The evidential argument from evil is valid.

Thank you, Freeman, for a sturdy debate. It's been quite a pleasure. I will try my best not to introduce any new arguments in this round, of course; a quick summing up and last words to the audience, and it's over. A little counterpoint, to ward off your last round, but nothing really new here. In order, then. 1. The self-referential definition is not a problem in this case. As I pointed out already, if God created the universe, He has every right to set the rules. Those rules cite His nature as the standard for moral behaviour, and cannot limit Him. 2. The quote my opponent uses here is somewhat misleading; the relevant portion: "But it is absurd to suppose that an omnipotent agent could lack the power to move a feather or the power to keep it motionless." Imagine, then, two almighty beings struggling over a feather. One attempts to move it, the other to hold it still. It is obvious that, without the interference of the other God, either one could affect the feather with infinite ease. They could do the same were it a galaxy or a universe that they chose to affect; infinitely powerful beings are infinitely powerful. But can an infinitely powerful being overpower another infinitely powerful being, strength matched against strength? Obviously not. Infinity minus infinity is zero; equal and opposite forces cancel each other out. The difficulty is not in moving the feather; the difficulty is moving the God sitting on it. My opponent's argument here is empty. 3. Without bringing in new arguments to support this one, I cannot answer my opponent's objection. I reluctantly concede this point. 4. My opponent seems to have missed the point of this view. 5. I will say this only one more time. I ask the voters to listen closely. ____Theism is not naturalism!___ We are not debating the merits of any competing theory of origins, we are debating whether the existence of E makes theism improbable. Theism posits a Creator. A God who created everything. That is part and parcel with theism. We are not debating some straw-theism that my opponent chooses to make up to suit his arguments, one where evolution is true despite the existence of a God. I do not, and will not, cater my arguments to my opponent's assumption that evolution is true regardless of the system. Theism does not allow for evolution, and my opponent -presumably- wishes me to defend theism. This debate is not over whether creation is true. My arguments are over the reasonableness of God; it is absurd to insist that I argue for a reasonable God while denying the necessary conclusion: If a God who created the universe exists, then He _created_the_universe. IF he didn't create the universe, why on earth would the existence of E have any effect on His probability? Sadly, because he insisted on enforcing absurd restrictions on my arguments, my opponent has still not given any reason at all why this view does not reasonably allow both God and E to exist. ---------- What was the point of bringing up those views in the first place? My opponent had claimed that an infinite, all powerful, morally perfect God was completely implausible because suffering (E) exists. I have given and defended four views of theistic religions on that point, any one of which gives an adequate explanation of how a perfect God could allow suffering to continue. If even one of these views would logically allow God to exist while the world suffers, my opponent's argument fails. Naturalism and theism would be equal in their ability to predict the existence of E. I conclude that four out of these five views do, in fact, give a perfectly plausible explanation for E's existence. --------- Finally, the point about simplicity. My opponent tries to misconstrue my statement about causes into saying that only naturalism cannot explain its origins. I said that neither one of the two systems can explain something existing uncaused; the two systems being equal in that respect. He throws in some wild speculation by a famous name; this is to be ignored as pointless. No matter what the naturalist scientists claim started the universe, they cannot explain why that first cause existed. Again, my opponent states that theism requires two realms: one of atoms, and one not. At this point, it's his statement against mine, as I have already pointed out that there is only one realm, one chain of causality; the physical is merely a subset of the spiritual ream. Atoms are irrelevant to this discussion; the point is, as naturalism has only one chain of causality (evolution did it), so too theism has only one chain of causality (God did it). The two systems are, in that respect, equally simple. ------Conclusion------- Four plausible explanations exist and are traditionally used by theistic religions for the existence of E under a perfect God. Naturalism holds no advantage of simplicity over theism. As God's existence is not made at all implausible by the existence of E, and theism is not inherently a more complex explanation than naturalism, the resolution is negated. I thank my opponent for a challenging and enjoyable debate, and hope to have the chance to cross minds with him again. C.