The problem of evil and the concept of God are irreconcilable

Previously I said "All I have to do in order to win this debate is to show that, besides his viewpoints, alternative possibilities exist. I do not have to prove my claims are true. I just need to show they are POSSIBLE." Burncastle said: I accept that, but I would like to make sure that we agree that my opponent must demonstrate that his claims ARE in fact possible. Asking me to prove that they are impossible would be a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. My response: Fair enough. That's all I've been doing- showing possible alternatives. There's no need for you to try to prove them impossible. That would be an impossible task for you to accomplish. "Needlessly... That's the question." Yes I agree, it is what it basically comes down to. "Does a cancer patient "need" chemotherapy? Only if you want the best possible outcome. Does a parent of a child with cancer allow that child to suffer the effects of chemotherapy? The pain, the weight loss, the hair loss? If he wants the best long term outcome, yes. Sometimes short term suffering is theonly way to bring about long term happiness." My opponent said: "An interesting analogy, but it fails for one very important reason: we are not omnipotent, we are limited in what we can do by the laws of nature. God, on the other hand, is NOT limited by those laws and should therefore be able to cure any disease WITHOUT short term suffering. This is the whole point of my argument." My response: Again, it's possible that the way to bring about the most conversions, and therefore the most long term happiness in Heaven, is for God to allowing suffering to take place. I've heard countless stories, for example of cancer patients "getting right with God" before they die. Whereas, if they had died instantly, in a car crash, for example, they wouldn't have had the same chance. Last round I said: "My opponent's claim assumes that all possible strategies are equal in value" My opponent's response: "I am going to need an explanation because I do not understand this sentence. What strategies? If my opponent is referring to the various ways in which God can achieve his goals, then this is false; I am NOT claiming that they are all equal, I am claiming that simply achieving the goal through the sole power of his will would be the best way." My response: I was saying that my opponent was assuming that all ways would lead to the maximal best outcome. And I was simply pointing out that only God could know that. As for God using his power to bring everyone to Heaven, He certainly could, but that wouldn't be something an omnibenevolent being would do. Here's why: God loves us and wants us to love Him back. Could He force us to love Him? Sure, but that's not real love. Forcing someone to love you is not benevolent. So, He gave us free will. Doesn't everyone agree that having freedom is a good thing? So, because He is omnibenevolent, God gives us the freedom to choose whether we love Him or not. Last round I said: "But since we are not God, there's no way we can know that for sure. It's entirely possible that allowing suffering is the best way to bring about the greatest number of people to eternal salvation." My opponent said: "No, it is actually NOT possible that allowing suffering is the best way to achieve salvation for everyone, because that would mean that God CAN NOT find a better way (in which nobody suffers) to achieve this goal, which is in contradiction with his omnipotence. " My response: Sure it's possible that it's the best way. It is if it brings about the greatest amount of people to eternal happiness. And if it's the best way, that in no way negates God's omnipotence. The best way is the best way. Once AGAIN, my opponent is assuming all strategies to bring about eternal happiness are equal when it comes to potential outcomes. But this is something only God could possibly know. My opponent said: "Technically, God should be able to save EVERYONE right now, without needing anything. Once again, this is true UNLESS the suffering is actually part of the goal, but as I said earlier, omnibenevolence would go right out of the window." My response: I've shown above that forcing someone to love you is not benevolent. Last round I said: "As we know from the chemotherapy example, sometimes short term sufferingis the best way to bring about long term happiness." My opponent said: "And as I said, the analogy only works when we are talking about beings with LIMITED powers." My response: Nope. Even if you have unlimited power to choose which strategy to use, the way that brings about the greatest number of eternally happy people is the benevolent thing to do. Even if it includes short term suffering. Burncastle said: My opponent claims that his version of God is compatible with free will by asserting that God is outside of time and that he sees everything at the same time (the quote from CS Lewis simply repeats this point in a longer version). There are two main problems with this explanation: First, my opponent has not demonstrated that "existing outside of time" is a coherent concept, much less a possibility (which we have agreed he must demonstrate). My response: Whem I referred to God existing outside of time, I was referring to physical time (the linear, temporal duration we experience in our physical universe). Physicists and cosmologists almost universally agree that physical time began at the beginning of the universe. Stephen Hawking is one of them. The source I provide is one where you must download the pdf version of the lecture, and go to page 2. [ 3] If physical time began to exist, then in order for God to have created it, He must exist outside of it. My opponent said: " Second, if, at this very moment, God is seeing what I am going to do tomorrow, then my future is already set and I have no power to change it. Saying that God exists outside of time (whatever that means) does not solve this problem; if it is possible for God to know at the same time what I am currently doing and what I am going to do next, then I have no free will." My response: Again, it's possible that God doesn't experience time in a linear fashion like we do. The concept of beginnings and endings may not exist outside of our physical universe. And if that's the case, God experiences everything as a "now" experience. Therefore the knowledge He has is not something He has predetermined which allows for free will. My opponent said: "So basically, we are now ALL in position to be judged because of what ONE MAN did? This still seems pretty unjust. What didn't we ALL get the chance to live without being judged?" My response: Again, as I said in the previous round, as an atheist, my opponent is not able to declare any action unjust/wrong. He may not prefer something, but cannot truly believe in the existence of objectively wrong actions. Last round I said: "All crime is an act of disobedience." My opponent said: "Point taken. Although I would point out that gaining knowledge should not be considered a crime." My response: I'd like to thank my opponent with this concession. As for the specific sin of our first parents, I don't think we exactly know what it was. The author of Genesis may have been describing in in an allegorical way. Burncastle said: It very much depends on the system. A system in which one man's action can lead to repercussions that affect ALL humans is an unjust system. My response: Again, my opponent is in no position to claim anyone acts unjustly. Last round I said: "It's not unjust to punish crimes" My opponent said: "It very much depends on what you consider to be a crime. A system in which acquiring knowledge and not worshipping the leader are seen as crimes is an unjust and cruel system." My response: Again, I would argue we don't know specifically what sin our first parents committed. Last round I said: "I would also like to argue that as an atheist, my opponent isn't really in a position to claim anyone, God or otherwise, is "unjust". Here's why. If God doesn't exist, then there are no objective moral truths. And if there are no objective moral truths, then my opponent is in no position to claim someone is doing something wrong/unjust. He may not personally like something, but he really can't say that they're wrong" My opponent said: "I was wondering when that argument was going to come up. The funny thing is, I have already addressed this issue... in the very title of this debate. The contention is that the problem of evil and God are IRRECONCILABLE, meaning that in a mindset where the God I described does exist (such as my opponent's), it is not possible to account for the existence of evil and suffering. This also takes care of the "New argument". " My response: With all due respect to my opponent, I assert he has NOT addressed this issue. I challenge him to show where he argued that atheists can argue whether an action is objectively wrong/unjust. Simply saying you addressed something doesn't make it so. He one who has made the claim that allowing suffering is wrong in all cases, so I am right to bring up the fact that as an atheist, he can't possibly believe objective moral truths exist. And as such, he cannot validly argue anyone, God or otherwise, has done something wrong/unjust. If objective moral truths exist, then God exists. If God determines what is a moral truth, then no one has any authority to say God has acted unjustly, because He is the supreme judge of what is just. DROPPED ARGUMENT Also, since Burncastle didn't even attempt to refute my "new argument" from last round concerning the existence of evil being indirect evidence for the existence of God, it should be considered "dropped" and presumed true for the rest of the debate. [4] Last round I said: "My opponent said that he believes being kind means allowing people to do anything they want as long as they are happy. I would argue that such a philosophy may not always be kind. Would a parent be kind by letting their children smoke meth because it made their children happy?" My opponent said: No, because smoking meth actually leads to UNhappiness. My response: Ah yes, it LEADS to unhappiness. That implies that in the short-term, it does provide happiness, but in the long run, leads to unhappiness. That's why a good father doesn't always allow his children do anything they want. And in the same way, our Father in Heaven acts in the same way. Because in the long run, it's better for us. Last round I said: "Allowing your children to set off fireworks in the house may give them "the maximum amount of happiness RIGHT NOW", but in the long run, it may provide them long term sorrow if they lose an eye in the process. That's why allowing them to suffer in the short term (by not allowing them to shoot off the fireworks inside) could be a prudent choice." My opponent said: "Again, this analogy fails because my opponent is comparing God (unlimited being) with humans (limited beings)." My response: No it doesn't fail because regardless of one's amount of powers, the best way is the best way. My opponent said: "I would like to remind my opponent to provide some evidence that things he is presenting are in fact possible. For example, the story of Adam and Eve is, as far as we can tell, physically impossible since it violates most of the laws of nature." My response: Before I can respond, I need my opponent to explain how he thinks the existence of Adam and Eve violates the laws of nature. I contend it doesn't. People exist. My opponent said: "My opponent also has not demonstrated that it is possible for a mind to exist outside of a physical brain (which is required for heaven to be real)." My response: Some of those who study paranormal activity argue that these activities provide evidence that minds are more than materialistic experience. Please read this article from the Examiner. [5] Sources: 3 .http://arxiv.org... 4.http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate) 5.http://www.examiner.com...