Evil proves God does not exist (Part 2)

I think this is the second time we have debated, and our first debate was on the very same topic. Hopefully both sides have improved their arguments from last time. What does it mean to do a morally good action ? Pros argument is that God does not do what is moral cause according to Pro "Good = an action which results in a net increase in the total happiness of everyone," I think this idea that happiness of everyone is the highest priority should be rejected. Allow me to give an example. .. . Countering that maximums happiness equals the most moral action with Pedophile island On pedophile island, there are lots and lots of pedophiles and only a few children. Now raping children makes these pedophiles really really happy. If we were to use Pros definition of what is good, then we should not only allow but help the pedophiles rape children cause after all its all about what produces happiness. Lets look at an alternative morality, a morality that doesn't sacrifice everything in the name of happiness, say for instance a moral system where people have "rights", like the rights not to be raped. Now in this system assuming those rights are enforced the pedophiles on pedophile island aren't going to be as happy, they might even be very sad. Hedonism is a school of thought which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i. e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain) [1] --- Rejecting hedonism and looking at an another alternative --- According to Pro "Moral = taking the action that results in most good. " & "Good = an action which results in a net increase in the total happiness of everyone" As pedophile island demonstrates this is an untenable moral frame work. But if happiness as defined by pleasure and pain is not the highest priority then what is ? A possible highest moral good is the knowledge of God, as William Craig explains. .. "One reason that the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that if God exists, then His goal for human life is happiness in this world. God’s role is to provide comfortable environment for His human pets. But on the Christian view this is false. We are not God’s pets, and man’s end is not happiness in this world, but the knowledge of God, which will ultimately bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which maybe utterly pointless with respect to the goal of producing human happiness in this world, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. " [2] Craig also goes on to say. .. . "The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good. To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good, the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God, no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain, can still say, “God is good to me,” simply by virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incomparable good" [2] With the moral framework that Pro uses to mount his argument shown untenable, the arguments made on this untenable moral framework are now without justification. I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...