chose to play with it, would learn from the experience". What the heck? I sincerely hope you are not a parent. Are you suggesting that you would honestly leave a dangerous object such as that out in the open so that when the child does play with it, hopefully it does misfire and the child gets hurt ~ thereby learning a lesson? Wow. That's terrifying.
Thirdly, Jesus. Jesus comes in so that he gets burned instead, hereby 'sacrificing himself' for you, leaving you in eternal debt to him. Well, let's put it this way. If God hadn't put the damn lighter out, he could've prevented Satan from tempting sin, he could've prevented the opportunity for you to harm yourself and others, he could've prevented one of his other children from having to sacrifice himself and he could've kept his credibility.
Instead, God chose possibly the most roundabout and absurd method of dealing with the problem. What an efficient guy.
Since Jesus died god took all power from satan, save his ability to talk to you. so now he's in his room and can tell you how to get the lighter from wherever it is through the key-hole.
Besides I was just continuing your analogy, not using my own.
God doesn't ignore Satans doings, he punshed him. There is one passage of the bible, I can't be bothered getting up and finding right now, that said jesus basically whent down to hell and beat satan shitless. I belive the term useed was "Stompped on his [satans] head." God is, and will continue to, punish satan.
For your second point: It's similar to a family sitting by the fire watching TV, the child reaches out to touch the fire and the father says tah it's hot and will burn. The child reaches out and touches it anyway, and gets burned. The child learns that fire is hot, heat burns, thus don't touch fire. Children learn from mistakes. We all learn from mistakes. If we didn't have the free will to learn from our mistakes we'd learn next to nothing.
I'm pretty busy at the moment so no huge multi-paragraph responses from me for a while. However, as you said Satan can still communicate through the 'key-hole'. Why can't God, in his all-knowing, all-powerful state just do the right thing and shut the damn guy up. He's God, he has the power to remove this supposed blatant influence on our lives, yet he only ever completes half the job.
Besides, there is a multi-faceted approach to good and evil which most people simply ignore. Evil (I will assume it is synonymous with immorality) is not simply the absence of Good. The absence of good is apathy, not evil. Similarly, the absence of evil is apathy as well. Both concepts are independent, but not mutually exclusive. Saying that Evil must exist because it is the absence of good, in much the same way that the absence of light is dark is simply incorrect.
Genuine solipsists are actually some of the scariest people alive. Most normal people just use solipsism itself as part of thought experiments etc. for responding to various problems and flaws within reality.