Take 2: The existence of unnecessary suffering makes a perfect God impossibole

Definition of Good: No I have given no ‘non-challenge’; I have only given a legit full challenge to your definition of good. I have challenged that you have not met the requirements to satisfactory prove suffering is Bad. I even went a little out of my way to suggest a route you might try to adequately prove suffering is bad and you chose not too. I have left a philosophical challenge that if something is bad on no more grounds than ‘it is not desired or approved of’ than it is groundless because it’s ‘badness’ is not objectively independent of a persons opinions. I have also even defended and promoted the idea that suffering is Good. My reasoning for such was not directly contested but rather ignored, while the Merriem Webster definition was stubbornly still being used without any rebuttal offered by Pro to my arguments that negated it, meaning my philosophical logic based rejection of it because it by definition is not objective, and the absence of an appeal to other sources like the way is done by the Tao. Pro seems to think he has addressed the Tao argument by claiming it’s a more complicated way of expressing the Merriem Webster definition. If this was true than Pro should have proved this by quoting things like the writings of the Ancient Egyptians ‘confessions of a righteous soul’ and many other belief structures writings beside it. He did not so the BOP is not met for this particular debate. God and Time: To start with this point I’d like to address the concession made at the second half of Pro’s rebuttal first, that Pro ‘supposes this is true” when I say knowing everything does not mean knowing what isn’t there to be known for the same reasons omnipotence does not mean ‘can make square triangles. With this concession it means you accept my arguments validity though not its soundness yet. The only thing contended is the premise of how the state of the future would be perceived. Your rebuttal of my time machine example only would go as far to prove if I’m right then Time Travel to the future would be impossible. Remember we are still only talking about a hypothetical scenario made to convey a point. If my time machine example is flawed it can only be for the same reasons your rebuttal of it is flawed. My argument is ultimately not about if people could travel to the future, its about what would you see in the future if you existed outside of time. You propose the future would only look one way, fixed, that the way things will happen is the only way they can happen. I proposed that my choice today is what determines what happens tomorrow. That the way this will happen will only be one of the ways things could end up happening. You say the future is written in stone, I say its subject to change. Neither of us can prove this either way, So the argument about God and Time fails to meet the BOP. As long as the way I suggest the future could be remains a possible viewing of it unrefuted by evidence from real time travel machines, then my argument remains sound and negates the God and Time point Baby Argument: No that was not what my argument was saying. My argument was saying the cause of the suffering to the baby can not be tied back to the All Good God who would not bring suffering on to a baby. The suffering it goes through the parents are responsible for causing. My rebuttal had nothing to do with ‘the deserved’ but rather ‘the cause’. Because your rebuttal was against ‘the deserved’ and not my actual argument ‘the cause’ my rebuttal stands unrefuted, and the baby argument must be considered not to stand Animals: Its not similar because this one rest on a premise that animals ‘deserve’ anything, be it good or bad. A premise I challenged and Pro has not done anything to prove or support the radical idea. Even if your from PETA and think Whaling is a sin, you would have to concede my opponent did not actually give arguments to uphold your ideals, only left them assumed. And that would be fine had I not challenged them but I did challenge them. Free Will: Free Will was conceded to exist for the purposes of this debate by Pro Summary & Conclusion: I have either caused my opponent to concede, or I have totally rebutted, or at the least showed the BOP was not met in every single argument brought up this debate. At the end of this debate I think all the readers should see that the famous ‘Problem of Evil’ argument is not an actual argument that can disprove the existence of God as it does not rest on provable premises. It may be a set of reasoning to lead you to the conclusion there is no God if you come from a mindset of these un-provable premises, but that makes it a philosophical difference, a kind of difference that means your beliefs there cant be a god because of the Problem of evil rest on as much ‘Faith’ as a Christians belief there is a God rest on.