If Evil Exists, God Does Not Exist

In this round, I will show why my opponent's rebuttals fail, and why his objections do not put any dents in my case. My opponent's Theory Con speaks about his theory in which God creates a universe that is most free, with the least amount of evil. This is it. We don't understand it because we don't see the big picture. Essentially, he is saying that apparently gratuitous suffering we observe is necessary for some greater good that us ignorant, and finite creatures are just simply unaware of. Problem solved. Unfortunately, this just delves into radical epistemological skepticism. If you see your next door neighbour (who is known as the nicest guy in town) beating a little girl black and blue, it could be the case that we don't know why he is doing it, as he is the nicest guy in town and probably has some plan based on this known fact; he certainly must have a reason. However, no decent person would just let the beating occur without intervening or calling the police. If we took my opponent's logic seriously, then we get an absurdity: P1: If it is the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good, then we should not prevent apparently gratuitous suffering P2: We should prevent apparently gratuitous suffering C: Therefore, it is not the case that all occurrences of apparently gratuitous suffering are really necessary for some greater good Defense of P1 If God exists, then all of the suffering that appears gratuitous is really necessary for some greater good without exception. Tampering with any apparently gratuitous suffering would cancel out the greater good that is necessarily entailed by it. Thus, one ought not do it (more goodness at the end of the day is better then less goodness at the end of the day). Defense of P2 Certainly, if a little girl is being brutally raped and possibly may die, we ought to prevent it. Nobody in their right mind who stumbled across this situation would let it continue due to the fact that if they didn't let it continue, they would be cancelling out some greater good that is necessarily entailed by the apparently gratuitous suffering. “The fact that a Christian would save the child if he could implies that Christians don't really believe that an apparently needless death [or suffering] serves any greater good. ” - Paul Doland[1] The two premises of the argument seem plausible enough to affirm that at least some cases of apparently gratuitous suffering are actually gratuitous, even if other cases of apparently gratuitous suffering really do entail some greater good in the long run. Since if God exists, there would be no gratuitous or pointless suffering (all suffering would have to be for a greater good if a truly all-good being exists), and there is at least some gratuitous suffering; God does not exist. Now, while I believe the above is a sound argument; it doesn't establish the specific resolution. However, I already did that in my last round. My opponent hasn't even attacked any of my arguments yet. More Freedom, Less Evil? Con claims: "I think that what is most important is not a world of minimal suffering but a world of maximum freedom. " - Con My opponent just asserts the premise that I already tore down in my first round. In one goes back to Quentin Smith's argument, they will notice that I already demonstrated that out of these two types of free-will entailing:(i) Being logically determined not to commit evil, but being internally and externally free to commit eviland(ii) Being logically free to commit evil, and logically and internally free to commit evil. .. (i) is more valuable. This is because, it is the type of free-will God would have if he exists. God can only have properties that are better to have then not. Therefore, if an omnibenevoloent being is going give creatures free will, since he is the most benevolent being possible, he is going to give us the free-will that is more intrinsically valuable. If this is the case, then it follows that we should all be logically determined to lead a good life. We are not though, we can commit evil. Therefore, this evil is confirmation that God in fact does not exist. The "Fall"Pro talks about free-will and how we abused it, and are abuse of free-will is what lead to evil. This completely neglects the arguments I made in my first round. In my first round I argued that if you posit that God would allow any type of evil no matter what the cause, then he must have the modal property of "possibly being the necessary condition for evil" which is a [property that is better to have than not, but necessarily does not have the property of "necessarily being the necessary condition for only good", and that this is not better to have than not. This proposition is worse that something coming from nothing it is so absurd. The most perfect being possible must have one of the two below, but not both:1. The property of necessarily being the necessary condition for only good2. The property of possible being the necessary condition for evilIf you took bunch of random people in a room, who had no biased towards or against Theism, and asked them which property a perfectly good being would have; I'm certain that all of them would say that a perfect being had 1. However, this means that evil cannot exist. There isn't one theodicy or defense which is more convincing than the intuitively self-evident notion that a perfect being would have 1 and not 2. Therefore, because it is self-evident that a perfectly good being would have 1; evil and God are incompatible. Con also dropped my argument regarding how us being able create evil situations, even though evil goes against God's nature, is equivalent to us being able to create illogical situations (cough up round squares), even though that is inconsistent with God's nature. God's nature links perfect goodness and logical absolutes together under Theism, making one just as necessary as the other if Theism is true. Since coughing up round squares is impossible if God exists, then it follows that doing evil should be impossible as well. Since it is not; God does not exist. Is Evil God's Fault? "The reason it's not God's fault what we do is because of the very nature of choice. " - ConOf course the evil in the world is God's fault if he exists. As I have already established, free-will can still exist without the ability to do evil. If a truly perfect being created us, who was really all good, he would have given us that type of free-will. How can I say that this type of free-will is better than the other? Well, because God necessarily has it over the other! Thus, by definition, it has to be a better property to have than not. Any God who would give us free-will the ability to do evil, is not omnibenevolent. He wired us up with the potential to do evil, even if we didn't have to. That is still evil in itself. Let me give an analogy. Lets say you wire a bomb up to potentially blow up, but it doesn't have to, it has a mechanical "choice" if you will. It could blow up, but it doesn't have to. Lets say you place the bomb in a school gym and it blows up. Teachers and innocent kids get killed, and there is rotting flesh and blood splattered everywhere. Certainly, even though the bomb didn't have to blow up, and it had a "choice" if you will, it was still wired up with that potential when it didn't have to be, so the bomb planter is still evil if he exists. Similarly, God wired us up with the potential for evil. Even if we didn't have to do evil (we could have chosen not to), God is still evil for even wiring us up with that ability in the first place. However, that means God doesn't exist, as God cannot be evil. What Is Good And Evil? "Let's define good and evil before we go any further. God is the source of all being. God is therefore the source of all meaning of that being. God is therefore the sole determiner of what is good. It could be alternatively said good is that which is consistent with the will of God. " - ConThe above assumes that God exists. However, as I have already shown, God doesn't exist. Thus, these points are mute. Before Con can start talking about God like he exists, he must tear down my points which disprove God. All four of my arguments were not responded to, and were simply dropped. "Evil is nothing more than to contradict God's intention. "Why should anybody accept my opponent's definition of evil? It certainly has no intuitive power. Also, if Theism is true, then evil contradicts his nature more fundamentally than his intention. "It's not a thing that it stands in opposition to God. It's really just damage or distortion to that which is good. This is why it's impossible for God to do evil. " - ConI agree that it is impossible to do evil. This is the problem which makes God impossible to exist. If he exists, then the existence of evil makes God evil himself. Thus, God cannot exist, as his existence entails a contradiction (God is both evil, and not evil). So what are good definitions of moral terms? I think Shelly Kagan makes it very easy. He states:"Right and wrong is a matter of whether your behavior hurts people, or fails to help them. That is, a wrong action is something that hurts somebody [without justification of course], or fails to help them in the relevant circumstances. Right action is a matter of those behaviors that refrain from hurting people and do provide help. " - Shelly KaganThis makes much more sense than my opponents definitions. No rational person would walk in on a child being tortured and think "I better save him, this goes against the God I believe in! ", we intuitive think "I better save him, this is clearly harming a the child! ". ConclusionMy opponent ingnored all my main arguments, and I anticipated all his objections in my first round. The resolution has been affirmed. Sources[1] . http://www.infidels.org...[2] You-Tube[watch? v=Rm2wShHJ2iA]