The problem of evil

(Sorry this is rushed. )First off, my opponent is correct in saying I am using the logical problem of evil, but as stated before, my arguments do also stray to the evidential problem of evil. "Plantinga's Free Will Defense"This argument entails numerous problems which I will address one at a time. God is morally perfect why is it such a problem for his creations to be? The essence of my opponents argument is that being morally perfect alleviates morally significant free will. However that would also assume that God does not have morally significant free will, as God is perfect. So why is it so important for humans to have morally significant free will if God does not? Why is God exempt from this problem? And why is it such a problem. If we could be perfect, why not let us? Everyone would benefit from a world without sin. In fact isn't that what heavens supposed to be? Do the trade offs outweigh the resulting benefit? My opponent brings up the analogy of a woman getting a shot. The needle brought about pain but for a greater good. However what needs to be addressed is whether the negatives outweigh the positives. With my opponents analogy that certainly is the case. It is better to allow a little pain in exchange for immunization to a disease. However is that the same with God allowing evil? Let's analyze this a moment. God would allow many of his creations to suffer unimaginably, and in return they could have a free will which he himself does not have. It does not seem plausible. My opponent has done a great deal of explaining how God could allow evil so that there could by morally significant free will as he calls it, but he has not shown that this would produce a positive affect. Humans would be much much much happier if evil did not exist. God obviously knows this. God should do the obvious thing and not allow evil, so that everyone will benefit and be happier. //. .. God would be eliminating the greater good which came out creating man with free will with whom God could have a relationship with and who are able to love each other and do good deeds. //So we can't have a relationship with God, can't do good deeds(? ?) and are not able to love eachother if we're morally perfect like him? That makes literally no sense. My opponent predicts that I will bring up the counter argument of God creating a world in which both moral free will exists but no evil or suffering. I will not be following this rebuttal but will be presenting one that demonstrates other worlds God would be more likely to create. I also agree with my opponent's views on omnipotence, that it does not entail the ability to contradict logic. One world God could create is one in which human beings are not entirely perfect but are still very good, so that evil would not be so incredibally rampant on the human race. That seems much more plausible than the current world. Not all evil is the result of free will. My opponent again assumes my rebuttal which is this time correct. There are many evils in the world, namely natural disasters, that are not, within any plausible realm, the result of human free will. The earthquake that affected 3 million lives,[1] and resulted in the death of more than 300,000 people,[2] for example. There is no justifiable way God could allow such suffering, because it is entirely his fault. My opponent brings two responses to this. The first is that it is the result of the first sin, Adam and Eve, and that it is Gods punishment. Therefore he is saying that God brought about a punishment on billions of lives in result of the sin of two people. I have no idea how my opponent can bring about any way in which God could justifiably cause suffering to countless amounts of people just because of the sin of two persons. That is a blatantly sinful act. The second response my opponent presents is that non humans(spirits) are the cause of natural evil. This is also not plausible because that would mean the human race is entirely not at fault for natural evil. God could prevent demons and such from somehow causing the black plague, and still allow free will. The human race should not be so greatly effected for the actions of those outside their species. Also my opponent does not really show how that is likely. How could spirits cause disease and earthquakes exactly? Let me go over my premises again. P.1 If God was omnipotent he could prevent evil. My opponent does not contend this. P.2 If God was all-loving he would want to prevent evil. Plantingas defence does not offer a rational answer to this. In fact I'm not even sure Plantinga was accounting for an all-loving God when he made the argument. If God loves all of us, that love would outweigh any want he had for us to have morally significant free will. No person wants their loved ones to suffer. It is as simple as that. P.3 If God was morally perfect he would be morally inclined to prevent evil. Achieving free will by allowing evil entails a sinful act. It is not justifiable to allow suffering just so that your creations would free will. Not a single human would want evil. Thus God is probably the only one who would want evil to exist. My opponent would have more of a case if everyone agreed with Gods choice, but otherwise it is not plausible, and is sinful. [1] . http://www.africaw.com...[2] . http://www.reuters.com...