The problem of Evil/unnecessary suffering

Con makes false charges of plagiarismCon cites me using occams razor, which I have referenced. Con makes another charge of plagiarism. .. " He first denied plagiarism when his entire argument based on one Oscar Razor's, he denies plagiarism even though he keeps quoting the man. "I even expanded on what plagiarism is and thus is not in a previous round, cause I had the suspicion that Con doesn't know what plagiarism is. .. .. .. .. .. .. .his latest comments confirmed that suspicion. Con Starwmans the argument. .. .AGAINIn order for something to be "plausible" it isn't necessary to proves its negation or an alternative as a logical impossibility. Con strawmans the argument AGAIN in round 4 where they say. .. ." Pro argues and says that since there are suffering in the world (P1) therefore God can not exist "As I said before. .. " Is my argument that suffering in the world proves God does not exist ? no. Rather the conclusion is that (P2) is more PLAUSIBLE than (P1). "Cons Evil GodI have defined what I mean when I talk about "God". Now if Con wants to come up with a logical incompatible definition of "God", Cons so called "evil God" then good for him. Con switching between different definitions of "God" doesn't counter the "God" I am specifically talking about. I already addressed this before. .. . "And conversely when P2 says. .. " We live in a world where God does NOT exist but suffering does is the same as saying We live in a world where An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent personal being does NOT exist but suffering does. "" As such even if we grant Cons "evil God" possibility as the explanation for suffering, that is compatible with (P2) but NOT (P1). "Occams Razor/What if God is not interfering ? Consider the following proposition put by Con. .. " Perhaps he (God) would like to see how us Humans will survive? "The God I am talking about is omniscient and therefore all ready knows anything about anything about everything. As such it makes no sense to talk about this God taking action in an effort to get more information, such as watching to see how humans will survive or through performing various tests. Con asks what about the possibility that God does exists and chooses not to interfere. Yes that is possible, a possibility compatible with (P1). But possibility doesn't establish plausibility as I said before. .. " Take pretty much any instance of suffering. A child tortured, animals eating each other alive, an earthquake causing bricks to fall on people. Every bone broken, every rib cracked, every person blinded every spine severed can be made compatible with the claim that God allowed these things to happen, as per (P1)But these things are also compatible with the claim that God does not exist, and God did not prevent these things because he does not exist, as per (P2)"Seeing that both hypotheses explain the absence of such a Gods action equally well Occams razor enjoins us to go with the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions. (P1) makes more assumptions than (P2) therefore (P2)Con as not refuted that (P2) is more plausible than (P1) using occams razor. Moral ParalysisYou will recall that I made an argument that accepting (P1) as true leads to absurdity. Con never disputed that if God exists the suffering that God permits only happens if it is logically necessary for an adequate compensating good as stated in (P1)As I put it before. .. "It only makes sense and is more consistent to combat suffering (eg: medical treatment to children) if you work on the assumption that unnecessary suffering does exist, and thus by seeking to prevent suffering you are not necessarily preventing some greater good. "Closing Summary1) Con wrongly makes charges of plagiarism against Pro (I suspect because Con doesn't understand what exactly plagiarism is)2) Con has constantly starwman Pros argument, Con attacks an (imaginary) argument about suffering proving God does not exist rather than the ACTUAL argument about the plausibility of two mutually exclusive possibilities as stated in (P1) & (P2).3) Cons different type of "Gods", eg "evil God" and the "God who is seeking knowledge" even if granted still don't refute my argument since the God that doesn't exist in (P2) is a very specific kind of God.4) Con has not refuted (P1) makes more assumptions than (P2) and occams razor enjoins us to go with (P2)5) Con had no response to the absurdities of accepting (P1) as true and that our actions are more consistent with assuming (P1) as false. I submit Con has not being able to negate the argument. I thank Con for the debate. I ask the vote for Pro. I would remind Con of the following rule as stated at the start of the debate.