Evil confirms it is likely that god exists

You state: "First, evil and suffering are not interchangeable" and also: "Never is evil or suffering used as evidence against God's existence, but rather expressions of the nature of God should he exist." According to you perhaps but I did not address you specifically so your statement is incorrect (See the links below which was chosen at random). Perhaps you have a different idea of what the E&S argument is or heard someone present it differently. The WE you speak of definitely does not represent the viewpoints of all atheists every where. The fact is it is used interchangeable and grouped together by some. I stated a popular argument is, not a popular argument used by ALL atheists. The logical conclusion is usually that evil can cause suffering so the two go hand in hand. I based the argument on what I heard was presented by atheists so no cherry picking here. See SOME of MANY examples below that prove your assertions about what the "WE" should believe are wrong: The problem of evil and suffering is one of the commonest reasons people give for not believing in God. http://www.bbc.co.uk... Problem of Evil and Suffering (Philosophy). If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God exists, why doesn"t he prevent evil in the world? Why doesn"t he use his power to stop evil and suffering in the world? If he loves all humans, why does it let this occur? And if he know it"s happening, again why does he not stop it? https://prezi.com... Professor of philosophy Walter Sincott-Armstrong debated William Lane Craig once upon a time long ago on the topic of whether the existence of evil and suffering disprove that god exists. In the debate, Armstrong makes some pretty compelling arguments that there cannot be a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving to the maximal degree. http://www.atheismandthecity.com... You state: We're saying that if god exists, you must accept that these things (that any normal person would consider evil or suffering) are his will. You must accept that a God who loves all his children would allow for, even have planned for that child to be struck down by that car. My argument acknowledged that it can be considered that there is a likelihood that a good God will not allow this. But the argument is that if we establish that a good God cannot exist or cause it then it is more likely that an evil god is the reason for it. It"s a logical alternative: Good God cannot cause evil therefore evil god probably have caused evil. The argument therefore proves the likelihood that a god can still exist and in this case an evil god. Nothing you said or the E&S argument itself proved in any way that NO god can therefore exist. You state: Your God is a cruel and uncaring God and why shouldn't he be? God is eternal, correct? You obviously do not understand Christian philosophy. The reason why things are the way they are is explained in the Bible. Instead of finding out why the Bible says things are the way it is, you use arguments that seem right and try to impose YOUR view of what Christianity MUST be on God. Find out why it is the way it is, you will quickly realize that your argument is irrelevant to disprove the actual reason why it is the way it is according to the Bible. It"s like comparing Cheerios with milk and then to insist that the Cheerios must be a liquid because in ends up in your digestive system and not a solid. You ask: Can you honestly name one 'evil' act that doesn't involve some sort of end? It depends on what you mean by "some sort of end". But in the broad sense, evil acts can cause good actions. For example: A child that died being run over by a car changes the father who was a drunkard all his life, beating and abusing his wife and children. The pain he feels makes him see the error of his ways and he turns in to a loving husband and father treating his family with the dignity they deserved. And this is an actual example, not something I dreamed up. Again: The simple fact is that you have no good answer to these questions because at most you'll only examine them at a superficial level and ignore whatever reasoning doesn't suit you. Well if it was the purpose of the argument I would have probably addresses it better. You do realize of course that everything you said so far did not disprove my statement that the E&S argument cannot prove NO God can exist and also that the argument actually makes it more likely an evil god exists which refutes the argument as well. And as an advert for Cheerios: And for the record, just because I have cereal in my cupboard does not increase the likelihood that I'll have milk in my fridge. And no, I don't pour soda or OJ on it. I've eaten entire boxes of dry cereal as a snack before... whereas I guess you feel that's unnatural and throw it on your wall... for decoration? Try it with milk, it"s actually much better, but then again, that will increase the likelihood of milk in your fridge right?