The Problem of Evil can be refutted effectivley.

PRO === There are two types of evil in this world. (a) Evil humans inflict upon themselves (war, terrorism, crime) (b) Evil humans do not inflict upon themselves (hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes) === Agreed. PRO === "This two types of evil can be answered with the same theodicy, this is how it goes: God has provided the conditions necessary for character development and growth among his creatures." === If God were truly omnipotent, "his creatures" wouldn't need to be raped or tortured as a requisite for character development. If God were truly omniscient, God would know this. If God were truly benevolent, God would do something about it. PRO === "God's intent in creating the world was not to provide a paradise or heaven on earth. God wanted to provide an environment in which beings with moral and spiritual potential could develop and grow in the direction of completeness. But this requires that we be able to cultivate virtues that can't result from a trouble-free existence. Thus God had to allow trouble into the world. The purpose of this world is soul-making. And that is an enterprise that results from grappling with sin, suffering, and pain." === My opponent's basic argument appears to be that God put humans on this Earth as a test of our will and our soul, that test being the evil inflicted upon us from birth. I have a few problems with this: 1. What do you mean by completeness? How is it that a 2-year-old girl being raped to death is "developing and growing in the direction of completeness" any more than if she wasn't? 2. Why is the pain God dishes out so uneven? For example, that 2-year-old girl apparently needed to be raped in order to develop and grow in the direction of completeness, so why doesn't everyone need that? Why is this lovely, benevolent creature so blasse with who he has tortured? That is the opposite of benevolent, that is downright evil. 3. If every ounce of pain and anguish we feel is merely character-building, why does pain happen to those who won't remember it, and therefore will not grow from the experience at all (babies, mentally retarded, people with alzheimers, etc.)? 4. How do other animals fit in with this little theory of yours? If I torture a puppy to death over a period of 8 hours, what does that puppy get out of it? There is no reason to believe that the pain they feel is every bit as real, and therefore every bit as evil, as if it were done to a human. But I don't think it's going to build their character in preparation for heaven. 5. A baby is 2 days old. Her father, who was born mentally retarded and doesn't know any better, tortures her (I know this is getting kind of morbid, but that's evil for you) to death over a period of 3 days, every bit of pain imaginable is placed upon this baby. The baby dies and the father kills himself, still unaware that what he's done is wrong. This is, unfortunately, a very real situation and is probably going on somewhere in the world right now. How is any of this character building, and for whom? It sounds like God just enjoys a good torture scene to me. PRO === "(a) There must be free-willed beings. Moral character cannot be stamped on a person from outside; it must be freely cultivated." === I don't understand why moral character cannot be stamped on a person from the outside, especially by a being who is supposed to be omnipotent. Indeed, we ARE born with a predisposition to a certain amount of moral character, which is then merely SHAPED by our experiences. PRO === "(b) There must be an environment in which these beings can exercise their freedom in morally significant ways. That means there must be real moral choices. And there mjst be stable natural laws as the backdrop and stage for moral decision making. A world in which the laws of nature changed all the time would not be context in which rational decisions could be made about how to act. How would you help a thirsty man man if the glass of water you give him could burst into flames? Or How could you feed a starving child if the sandwich you give her could turn into a snake or stone? Stability provides for moral decision making and moral action. But in a stable world, wrong choices can have bad results." === I'll have to be honest here, I don't really know what my opponent is getting at with this. Are the "stable natural laws" supposed to be addressing natural evil, as defined above? I ask my opponent to please clear this point up in the following round. PRO === "(c) There must be challenges to the characters of the free beings who have been created. In a morally frictionless universe, no one would grow. We grow through conflict and difficultly. So problems must exist." === Even if I were to concede that problems must exist (for the reasons above, I would not concede this), surely they don't need to exist to the extent that they do. Don't you think an omni, omni, benev God could rid the world of rape and torture, and still have problems exist? If God exists as described, and sadists exist, God is a sadist. If God exists as described, and rapists exist, God is responsible for rape. He has the power (apparently) to ensure that nobody is ever raped again. He can keep pain, he can keep natural disasters, he can keep the war and violence he appears to enjoy watching, but just get rid of rape. What is it about this omni, omni, benev being that precludes him from doing this? PRO === "(d) There must be opportunities for these free beings to respond virtuously as well as viciously to their challenges. The suffering in the world can't thus all be utterly overwhelming. And we can't be led by the hand, metaphysically speaking. We need elbow room for making mistakes as well as for doing good." === i) Babies can't respond AT ALL when they are being tortured or raped, so how may they respond "virtuously and viciously" to this "challenge"? ii) You don't think the suffering in the world is "utterly overwhelming"? My man, I suggest a trip to Africa (any country will do), where you will watch children slowly starve to death in a puddle of their own feces. If the very thought of that doesn't overwhelm you, I don't know what will. iii) If we all need elbow room for making mistakes and for doing good, why do so many people die before they get a chance to do either? I'll leave it there for this round, and I thank my opponent. I also apologize again for the constant rape, torture and baby remarks, but I don't think a discussion on evil would be complete without them. Thanks.