The existence of evil seems to be incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent and caring God.

"If god is real then he created evil not just as a test for mans loyalty to him but also as an opposite to define what one must do in life and what one shouldn't. without evil their cant be good and without yin their cant be yang." Resolution: Evil is incompatible with an omnipotent caring god. =============================================================================== My opponent's god's properties: (i) omnipotence (ii) benevolence (caring) (iii) omnipotent benevolence required to be moral perfectness (good). An all powerful being who is caring must be all powerfully caring. Caring is a moral attribute therefore said god must be morally perfect. If (i), (ii), or (iii) can be shown to fail, then existence fails (and my opponents argument), equally if evil can be shown to be incompatible with (i), (ii) or (iii) then my opponents argument again fails. Since I am not omniscient and (assuming existence) God is or at least at a higher level (requirement for omnipotence), then first of all, my understanding of evil cannot epistemically said to be the same as God's. Therefore, I (anyone) cannot say with certainty what evil really is within the context of even just (i). If I could somehow maintain an epistemic knowledge that my understanding of evil was the same as God's, then since (iii) entails that (ii) leads towards morally perfect conclusions (because it is based off of moral perfection), then this would still lead one be unable to assume which value statements would have to be derived from morally perfect groundings. i.e. Knowing which moral groundings are absolute does not tell us, with direct apparentness, which value statements we can derive from moral groundings. Knowing what is good/evil and what actions are applied to either moral 'side' is problematic. How can a morally perfect being "test" fairly when the matter of the test itself is uncertain? If said testing is unfair then god in question cannot be (iii) and therefore does not exist. =============================================================================== (i)evil occurs which does not lead to greater good (ii)using evil to test faith is not always moral (iii)From (i and ii) some evil is neither good or moral (iv)God is the source of evil (v)From (iii and iv) God is neither good or moral (vi)Therefore a morally perfect god does not exist. Premise (i)and (ii) can be seen in acts which can be defined as greater evils both natural and human caused. A rape is a greater evil actioned upon one person to another. Arguably the victim receives no benefit short or long term from the act, like wise (ii) natural evils such as an earthquake may cause 'instant' fatalities where ones faith has no chance to be tested thus usage of evil is at best pointless and morally negligent. Premise (iv) is compliant with my opponents opening statement, as God is the source of evil (v) and evil is incompatible with moral perfectness my opponents god cannot exist. =============================================================================== Against omnipotence: Can God make triangles that are round? or Can God make circles that have 4 equal sides at 90 degree angles to each other? or Can God kill Godself? Clearly God is unable to create properties that violate any innate properties and definition of an object. Claims this common argument is a demand for God to work ontological nonsense and therefore irrelevant ignores the point of the contradictions themself. If God is not more powerful as any natural law it supposedly created then it fails any claim of omnipotence. Therefore an omnipotent god cannot exist. =============================================================================== (a)Good cannot exist without evil i.e. for man to do well and be properly tested then one must have evil. It is true that in the absence of non-blue we wouldn't really notice as something distinct that can be named, but it is not true that blue can not exist without non-blue. Similarly, in the absence of suffering/evil, we might not be in a position to label pleasure/good, but it is not true that pleasure/good cannot exist without suffering/evil. (b)Or Evil is a necessary contrast to good. First, the idea is that we cannot experience pleasure without experiencing pain, seems clearly false. The experience of good is likewise discrete from evil. Even if evil is requisite as an epistemic contrast to good, surely there is more evil than is necessary to achieve this purpose. The nature of a 'testing God' is called into question here. If (a) is true then God does not require evil for people to do good, regardless of any knowledge of its opposite. If (b) is true then likewise evil becomes unnecessary and any God who employs evil as a tool is questionably immoral.