God, the argument of unnecessary suffering

I am terribly sorry for FF! I almost finished preparing my arguments, but, unfortunately, due to an unexpected personal issue I was unable to submit them! I wish it didn’t happen, but such things may happen sometimes! I really apologize for it. . * - important! I will summarize/readdress the main points of our already-presented arguments, without providing any new/additional argument. BOP**Pro tries to show that unnecessary suffering more likely exists to establish his proposition that God more likely doesn’t exist. **In this case I, as Con, try to show that those sufferings are more likely not unnecessary (i. e. , not bad), which would automatically refute Pro’s arguments. Even if those sufferings are necessary (i. e. , good) is another topic (e. g. , they may be neither bad nor good, but neutral). NOTE 1*Direct quotations and paraphrases etc. from our previous arguments will be italic. Pro / I: “…” - means what Pro / I wrote in direct quotation. Pro / I:… - means what Pro / I meant (paraphrase, summary etc. of our statements)**CORRECTIONS1) I: “=>These refute P1. ”-> Correction: “=>These refute P1. ”2) I:“RESULT: Since P1 and P2 are refuted, then C … is refuted! ”-> Correction: “RESULT: Since P2 is refuted, then C … is refuted! ”OVERALL SUMMARYOccams razorPro:“…Occam’s Razor … states that one should never make more assumptions than the minimum necessary to explain something…”Pro: “Seeing that H1 requires more assumptions than H2, occams razor enjoins us to go with H2. ”How does that follow? Pro (only paraphrased):Occam’s Razor states that if more assumptions are necessary, then you should make. ***In addition, if you want to know what Occam’s razor is really about, then please check a more reliable source than RationalWiki (Pro’s source). I hope, at least, voters will do that before they vote. God and unnecessary sufferingI: If “God who is Omniscient, Just, loving, morally perfect, and Omnipotent” exists, then the existence “of [an] afterlife is completely reasonable, possible, and compatible. ” And when an “afterlife, where suffered people (even animals according to Islam) are given opportunities for revenge (i. e. , taking back what once was taken from them) or things that make them very happy and satisfied, so that they don’t regret any suffering came to them” is considered, “then none of those sufferings remain unnecessary anymore. ”NOTE 2: Let […] denote the above statements for another use below. NOTE 3: This is the reason for the 1st correction above! Pro: “…the main point [Con] make[s] here is that we should factor in the future. That's fine but I add a caveat, it's always possible to refer to the mere logical possibility of something, in this case that God allows x,y,z for some unknown to us greater good that would not of other wise happened in the future. ”In other words, Pro: It is always possible that an afterlife exists (in future), which may result for that there remained no unnecessary suffering anymore, when God exists. ****In other words, Pro: since this possibility is always possible if God exists, then it is never possible to prove P2. Pro: “But the mere logical possibility does not give us any reason to believe it is true or even more likely true than false. ”And vice versa! Note that according to BOP, Pro has to show that this possibility doesn’t exist! In addition, Pro: “… it's always possibleto refer to the mere logical possibility of something…”In addition, I: “This assumption of afterlife is completely reasonable, possible, and compatible for God who is Omniscient (knows everything, including suffering and how that feels), Just, loving, morally perfect, and Omnipotent! ”CONCLUSION 1Since Pro admitted that when God (as defined) exists, then it is always possible that an afterlife (not necessarily heaven or hell) exists in future and I demonstrated that if an afterlife exists then it is impossible to show that sufferings are unnecessary. So, it means that P2 is already refuted, refuting his conclusion in his deduction argument. Therefore, Pro lost the debate (in Arguments)! Pro claims in R3 that I didn’t dispute some of his arguments. Let’s see if the materials I provided really refuted his arguments or not. Heaven/after life Pro: “… even if we grant the existence of [afterlife] how does that help Cons case here ? Con never really explained, just asserts that heaven some how makes all those previous sufferings necessary. ” I: “[…]” (please refer to NOTE 2 above for […])Pro: “I think it gets worse, I think heaven creates even more problems for Con. You end up creating some frame work where in this world/life God has to allow suffering because it is necessary for a greater good. ”**My arguments talk about the condition of I: “suffered people (even animals according to Islam)” and“for good people, at least for not-bad-ones” etc. , not in general. In other words, my arguments argue that I (summary of my arguments):when an afterlife is considered, then those sufferings are not absolutely bad (thus not unnecessary), even if they were not good. The medical analogy, gangrene handPro: “This analogy fails because God could prevent … or cure the gangrene without … loss of hand. ”I: “…[an]afterlife, where [sufferers] are given … things that make them very happy and satisfied (e. g. , their lost hands in a life better than this one), so that they don’t regret any suffering came to them. ”Pro:“The reason we may cut off a hand is because that is the best we could do…”I:God can resurrect him/her after dead and give a fully-functional body (including hands) in another life maybe much better than this one. Economic justificationPro: “Well then the more illness, the more need for doctors = better for the economy ? this is risible. ”Whose economy? I: “Would it be better if there were no illnesses at all? ”As you can see, my argument is about a condition with no illness at all, not about more illness which is a different topic. Presupposing unnecessary suffering or moral paralysisPro: A child kidnapper and killer “… argues, release me, and if God allows me to kidnap again and kill again at least take comfort that God allowed it for another greater good, for if he allows it, it must be the case” after he is found and caught by police and town’s folk. Ironic! I: “God is also … the Creator and the Ruler of everything (e. g. , police and their opportunities, human mind etc). ”Leading to even more absurdityPro: “If we were to operate on the suffering only happens cause God is allowing it for a greater good…”I: …not necessarily for a general/universal greater good (obviously not for those who cause sufferings), but at least for sufferers. Divine SilencePro (R2): “A loving father who must bring their daughter to the hospital to have a painful medical treatmentwill explain the reasons why he does what he does. If she can't understand the reasons he will at least make sure she feels his presence and comfort and receive some assurance that there is a reason even though she can't see it right now. ”Pro (R3): “Yet another reason to believe the suffering is unnecessary. ”In other words Pro’s analogy is as follows, Pro: If the father didn’t show understanding and comfort by not explaining the reasons for that painful medical treatment and not being present in hospital during the treatment, then it would give us a reason to believe that the suffering (of their daughter due to medical treatment) is unnecessary. Pro (R3): “Con didn't challenge on this point. ”He may be right, sorry! CONCLUSIONI (R2):“The materials I provided in [R2 were] sufficient to show that Pro’s arguments in R2 don’t establish [their] proposition…”Please note that all of what I wrote in italic were direct quotations, paraphrases or summaries of what was already-presented in previous Rs by Pro and me (you can check them). I didn’t introduce any new/additional argument other than what was presented before, so no violation of rules! I thank Pro for instigating and participating in this debate. I also thank the voters in advance.