The problem of evil and the concept of God are irreconcilable

He has admitted to having the full burden of proof. This means that all I have to do in order to win this debate is to show that, besides his viewpoints, alternative possibilities exist. I do not have to prove my claims are true. I just need to show they are POSSIBLE. Below, please find my opponent's comments in quotes, and my rebuttals preceded by the following: Response: "Why do I believe that the existence of the tri-omni God is defeated by the problem of evil? Well simply because allowing the subject of your unlimited love to suffer when it is avoidable is logically incoherent; if you love someone, then you do not want them to suffer, especially needlessly. " Response: Needlessly. .. That's the question. Does a cancer patient "need" chemotherapy? Only if you want the best possible outcome. Doesa parent of a child with cancer allow that child to suffer the effectsof chemotherapy? The pain, the weight loss, the hair loss? If he wantsthe best long term outcome, yes. Sometimes short term suffering is theonly way to bring about long term happiness. "Now the obvious response to that, which my opponent has indeed brought up, is "how do you know that God does not have a reasonto allow suffering? ", which is a good question. Here's my answer:If God is in fact omnipotent, meaning that he can do literally EVERYTHING (he is limited only by the laws of logic), and is in fact omniscient (knows everything about the future, the past and the present), then it follows that God is necessarily able to achieve whatever goal he has in mind WITHOUT requiring people to suffer. Whatever his endgame may be (salvation or otherwise), he can simply make it happen without ANY requirement. The only possible way out of this would be to claim that suffering IS God's ultimate goal, but that would get rid of omnibenevolence. " Response: My opponent's claim assumes that all possible strategies are equal in value. But since we are not God, there's no way we can know that for sure. It's entirely possible that allowing suffering is the best way to bring about the greatest number of people to eternal salvation. As we know from the chemotherapy example, sometimes short term sufferingis the best way to bring about long term happiness. "I would also like to express some concern regarding this idea that God"allows" evil and suffering (as opposed to being the cause of it). In amodel of reality where God created the Universe KNOWING what was going to happen, this God is ultimately responsible for everything that happened (and will happen) since he specifically CHOSE to create this particular Universe instead of another. And by the way, this model ofreality is inconsistent with freewill. " Response: FREE WILL AND GOD ARE COMPATIBLE It is possible that God, existing outside of time, doesn't foresee our actions, but rather sees everything as happening at the same time. And if He doesn't foresee our actions, it allows for free will to exist. The following explanation comes from C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity: "Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow. But if He knows I am going to do so-and-so, how can I be free to do otherwise? Well, here once again, the difficulty comes from thinking that God is progressing along the Time-line like us: the only difference being that He can see ahead and we cannot. Well, if that were true, if God foresaw our acts, it would be very hard to understand how we could be free not to do them. But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today. " All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday; He simply sees you doing them, because, though you have lost yesterday. He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow; He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way-because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him. " [2] *Back to my opponent's comments: "Let's imagine that Adam and Eve did in fact exist and that the Genesis account is literally true (which it isn't), how moral is it for someone to punish an entire SPECIES for the crime of a single person? Response: This is a common misconception of original sin. We aren't being punished for someone else's sin. The point is, once sin entered the world through the free will choice of our first parent, judgment became possible. "Especially when that "crime" is as puny as disobedience? " Response: All crime is an act of disobedience. When someone disobeyes the law, that makes their actions a crime. So unless one thinks all crimes should go unpunished, that's not a good argument by my opponent. "Would an omnibenevolent being really act in such a cruel and unjust manner? " Response: In my last two responses, I've shown 1. It's not cruel to set up a system of justice, and 2. It's not unjust to punish crimes. I would also like to argue that as an atheist, my opponent isn't really in a position to claim anyone, God or otherwise, is "unjust". Here's why. If God doesn't exist, then there are no objective moral truths. And if there are no objective moral truths, then my opponent is in no position to claim someone is doing something wrong/unjust. He may not personally like something, but he really can't say that they're wrong. My opponent said that he believes being kind means allowing people to do anything they want as long as they are happy. I would argue that such a philosophy may not always be kind. Would a parent be kind by letting their children smoke meth because it made their children happy? " Glossing over the fact that there is no evidence for an afterlife, what is the point of THIS life (the one we currently experience) if the ultimate goal is to be happy in the NEXT life? Personally, I would want my kids to get the maximum amout of happiness RIGHT NOW. " Response: Allowing your children to set off fireworks in the house may give them "the maximum amount of happiness RIGHT NOW", but in the long run, it may provide them long term sorrow if they lose an eye in the process. That's why allowing them to suffer in the short term (by not allowing them to shoot off the fireworks inside) could be a prudent choice. As for the remainder of my opponent's claims, I have already addressed them above. New argument: It has been said that the existence of evil is actually indirect evidence for the existence of God. Let's begin with the definition of evil. If evil is simply "when things are not the way they should be", then that implies that there is a way things should be happening. And that implies a design. .. which implies a designer. Theists call that designer God. Sources: 2. . http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com...