The Problem of Evil Does Not Disprove God

There are two forms of the Problem of Evil. There is the logical problem of evil, which states that any kind of evil in the world disproves that God exists. The evidential problem of evil states that, even though it is agreeable that a God may allow some kinds of suffering, this worlds contains unnecessary suffering, therefore, it is very unlikely that God exists.My opponent may use either one he wants to. My main argument is that there is not unnecessary suffering in the world, and both the logical and evidential problem of evil argue that there is unnecessary suffering. I just wanted to clear that up, because neither I nor my opponent wants this to turn into a semantics/sophist debate. That beeing said, thank you, Dookieman, for accepting the debate, and I look forward to engaging in an important discussion.ThesisThere is no unnecessary suffering in the world, so the problem of evil argument does not disprove an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God.Argument 1Bad things do not happen to good people. Socrates, in his apology (1) stated: "no evil can happen to a good man."This argument will be an extension of Socrates' arguments on evil and suffering.Imagine two men running away from a crazed gunman. The gunman shoots both of the men in the legs, paralyzing them, and forever confining them to a wheelchair. The first man became really bitter towards life. He hated his attacker and plotted revenge; he treated everyone who could walk with contempt; and he spent his days sad and alone. However, the second man forgave the attacker. He used that event to reach out to others in a wheelchair, and became in inspiration. He learned how to manage with what he had, and became very happy because of that. People loved him.The question is: which of the two men was a good man? I would argue it was the second man. Even though the same thing happened to both men, the righteous man did not let it affect him.Socrates argued that, as moral agents, we cannot do harm to anyone else. We can only do harm to ourselves. So, if one man shoots another, he is only harming himself, because he committed an immoral act, which affects his soul. Even though the gunman shot another, and affected the body, he could not do harm to the other moral agent (the victim). One can only cause a physical effect to another, but one moral agent cannot do harm to another moral agent. And this is why bad things don't happen to good people. All moral agents can only cause harm to themselves. Others can make decisions that will have a causal effect towards us, but we each can choose how to respond towards that effect. So, in this sense, there is no evil in this world that happens to anyone, other than the evil that we do to ourselves. Because of this, God is not required to prevent people from committing evil, because that would violate our free will.Argument 2In the Christian paradigm, there is a resurrection for the righteous. Because of this, it gives purpose to the free choices that we make. If our free wills were violated, we would not be able to earn a resurrection by ourselves. So, even though moral agents are able to commit either good deeds or immoral acts, there is a motive to lean towards the good deeds. We should not be upset when goodness is violated, rather, we should wish to correct it, because it is a sad thing when a moral agent chooses what is wrong. Instead of wishing for revenge, which is based off of an equality paradigm, we should instead strive for justice, which is a paradigm that seeks to lead moral agents towards goodness.So, many people may say life isn't fair, which is true, because it is better that life is just, which it is.ConclusionThe problem of evil does refute or cast doubt on the existence of God. Rather, free moral decisions are a requirement from an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. References1- http://classics.mit.edu...;