The Problem of Evil: The existence of unnecessary suffering makes a perfect God impossible.

I look forward to exploring some ideas I’ve recently been thinking about. Introduction In this round I intend provide a warrent for each premise of my argument. I explained in my first round why the argument is valid, and, as my opponent has not challenged this, I assume that he accepts the validity. Therefore, if I successfully defend each premise, I have indeed fulfilled my BoP. Additionally, I will address the initial statements made by my opponent. P1. If there exists unnecessary suffering in the world, a perfect God is incapable of being. This premise is confirmed by definition. Good is defined as “To be desired or approved of” [1]. Suffering is obviously not “to be desired or approved of. ” As God is perfectly good, He/She/It would oppose suffering. Because God is also omnipotent, He/She/It has the power to stop all suffering in the world. Therefore, P1 is affirmed. P2. Unnecessary suffering exists. It is clear based on our everyday experiences that a great deal of pain, death, and loss occur on a very regular biases. Suffering obviously exists. But the question that must be answered to confirm this premise is whether that suffering is necessary. It was agreed that unnecessary suffering would be defined as suffering that is not necessary. A reasonable definition of necessary as applied to the resolution is “absolutely needed” [1]. As God is all-powerful, suffering is not absolutely needed, and is therefore unnecessary. P2 is also affirmed. C. Therefore, a perfect God is incapable of being. Because the argument is sound and valid, the conclusion is affirmed. Rebuttals Con first writes: The first view is probably the view I expect you are taking where we will for all purposes consider P2 correct that the suffering in the world is unnecessary. Because God is perfectly all-good, you might argue he would not create suffering if it was possible to create the earth any other way. But this logic fails do to the fact that it forgetfully exempts other causes for the suffering. The Perfect God has not created suffering, Humans have. He was indeed correct in predicting the form my argument would take. I must, however, raise two objections to statements he made. The first point deals with his argument that there are other causes of suffering than God. This point is, however, irrelevant because as long as there is one instance in which God is responsible for unnecessary suffering, then the resolution is affirmed. There is no doubt that there are many of these instances. As God is omnipotent and the creator of the Universe (space-time), God must exist outside of time and have the ability to see the future. This means that he would know any suffering that his actions would cause. Because he created a universe that allows for much suffering that is not caused by humans, we can conclude that Con’s proposition that “The Perfect God has not created suffering, Humans have,” is false. In fact, even if humans create a certain amount of suffering, God is still responsible because his omnipotent power could prevent it. This in no way rebuts P1. If unnecessary suffering exists, an omnipotent creator is responsible. “A view on ‘Unnecessary’ that rebuts P2” Pro’s arguments here do not rebut P2. As I have already explained, there exists much suffering that is not the result of human free will. Additionally, Con has not proven that humans do in fact have free will. This is a topic that is the subject of much debate in the scientific and philosophic communities. Therefore, if Con wishes to invoke this positive claim as part of his case, he must demonstrate that free will exists. Con’s formal logic P1) a perfect God would not create suffering Agreed. P2) a perfect God might create humans though In creating humans, however, a perfect God would know that he was indirectly creating suffering. P1 and P2 refute each other. P3) a perfect God would create us with Free Will if he created us as all This premise has not been fully demonstrated. Insects do not have conscious free will making them capable of the loving relationship described by Con, yet God created them. Is it not possible that God created humans only for the same reason he created flies? P4) Free Will comes with the potential to do good or evil Agreed. C1) given P2, P3, and P4 suffering could exist without God creating it Because most of the premises are rejected, the conclusion is as well. P5) Free Will continues to be a necessary existence a perfect God would maintain in his creations today C2) given C1 and P5 we can see that suffering could coexist with the perfect God This still does not address suffering not caused by human free will. Conclusion I have demonstrated why each of the premises in my argument are true as well as why Con’s arguments are not. The resolution is affirmed. Sources:[1]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...