The Problem of Evil Against the God of Christianity Is Valid.

I will now address my opponent's points. ===== Contention 1: whence came this evil? ===== Well, we have to define evil first. Naturally, as a Christian you would say that God is good and evil is non-God. However, this is how I define evil: Evil: Unnecessary suffering Moral evil: Suffering caused by humans Natural Evil: Suffering due to non-human agents As human beings, we can perceive and sympathize with the pain of our fellow beings and wish to see it ended. A person need not believe in God to have a conscience. If the first premise (God exists) is removed, the second premise stays in. Unnecessary suffering exists apart from God and if God didn't exist, then unnecessary suffering is to be expected. "My opponent must therefore show what objective standard he uses to determine evil (and also why this standard is universal). " Gladly, I refer the universal moral system to be called "Universal Utilitarianism. " First, we are aiming at a an absolute moral code that admits no exceptions to its rule and that is universal - it applies to all people at all places and times equally; and that is objective - the decisions it produces are not determined by the subjective desires of the agent performing the evaluation. The foundational principle as the base of a new objective ethical system: Always minimize both actual and potential suffering; always maximize both actual and potential happiness. Everyone wants to be happy and everything else which they desire is ultimately just a means to that end. Universal Utilitarianism identifies happiness as the highest good, worth acquiring for its own sake and by the very nature of what it is and it asks us to consider the consequences of a behavior if that behavior were universalized - hence the "potential" part of the formulation. First, we consider the moral value of our actions as if all relevant parties were fully aware of them. Then we judge the morality of our actions based on the this question: What would be the effect on human happiness if everyone in this situation did what I am about to do? We need only consider consequences that would be a likely and direct result of universalizing an action. Therefore, the moral system I placed out requires that actual and potential suffering should be minimized before maximizing actual and potential happiness. A world where everyone enjoys a modest level of contentment is better, according to this system, than one in which some people are extremely happy and others are suffering greatly; and I think this an entirely reasonable conclusion. ===== Contention 2: There are things even an omnipotent God cannot do ===== "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. " —Matthew 19:26 Source: . http://www.biblegateway.com...; Contradiction -------> Did Jesus lie? Now here is where it gets interesting. My opponent quotes Plantinga saying that God cannot force humans to do only what is right freely. I'm going to introduce my an additional concept of heaven. Hevean is a world that contains free creatures (right? ) and is more valuable than a world that contains no freedom at all. If God cannot cause humans to do what is right FREELY, then why do you believe that heaven exist? After all, "He must create creatures capable of moral evil, and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. " -----> Do creatures have 1) free will in heaven, 2) are capable of moral evil in heaven? Why am I asking this? "Because He must create creatures capable of moral evil, and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. " There are two possibilities: either there is sin in Heaven or there isn't. We know that moral evil and sin are the result of humans misusing the free will God gave to us. Therefore, an easy way to prevent there being evil and sin in Heaven would be for God to revoke the free will of its inhabitants. We now have a further choice: If there is no sin in Heaven, do the people there have free will or do they not? Assuming Heaven exists, there are only four options to choose from: 1. There is both sin and free will in Heaven. 2. There is sin but no free will in Heaven. 3. There is free will but no sin in Heaven. 4. There is neither free will nor sin in Heaven. Together, these four options exhaust all possibilities, and therefore one of them must be true. The only remaining question, then, is which of the four is the correct one. I'm most likely sure that my opponent will choose option 3. However, this leads to a trap: Now consider this argument: 1. By (3) above, it is possible for God to create free-willed beings without the possibility of evil. 2. According to the free will theodicy, evil arises from the actions of free-willed beings. 3. By (1) and (2), God deliberately chose to create free-willed beings who would commit evil acts, even though he had the option of doing otherwise. 4. Conclusion: God wanted evil to exist. A being that would want evil to exist is itself evil, contradicting the ability of all-loving, contrary to the Christian concept of God. If God would have originally created us with the sort of free will that excludes evil altogether (in heaven assuming that the paradox doesn't apply), then no one at all would have ended up in Hell. But if God did not do this, and instead created us in a way that allows for the possibility - or the certainty - of sin, thus necessitating the creation of a Hell and ensuring that countless millions of beings would be doomed to an eternity of punishment there, then the only conclusion is that he wants at least some people to go to Hell, contradicting his all goodness. "Stepping into modal logic here, let's take Bob as an example. " Let's put that situation and apply it to heaven. In heaven, if God cannot force a free action and have to allow creatures to be capable of moral evil, Bob has the choice to beat up Larry, right? Therefore, there is sin in heaven and therefore, can't be that much better than Earth. Is there anger or frustration in Heaven? What about envy, pride, lust, greed, loneliness, hatred? Could there be harassment there, or infidelity, or treachery, or outright war? If all these things do exist in Heaven, then why would anyone want to go there? If they don't, how can that be reconciled with the fact that Heaven is populated by fallible, sinful humans? ===== Contention 3: Our limited perspective ===== Evil: Unnecessary suffering Do you need divine knowledge to determine what is unnecessary suffering? In your situation, the suffering that the man gets from the woman cutting into his stomach is negated by the fact that the woman is a doctor who is trying to remove a malignant mass that will ultimately kill him. Unnecessary suffering: Natural evil: diseases, genetic disorders, earthquakes, starvation, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Moral evil: rape, murder, genocide, and assault. It wasn't that hard, was it? Source: . http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com...