The Problem of Evil is Sound

I would like to start off by saying that in round 1 my opponent said, "If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil." But then in the second round, he did not defend this contention. He only defended the premises that, given God, unjustified evil does not occur and that unjustified evil does occur. I am not sure which he would like me to defend so I will defend both. Is evil and God incompatible? The atheist assumes that (a) a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that (b) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. But why should the theist accept (a) or (b)? However, the logical argument from evil doesn't properly factor in human freedom or God's underlying reasons or overarching purposes. In response to (a) it is logically possible that God has morally sufficient reasons (perhaps which God alone knows) for permitting (even horrendous) evils. As long as that is even possible it alone negates the conclusion that God and evil are incompatible. What about (b)? It is logically possible that God cannot create significantly free creatures who never sin. Again, even if this is logically possible, it alone negates the conclusion that God and evil are incompatible. "It is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil." [1] Atheist philosopher William Rowe: "Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim." [2] We must distinguish between logically-possible worlds and feasible worlds for God to create. While a sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God's grace and love I agree that if God exists, than unjustified (pointless evil), or gratuitous evil, will not occur. I disagree that gratuitous evil occurs. We must keep in mind that inscrutable evil is not equivalent to gratuitous evil. Inscrutable evil is We can't figure out why so much evil exists or why this or that evil exists (but God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting it, though we don't know it). Gratuitous evil is there is pointless evil in the world (and God could have no morally sufficient reasons for permitting that evil). Actually, evil seems gratuitous on the grounds that it is inscrutable; that is, the only evidence for the existence of possibly gratuitous evils is the inscrutability of some evils. The atheist can't definitely say that gratuitous evil exists—only that it seems so. But if the skeptic is just agnostic about a key premise in the argument against God, then there is no argument. I would like to show the theistic argument: If God exists, he does not allow any pointless evil. God exists. Therefore, there is no utterly pointless evil. [3] Natural evil My opponent brought up the point of natural evil. We must keep in mind that phenomena such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes actually serve important functions in maintaining livable conditions on earth. Hurricanes/tornadoes prevent the oceans from trapping too much of the sun's heat by helping to circulate greenhouse gases globally as they shade the ocean locally, preventing heat from building up too dramatically for the safety of certain sea creatures. [4] Shifting tectonic plates (which results in earthquakes) allows essential nutrients for life to be recycled back onto the continents. Without earthquakes, "nutrients essential for land life would erode off the continents and accumulate in the oceans. In a relatively brief time, land creatures, at least the advanced species, would starve. [5] Also, natural regularities furnish a context for human freedom to be exercised. We can act in light of a predictable environment. For all we know, there may not be a more suitable world that is governed by laws which have no source of natural evil as a by-product. Once human beings rebelled against God, they become vulnerable to wild animals, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, thorns, and harmful microbes—from which God had previously protected them. Daniel Howard-Snyder's suggestion seems on target: "the potentially destructive forces of nature became [Adam's and Eve's and their offspring's] foe since a consequence of separating themselves from God was the loss of special intellectual powers to predict where and when natural disasters would occur and to protect themselves from disease and wild beasts, powers dependent upon their union with God. The result is natural evil. [6] I believe I have shown that (1) Evil and God are not incompatible (2) Gratuitous evil does not occur. This would render the Problem of Evil is not sufficient to negate the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. [1] Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 31 [2] William L. Rowe, "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,"American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (October 1979): 41n. [3] C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985),138-9. [4] Hugh Ross, "Hurricanes Bring More Than Destruction," Facts & Faith 12 (1998): 4-5. [5] Hugh Ross, "Tremors Touch Off Questions," Facts and Faith 6/3 (1992): 2-3. [6] Daniel Howard-Snyder, "God, Evil, and Suffering," Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael Murray (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 93.