The Problem of Evil (PoE)

Definitions God - Though I accept Pro’s definition of God, I will specifically define God as the Christian God, the God described in the Bible. I will only be defending the Christian God as it is my position that only the Biblical God is internally coherent and defensible, especially against arguments like the problem of evil.Evil - Like Pro said, this subject is extensive and controversial. I can argue that Pro does not have a rational basis for his definition of evil outside the Biblical worldview, but that is not what this debate is about. In order for Pro to use this argument against the Biblical God, he must also define evil the same way the Bible defines evil. I will not minimize or undermine evil, or argue that evil is not actually evil in God’s perspective. In fact, the Christian definition of evil is much more extensive and serious than how Pro defined evil. Evil is real and evil is ugly.Having said that, the Problem of Evil is an INTERNAL critique of a worldview where God, as defined, exists in a world where evil also exists. I will treat this debate as such and I will be defending the Christian God. Pro, therefore needs to argue within the Christian Worldview.If Pro disagrees and claims that he can define “evil” outside the Christian Worldview, then I'd gladly debate him about if morality and ethics presuppose God or not instead. Pro after our last debate stated that he does not want this debate to to lead to another TAG debate. The only way that is possible is if he treats the PoE argument the way it was meant to be, an INTERNAL critique of a specific system of beliefs.Classic PoEThe PoE argument basically argues that the existence of evil makes the existence of an all-powerful, and at the same time, all-good God illogical. The classic PoE argument is summed up by philosopher David Hume,“Is [God] willing to prevent evil but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (1)Pro, however, accepts that the presence of evil is not a logical problem for God’s existence (I don’t completely agree with his reason). Pro argues, using the Evidential PoE argument, that it is the presence of “gratuitous” and “unnecessary” evil that is incompatible with the existence of God.Evidential PoE(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good.Pro is correct when he said that P3 is where the debate is. And I will argue that P3 is completely arbitrary.Short Refutation Without even criticizing the errors in P1, one can refute this argument by pointing out that P3 is arbitrary.According to P1, evil is not incompatible with God as long as that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. P3 however, states that much of the evil that exists are not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good. But according to who? To Pro. Pro does not know how these “gratuitous” evil are logically necessary for any adequately compensating good, so he concludes absolutely that they are unnecessary! This is a text book argument from ignorance and argument from self-knowing. P3 erroneously assumes that if there are logically good reasons for the “gratuitous” evil that exists, then surely Pro would know them and right away. P3 excludes the possibility that Pro simply does not know why "gratuitous" evil are logically necessary, due to his limited perspective, knowledge and time. P3 is an arbitrary and unsubstantiated personal conjecture, and/or is an intellectually arrogant claim.P3 shows that "the problem really is Pro’s lack of trust and belief in the all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful God, which is what he is trying to disprove, making the argument circular." (2)Long RefutationThough P3 is the main argument in this syllogism, the errors in P1 are the foundations of this fallacious argument. P3 depends on P1 and P1’s flaws evolve into bigger flaws found in P3.(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.P1 looks good at first glance and you would think that any Christian would agree with it, but with further examination, especially with the examples that Pro gave, you will see that there a fundamental errors in this premise.P1 is very man-centered and not God-centered. Man-centeredness is a consistent trait of unbelievers. Pro in explaining P1 exemplified this. Pro correctly maintains that the existence of evil is not incompatible with God, so long as that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. Which sounded good, until he gave his tooth decay analogy. What you will notice in his tooth decay analogy is that Pro is already presupposing a criteria for what is logically necessary: 1. Evil has to bring immediate, obvious “good” results, that Pro himself can immediately observe.If Pro observes something evil that did not immediately result into a greater good or if it seems TO PRO that that evil did not accomplish any good, then it is an unnecessary evil.2. Evil’s end “good” result must benefit the receiver of that evil, specifically in a physical, materialistic, tangible way. Basically, not God’s, but man’s purpose and satisfaction is the ultimate determiner of what good is.Note that I was putting quotation marks on “good”. The reason is I can easily play devil’s advocate and press Pro to prove absolutely that those "good" results are indeed the greater good. The same problem will arise, his finite knowledge, perspective and time, prevents him from knowing this kind of absolute information.P1 is really saying, "If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good... good that we all see, know and understand."I would reword P1 to this, and this is also the proper solution to the classic PoE argument:P1 God is all-powerful and all-good, God must have a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that exists. The most important thing to remember here is that the all-knowing God whose wisdom is infinitely beyond ours, knows what these morally sufficient reasons are, and whether we ourselves know them or not is irrelevant.(P2) There is lots of evil in the world.In the Christian worldview where absolute morality exists, yes.(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.After criticizing the flaws in P1, the arbitrariness of P3 is much clearer than it was in my short refutation. Once we correctly establish P1:(P1) God is all-powerful and all-good, God must have a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that exists. We have to ask ourselves why P3? If according to P1, evil can exist if God has a morally sufficient reason to allow it, why would we then infer that "gratuitous" evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good, or that, God does not have a morally sufficient reason to allow "gratuitous" evil? Because we don’t know the reason? That’s silly! Every example Pro gave in his defense of P3 can be refuted by simply going back to P1, that the almighty, all-loving, all-wise God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing them to happen. The fact that Pro does not know what the reasons are, is completely irrelevant. Pro is simply appealing to emotions by giving examples of terrible evil that he then arbitrarily claims are unnecessary.I trust in the all-wise God, Pro illogically thinks HE is all-wise.(1) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Nelson Pike (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill Publications: 1981), p. 88(2) Me