The 'Problem of Evil' never succeeds (Attempt 1)

==== FULL RESOLUTION ==== There are literally no versions of the Problem of Evil argument that succeed at proving the non-existence of God. ==== CONTENTION ==== From versions of the logical Problem of Evil to its evidential varieties, including all forms of the Problem of Suffering, not a single one of these arguments ever succeed at proving the non-existence of God. That is the position I am affirming and defending. Although some of them expose powerful demands for a coherent and consistent theodicy, [1] that is not the same thing as proving that God cannot exist (logical versions) or probably does not exist (evidential versions). In other words, no versions thereof ever succeed as an Argument for Atheism. [2] Since there are countless versions of such Problem of Evil arguments, it would be impossible for me to make my case in the 8,000-character limitation imposed by this site. Therefore, I leave it to my opponent to employ whichever version of the argument they think does in fact succeed at proving the non-existence of God; to defeat me in this debate, they need to demonstrate the success of only one such argument. I repeat: if there is even one such argument that succeeds, my position is defeated. NOTE: I will be presenting this debate repeatedly at this site, giving any interested parties the opportunity to defeat the debate proposition. At the close of each debate, if my opponent has failed to defeat the proposition then I will re-post it for another person to tackle. This is the first time I am presenting this debate, so it is labeled "Attempt 1." I look forward to the forthcoming challenges. ==== DEFINITIONS ==== 1. In all my arguments, on this and any other matter, the term 'God' always refers to God as revealed in Christian scripture canon (viz. the 39 books of the Old Testament and 27 books of the New Testament) and possessing all the commonly recognized attributes thereof (e.g., trinitarian, omnipotent, righteous, sovereign, etc.). I have no interest in defending, nor do I even recognize the legitimacy of, any deity other than the God of Christian theism. If one wishes to argue against the deity of Islam or Deism, etc., they will have to seek a proponent thereof. 2. I am willing to confront any definition of Atheism; it makes no difference to me whether the 'strong' or 'weak' variety is employed. How my opponents define their Atheism is irrelevant to me, since this debate is not about Atheism so much as a specific type of argument for it; i.e., their task is to establish that some version of the Problem of Evil succeeds at proving the non-existence of God. I leave it to my opponent to define their Atheism, if they wish to make it known. ==== REFERENCES ==== 1. The term 'theodicy' refers to arguments "concerned with reconciling God's goodness and justice with the observable facts of evil and suffering in the world" (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopï¿½dia Britannica, Inc., 1994-2009. Answers.com. Web. http://www.answers.com...). 2. Arguments against the coherence of theism can never service an Argument for Atheism, and for what ought to be a rather obvious reason: proving that certain theistic models are incoherent does not thereby prove that God does not exist, because the one does not follow from the other (non-sequitur). It is entirely possible for a theistic model to be incoherent and yet God nevertheless exists. For example (to put the matter in less controversial terms), if I should propose an incoherent model for the existence of life on other planets, one cannot legitimately conclude from that incoherence that life on other planets therefore does not exist. Even if every single proposed model for extraterrestrial life were incoherent, such life could nevertheless exist.