you see the problem
you have decided to give god an excuse for being omnipotent and benevolent while creating flawed people who suffer in his creation
but maybe people suffer in the world because there is no omnipotent and benevolent god
Then there wouldn't even be a world, because there wouldn't have been anything to bring space/time, reality itself, into existence.
If you know the least about physics, you know that nothing in it answers that question of reality for you at all.
Of course, the fact that you can't explain the existence of the physical world itself doesn't automatically force you to believe in God, and much less the Christian God specifically. But it's a more meaningful show-stopper than, "people suffer....therefore must not be a God!"
Some people get so caught up in their own belief systems that they assume reality automatically affirms them, even though they've never even thought it out from the other side with any depth. The imagined "No suffering ever happened or ever will be" world that they assume their imaginary 'god' would have created doesn't make any sense if any sense of humanity is maintained. But you stick on with the simplistic view instead of the thought-our view.
This is happening on both sides of the conversation right now, btw - tunnel vision certainly isn't limited to close-minded atheists.
we are back to the heliocentric vs geocentric planetary system all over again
That makes about as much sense as an analogy as saying, "we are back to a static universe vs. a beginning to time all over again".
First off, meaningful moral/ethical/philosophical/metaphysical debates have almost nothing in common with scientific debates.
Second, whatever version of the Galileo debate you were spoonfed probably left off the fact that Galileo was a devout Christian who wrote brilliant Biblical exposition, stuff I still quote today, much better than what the institutionalized church leadership was putting out.
Third, the Big Bang Theory was brought up by a Catholic priest, and atheists of the time challenged it because having a beginning to the universe didn't fit their "no Creator" worldview. But you probably don't like quoting examples where the church was right and your homies were wrong, eh?
except my explanation is so much simpler, and consistent with many more objective findings in daily experience
Failing to account for reality itself is quite a big flaw of a "simple" model.
Newton's laws are far simpler than relativity and quantum physics. Doesn't make them closer to reality. Heck, relativity was so complex that when Einstein first came up with it, even most physicists took decades to be able to conceptualize it for themselves.
As far as a materialistic-only universe "consistent with many more objective findings in daily experience", the vast majority of people over the vast majority of time would disagree with you there. That doesn't make them right. But it should highlight how deeply you are engrossed in confirmation bias, when you just assume that daily experience should affirm your worldview as billions of people prove otherwise.
I am also not omnipotent and can't you see how convenient it is that the God to human relationship seems to conveniently mirror the parent to child relationship

....why it's almost as if the description of God was written by parents or human beings

or something who were describing concepts from their actual lives and not by a deity who knows all of fukking space and time

ironic huh?
By ignoring the implications of what I said in order to hit back, you missed the whole point.
Do you believe this world is a bad place with suffering? Do you think that your children will hurt themselves and suffer as a consequence? Then why bring them into it at all? It's YOUR choice to create your own children...if you really think the world is as bad a place as you claim, you wouldn't do it. Yet atheists continue to go on making babies for the most part.
Heck, why do you keep living, if the world's so bad?
Truth is, you believe that this world (that God created) is a world worth living in. If you didn't, you would have taken an exit strategy yourself, and you certainly wouldn't bring no kids into it. But you have faith and hope in this world, just like God does. Of course, people's choices will continue to make it .worse than it should be. But certainly not so bad that we'd be better off without it.
If you love your children, and bring them into the world anyway, then you can imagine how God could love his children and still bring them into this particular world anyway. Even if you don't believe that it's a "perfect" world, you prove through your own actions that you think it's a world worth creating. (and you've shown that you've done very little thinking out of why your "perfect" world would actually be better.)
As far as analogies from our daily experience being used to describe ultimate realities being "convenient"...wha? "I got an idea...why don't we help them understand this concept by giving examples they DON'T understand." That would be really useful, eh? Of course explanatory analogies are going to be taken from daily experience - otherwise you lose the whole point of making an analogy. Again, your tunnel vision leads you to believe that you've made some logical point when you're just being ignorant about the actual process that's going on.
you claim to know that god has a plan for every man's life because he created a complex world,
Actually, no, I said from my very first post on this thread that I don't believe god has a plan for every man's life.
answer this below and you will see the circle
why do you believe that he created the world?
Because true love can only be given and received when there is something external to oneself. He created something external to himself, that could chose on its own to reject him or accept him, to do good or to do evil. That's the only way that God could show true love, true compassion, true mercy - loving yourself, or loving something only as long as it's perfect and faultless, isn't real love. And its the only kind of beings he could have created who could feel and demonstrate those things too. That's why he didn't make the robot world.
You seen a mother sacrifice for her children? A husband sacrifice for his wife? Parents who love their child so much they let him do his own thing even if they disagree, and still love him anyways? Children who love their parents and forgive even their mistakes? A man who loved his enemies? A woman who will do anything for her friends? A little kid who shares his only toy? People who worship God, trouble in their life and all, and truly find joy in it?
Things like that, and many more, are why this world was worth creating.