The Foxnews story of atheist A.C.Grayling's new book, The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, lead me to do a Google search on the British philosopher. The search produced an opinion piece by Grayling at The Richard Dawkins Foundation website entitled God and Disaster.
Written in response to the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan and the earlier earthquake in Christchurch in New Zealand, Grayling's argument against the existence of God can be summed up quite simply - the fact that bad things happen (like earthquakes and such) people die and life is not a bowl of cherries proves that there is no God. Grayling contends that if there is a God, It (Grayling can't bring himself to refer to God as He - or even She) is either powerless or uncaring.
According to Grayling's "logic", the world is not perfect in his eyes, so there is not - and never has been - a creator.
What would be the point of creating a universe where nothing happens? Would would be the point of creating a world where a handful of creatures live in eternal, blissful happiness?
If God had created a world where no one dies, it would certainly be pointless for we humans to reproduce.
In Grayling's world, there would be no hunger because an all caring, all powerful God would provide us with all our needs and wants. Seriously? God might just as well have created creatures that don't get hunger in the first place. If God were to provide us with all our desires, what would be the point of desiring anything?
The fact that God does not do things the way Grayling would like things to be does not prove that God does not exist. It merely proves that, if there is a God, He doesn't do things the way Grayling likes.