There is no logical paradox or contradiction in the Christian conception of God.

There is nothing 'apologetic' about counterarguments to these so-called paradoxes, the paradoxes themselves are flawed. All three that you have presented are based on an incomplete version of the Christian conception of God. They take attributes that are useful for the argument in isolation and ignore a more complete image of God's abilities and character. 1) Problem of Evil - God is all powerful and can defeat evil (True) - God is all good and does want to defeat evil (True) - God is all power and all good therefore there is no evil (False) That third one is where the paradox starts to falter. As you correctly anticipated 'free will' is the basis of my answer to this. Whether one interprets Genesis literally or not the conclusion is roughly the same: human beings have free will to choose good or evil. Although God's omnipotence makes Him technically capable of interfering in every aspect of the world and weeding out evil his character (unyielding honesty) prevents Him from doing so out of respect for our own free will. 'Natural evil' is barely even a question in this case. .. to apply a moral value to a reaction of the natural environment that happens to have negative consequences for humans is in itself a little flawed but nevertheless a similar argument as above applies to it. Humanity chose dominion over their own actions and world in place of adhering to a perfect path in a perfect environment. For human free will to function God restrains His interference in the natural world. If we could not be harmed by nature then we would act very differently than we do now. Our choices would be influenced by God's direct interference. Freedom from God meant freedom from God. .. including being free from His uninvited interference. Concerning the destruction of evil: it WILL happen and is clearly stated so in the Book of Revelation. Ultimately God's goal for us is to see us reconciled to Him so that we will be restored to the eternal, flawless nature that was intended but He will not interfere with our God-given right to choose for ourselves. 2) Argument from Unbelief - There is unbelief in the world (True) - If God is all powerful, then God could prove His existence (True) - If God wants us to believe then we should believe (True) - If the punishment for unbelief is great and God doesn't want us punished then we should believe (True) - There should be no reasonable unbelief in a world with an all powerful God who wants us to believe (False) This argument relies on the proposition that not only CAN God prove His existence but that He WILL. .. in blatant violation of our right to free will. We humans are rational, reasoning beings and when confronted with incontrovertible evidence (and consider that an all-powerful God could present evidence that would be IMPOSSIBLE to deny even to the most fervent doubter if it were His intent to prove His existence) we would be forced to accept it. Even those who outwardly continued to claim disbelief could not truly deny God's existence. 3) Omnipotence Paradox - God is all powerful (True) - An all-powerful being can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it (True) As with most apparent paradoxes (which are logical on their own) it does not apply to a complete Christian conception of God. God is the Triune God: Three persons in one godhood. We know that God according to the Christian conception can create a rock so heavy He could not lift because He has done it before. God created the world and everything in it. Jesus Christ, God the Son, came to Earth in human flesh with all the physical shortcomings and limitations that we are all live our lives with. There were a great many rocks that Jesus could not lift. .. i doubt there was only one. Simultaneously, however, He COULD lift them. .. God the Father could have at anytime lifted the rock yet it would still have been outside of Jesus' (who was still God) physical capability to do so. God IN HIS ENTIRETY is omnipotent but that does not exclude that the three distinct persons that make up that godhood have narrower roles and abilities. ----- As with your other arguments your account of the story of the Bible is incomplete. That in itself is not unreasonable given the limitations of the size of each response compared to the size of the Bible but it has led you to an incorrect reading. I'll point out your more glaring errors: 1) God created a perfect universe part of which was a flawless, innocent creature possessing free will. Creature with free will chooses to strike out on its own, free from God's rule and interference. In doing so they cut themselves of from their source of life and risked a permanent separation. God honoured the decision of the free will He gave his creations and withdrew most of His interference from the universe. Due to His enduring love for them, however, he put plans into motion that would pay the just debt of their willful separation. 2) God the Son (one of three persons of that single Godhood) came to Earth, lived a blameless life, acting in service to others and denying His right to power (as both God the Son and his lineage from David) before experiencing death and enduring hell to pay the debt. In justice God would not let sin go unpunished but in love and mercy He was willing to take that punishment on Himself. 3) That God should forsake a person would mean hell. God had forsaken His right to rule, His right to vengeance and indeed Himself in permitting a person of His godhood to endure Hell despite leading a blameless life in total conciliation with God. I have not, do not and will not apologize for these arguments. They are consistent with scripture, with each other and with Christian doctrine. The Problem of Evil, Argument from Unbelief and Omnipotence Paradox have here been resolutely found wanting in their purpose to reveal a logical inconsistency within the Christian notion of God. As far as this debate is concerned there remains no logical inconsistency in the Christian concept of God.