The Problem of Evil can be refutted effectivley.

My opponent's attacks falls into two categories. My Opponent: "1. What do you mean by completeness? How is it that a 2-year-old girl being raped to death is "developing and growing in the direction of completeness" any more than if she wasn't? " Rape is a consequence of free will. So, the man who raped this child was operating under free will. Therefore, the rape is his fault, not God's fault. My theodicy states that there must be free will. A world without free will would be a slave universe with no potential for moral or character growth. Therefore, my theodicy allows for child rape. My Opponent: "3. If every ounce of pain and anguish we feel is merely character-building, why does pain happen to those who won't remember it, and therefore will not grow from the experience at all (babies, mentally retarded, people with Alzheimer's, etc. )? " Well, some of this evil is from free will (see above argument). However, some of this evil is not. This evil (such as a baby being orphaned) can still be beneficial to character growth, just not the growth of these people. Like a orphaned baby allows for a couple to adopt the child, adoption, I think (and so should a mentally sane person think) is a good thing in this world. So, the death of the child's parents allowed for something good to happen (it provided a couple with a child). To have a child is a chance to establish a loving experience that will last a life time. My Opponent: "4. How do other animals fit in with this little theory of yours? If I torture a puppy to death over a period of 8 hours, what does that puppy get out of it? There is no reason to believe that the pain they feel is every bit as real, and therefore every bit as evil, as if it were done to a human. But I don't think it's going to build their character in preparation for heaven. " In the eyes of God, animal life isn't equal to that of human life (Genesis 1:26). Therefore, the death of animals is just a way God keeps the animal population in check. As for animal torture, it establishes in Genesis 1:26 that humans can do whatever they want with animals, and therefore animal torture isn't evil. The Problem of Evil cannot exist without evil. My Opponent: "5. A baby is 2 days old. Her father, who was born mentally retarded and doesn't know any better, tortures her (I know this is getting kind of morbid, but that's evil for you) to death over a period of 3 days, every bit of pain imaginable is placed upon this baby. The baby dies and the father kills himself, still unaware that what he's done is wrong. This is, unfortunately, a very real situation and is probably going on somewhere in the world right now. How is any of this character building, and for whom? It sounds like God just enjoys a good torture scene to me. " This is actually a scenario in which God works around free will to lessen the impact of evil. The man tortured the child because he had free will, God doesn't interfere with Free Will. God dishes out his punishment after our death. God allowing this child to die was a sign of civility on God's part, he put the child out of its pain and killed it. As for the man's suicide, that is free will. My Opponent: "I don't understand why moral character cannot be stamped on a person from the outside, especially by a being who is supposed to be omnipotent. Indeed, we ARE born with a predisposition to a certain amount of moral character, which is then merely SHAPED by our experiences. " My opponent conceded that our moral character is SHAPED by our experiences, therefore "experiences" (evil) must exist. As for the stamping of moral character, this wouldn't be a true moral character because it was implemented not "grown". My Opponent: "I'll have to be honest here, I don't really know what my opponent is getting at with this. Are the "stable natural laws" supposed to be addressing natural evil, as defined above? I ask my opponent to please clear this point up in the following round. " By stable natural laws I mean God limits himself in power. He has the power to do anything, but doesn't. So, when God sees a poor starving African child he cannot make food magically appear in front of him (it would violate a law). On the same subject the child must starve because the consequence of not eating is starvation, and the child must die because the consequence of starvation is death. Why must starvation be so painful? Because if the poor African child wasn't in pain then his fellow humanoids wouldn't have any motivation to help him, and no moral growth would take place. My Opponent: "Even if I were to concede that problems must exist (for the reasons above, I would not concede this), surely they don't need to exist to the extent that they do. Don't you think an omni, omni, benev God could rid the world of rape and torture, and still have problems exist? If God exists as described, and sadists exist, God is a sadist. If God exists as described, and rapists exist, God is responsible for rape. He has the power (apparently) to ensure that nobody is ever raped again. He can keep pain, he can keep natural disasters, he can keep the war and violence he appears to enjoy watching, but just get rid of rape. What is it about this omni, omni, benev being that precludes him from doing this? " Question to my opponent: Who are you to say this? Maybe God has shielded us from 90% of evil in this world, and we just have to experience the least evil 10% of it? The amount of evil is a comparative thing, and since there is no other universe to compare it to, who are you to say? My Opponent: "Babies can't respond AT ALL when they are being tortured or raped, so how may they respond "virtuously and viciously" to this "challenge"? " But if you see a child getting raped YOU can respond viciously or virtuously. You can either take the "I don't want to get involved" approach or help the child. Your response can allow moral development. My Opponent: ii) "You don't think the suffering in the world is "utterly overwhelming"? My man, I suggest a trip to Africa (any country will do), where you will watch children slowly starve to death in a puddle of their own feces. If the very thought of that doesn't overwhelm you, I don't know what will. " Once again, see the point about the "10% of evil" hypothesis above. My Opponent: iii) If we all need elbow room for making mistakes and for doing good, why do so many people die before they get a chance to do either? You mean why do babies die? Just like giving birth of a child, the death of a child can allow for the parents to grow morally. Only a challenged life is a life worth living. I turn it back over to my opponent.