There is no benevolent God.

Also, sources aren't crucial in this debate. Clearly this is more about logic and common sense. I don't need a source to assert that natural disasters are an evil. Con failed to refute my resolution. He merely claims that it is refuted. Free Will "The fact that God knows what will happen doesn"t disprove free will, we still choose what to do, God just knows what our choice will be. We are still making that choice, that choice isn"t "predetermined" for us, though knowledge of the choice is. " God created the universe. He would know, at the very moment of creation, what we would do. He could even change the outcome by manipulationg the starting point. If our will matches up with God's intended outcome, then it is not free. "If God was to intervene in the evil acts of man, we wouldn"t have free will. " That's not true at all. I can intervene in a robbery, this doesn't mean I'm taking away the robber's free will to try and rob someone. I would only be helping his victims. An all powerful, benevolent God has no reason to allow such grotesque acts as murder and rape to follow through. If He can't save people from other people, He is not all powerful. If He can, but chooses not to, He is not benevolent. "Once again, what is better? Having man learn himself how to live in peace and prosperity? Or creating man and teaching him what exactly peace and prosperity is? Clearly option A is the better way of learning, which is why God doesn"t do this. It is for the benefit of mankind. " Oh, is it clear? Really? This contention that God would have us fend for ourselves in no way refutes His lack of benevolence. We are on the brink of destroying ourselves. If that happens, what then? A benevolent God has no reason to have us work on our own, without any guidance from him whatsoever, or even any clear sign that He exists. You have not explained in any way why an all powerful, benevolent God would leave us to kill each other. God's Test Con has brought up two other major arguments as far as I can see. The strongest is the God's test argument, and it is still very weak. God has no reason to test His creation if He knows what the outcome of the test is from the beginning. If He needs to test us, He is not all powerful. If He simply wants to test us, He is not benevolent, as His test is clearly laden with evil. Furthermore, clearly God's test, if it can so be called, is not fair. Some people are born with self-destructive tendencies. Some people are born into poverty. Some people live to 80, others die at age 5. Some people are born rich. Some are born mentally ill. God's Plan The other argument is the "larger plan" argument. First of all, I find it amusing that Con thinks that WW2 was in any way a positive thing. There is no reason to think that we wouldn't have invented penicillin without WW2. Second of all, this is a cop out. Con is simply asserting that God is beyond our understanding, and therefore somehow immune to such labels as malevolent or ambivalent, even though it's clear He exhibits such behavior. My resolution stands to reason, and has not been refuted as Con claims. Con's argument of free will falls flat. His contention that God would see us fend for ourselves is flawed. He has failed to explain God's absense and natural disasters, as his test argument is so weak it can be refuted in one sentence. His "larger plan" argument is unfalsifiable, and therefore invalid. Your move, Con.