The Problem of Evil (PoE)

IntroIn this round I will further explain that P1, if properly explained, makes P3 pointless and thus refutes the argument.Correcting P1(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.Like I said in the 1st round, this premise looks good at first glance. What I criticized was Pro's erroneous explanation of it, given his tooth decay analogy and in light of his adherance to P3. I am perfectly fine with sticking to the wording of P1, so long as the explanation of it is correct, ie. that the all-powerful, all-good God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil that exist. Pro's tooth decay analogy however showed that P1 is loaded. In Pro's analogy and explanation of P1, Pro designated himself (and humanity) as the ultimate determiner of what is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. He arbitrarily presupposed criterias for what is logically necessary; basically it has to satisfy HIS intellect, and HIS judgement. If it does not, he deems it absolutely illogical and unnecessary. I pointed out that his criteria is:1. Man-centered because it seems like his explanation of what is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good, has to benefit the receiver of evil and that it has to do so in an obvious, tangible, immediate manner. The problem here is that God's morally sufficient reason does not have to be to compensate and benefit the evil reciever in an immediate, obvious, tangible way (like healing, salvation, free-will, etc), OR AT ALL. The ultimate good is the glory of GOD not of man.2. Arbitrary and intellectually arrogant, due to Pro's and the whole of humanity's limited knowledge, perspective, time, observation, etc. Pro does not know absolutely what God's actual purpose is to allow the evil that exists. He just arbirtarily claims that the evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good when it evokes HIS approval.If Pro wants to say now that P1 "does not assume that humans necessarily have epistemic access into the reasons God has for permitting evil", then I will drop my criticisms of P1. But Pro in the same paragraph, asks me to, "plausibly show the evil to be logically necessary and the good adequately compensatory." Of course I can give him a general response; ie. God's glory and love will ultimately be displayed, but of course Pro being the ultimate authority in his worldview, will determine for himself, if that reason is morally sufficient or not. Perhaps Pro will ask me, how allowing evil, especially gratuitous evil, will accomplish this. The answer is we don't know exactly, but God does. P1 is only true if God, not Pro, is the ultimate determiner of what is morally sufficient or logically necessary. If Pro accepts this, then P1 is the conclusion. P2 is assumed in P1 and P3 IGNORES P1.Refuting P3(P3) Much of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.Skeptical Theism(Much of what Pro said about skeptical theism is irrelevant, since Pro wrongly accused me of being a skeptical theist. I will only touch on the relevant points.)I did not deny the fact of "gratuitous" evil at all. Im not even skeptical about it. It exists and it is ugly. I know that gratiutous evil exists, as a matter of fact, the Bible says that MAN is gratiutously evil. Our limitation is not that we do not not know what evil, gratiutous or not, is. Our limitation is our knowledge of the reason why God allows them in the first place. I did not betray my epistemology, in fact that is what I am exhibiting in my criticism of the PoE. We know good and evil ONLY because God revealed what they are. What we don't know; God's reasons for allowing evil, we do not have the ability to determine for ourselves. Pro is actualy the one who is irrationally being a skeptic of God, in his INTERNAL critique. He doubts if the all-good God does indeed have a morally sufficient reason to allow evil, since he is unable to see and understand it. As if Pro is capable of determining if the ultimate moral judge is doing what is morally right or not. As you can see, Pro denies God form the outset.What I criticized in P3, both in my short and long refutations, is the way Pro arbitrarily asserts that there are no logical reasons for an adequately compensating good for this category of evil. In other words, Pro assumes that God does not have a morally sufficient reason to allow gratiutous evil. This is nothing but an unsubstantiated arbitrary claim. Pro's personal opinion!Pro fallaciously argues from ignorance and self-knowing. Pro claims that because he himself does not know and understand why God would allow a child to be born with Down Syndrome, or why God would allow an animal to be trapped in a forrest fire and suffer, that there must be absolutely no morally sufficient reason for God to allow it to happen. This is completely arbitrary and intellectually arrogant.“For if an instance of suffering appears not to have a point, that is a reason for thinking it has no point.”"from all that we know of these horrendous circumstances, we are unable to even to conceive (much less identify) why these evils are logically necessary for any good at all.""it seems to imply that even if all sentience in the universe experienced the most horrendous suffering imaginable until death, this would not render God’s existence any more unlikely (4). But this is absurd. If postulating God has any implications, then surely the nature of the world is of primary concern."Here, Pro gives more arbitrary and intellectually arrogant statements that demonstrate my point. They fallaciously assert that if "WE are unable to even conceive why these evils are logically necessary for any good at all", or if an instance of suffering APPEARS TO US, to not have a point, then these horrendous evil are indeed absolutely logically unnecessary and it is "absurd" for God to allow them. This completely ignores P1, that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil (any category) that exist, whether we know what the reason is or not. Man not knowing everything that God knows should be rationally expected. But much of Pro's defense of P3 stems from the wrong assumption that man has absolute observation, judgement, and knowledge. That man is the ultimate determiner of good. That man is God.ST and theismEverything Pro said here are simply bad theology. God is sovereign, while man is still accountable and responsible. We are taught in the Bible to abhor and flee from evil but ultimately rest in God's sovereignty. The believer is not skeptical, but on the contrary, he is called to TRUST that God knows what the heck He is doing.ConclusionThe PoE is supposed to present a LOGICAL problem for the existence of God. It is supposed to argue that the existence of (gratuitous) evil makes God's all-knowing and all-powerful characters internally incoherent. It fails to do that no matter what version of it. P1, when understood properly, refutes the problem.What we see is that the PoE is actually a PSYCHOLOGICAL problem for both the unbeliever and the believer. As Dr. Greg Bahnsen, a Christian philosopher and apologist, said,"We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others." (1)The difference is the believer, by God's grace puts his faith in God's goodness, power, and wisdom, while the unbeliever takes it as an insult to his intelligence and autonomy. Dr. Bahnsen adds,"He refuses to trust God. He will not believe that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists, unless the unbeliever is given that reason for his own examination and assessment. To put it briefly, the unbeliever will not trust God unless God SUBORDINATES Himself to the intellectual authority and moral evaluation of the unbeliever" (2)(1), (2) Bahnsen, G. "ALWAYS READY"