The Problem of Evil (PoE)

Burden of ProofMaybe its a mis-read on my part but its possible that Pro is implying that I am some how shifting the burden ? In the last round I made the point that I am not required to prove that God exists but rather trying to refute Pros argument, as Pro said at the start. .. "In this debate, my role is to present a version of this argument, and to defend it against Con's objections. "You need good to have evilMe claiming that good does not exist was to make a point, the point being Pro needs evil to exist and therefore needs good to exist. C. S Lewis points out this implied distinction where he writes. .. "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - Mere Christianity [1]Now Pro provides an argument based on the assumption that good does not exist, that says. ..1) If God exists, he is omnibenevolent (i. e. He is all good)2) Good does not exist 3) God does not existNow maybe this is a sound argument that proves that God does not exist, but this is not a problem on my side for this debate as this argument does not depend on the existence of evil to prove that God does not exist. At best this could be called an argument that God does not exist due to the absence of good existing. It is Pros argument that needs evil and therefore good to exist, not mine. The Problem of Evil vs Evil proves God does not existPro says. .. "Con’s new objection basically takes one sentence which I made, and tries to use it to show that if we have to assume that God exists,"I did not claim such a thing, I am not claiming that some one MUST assume that God exists, but rather if you work on that assumption its a LOGICAL IMPOSSIBLITY that gratuitous evil exists and therefore no amount of evidence or probability arguments can change that once you grant that assumption. What this means is that you need to work on the assumption that God doesn't exist to even consider that gratuitous might exist. As I said before. .. .1) Assume an all-powerful and all-good God exists, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.2) Evil exists (Pros argument)3) Therefore any evil that exists must have an adequately compensating good. (From p1)4) Therefore gratuitous evil does not existBased on this assumption premise 3) of Pros argument is false, and thus the argument is unsound. The alternative, God does not existNow what if that God assumption in premise 1 is false ? , well that would mean that God does NOT exist. Consider the following argument.1) Assume an all-powerful and all-good God does NOT exist 2) Evil exists (Pros argument)3) Therefore gratuitous evil could exist4) Gratuitous evil does exist (Pros argument)If God exists as Pro says. .. "If God exists, he is omnibenevolent (i. e. He is all good)" then there is a foundation that good exists. This is not to say that God is good in the sense of conforming to some outside moral standard but rather that God is the moral standard and everything that does not conform to that standard is thus "evil". So Pro must be getting the "good" from some where else in order for their argument based on evil to work, but where does Pro get it ? Pro says. .. "Lastly, Con asserts that I have to explain the existence of good, given that evils exist. Firstly, this is only true if I share Con’s assumption that good and evil are necessary contrasts of each other. "Of course they are necessary contrasts of each other, Pros argument depends on evil existing as something different from an existing good. If good and evil can be the same thing, then I can merely point out that premise 2 of Pros argument also says that good exists, and that premise 3 of Pros argument really says gratuitous good exists. Pro says. .. "Preventing suffering babies from harm would seem to be a good on a wide variety of moral epistemic positions that we are perhaps left to wonder whether this would be classed as a good, even if the parties involved all disagree on the reason for classifying it as such. "It may be the case that there are different ways to know the good, but that isn't the issue, its not a question of knowledge of the good, but rather its the question of if the good even exists in the first place. So once again, absent God, where is Pro getting the existence of the good from ? Richard Dawkins I think understands the problem of trying to claim that evil exists and therefore good exists absent God where he writes. .. "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. " [2]We don't seem to have a foundation from Pro of the existence of the good absent God thus as I said before. ..1) If God exists then good exists2) Evil exists (pros argument)3) Evil can only exist if good exists 4) Good exists 5) Therefore God exists In ConclusionIf God exists, we have both a basis for the existence of the good and therefore evil can exist, but it would be logically impossible for gratuitous evil to exist. Therefore premise 3) of pros argument is false. If God does not exist, we have no basis for the existence of the good, thus evil can't exist nor can gratuitous evil exist. Therefore premise 2 & 3 of pros argument is false. I look forward to Pro's replySources [1] . http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...[2] . http://en.wikiquote.org...