If Evil Exists, God Does Not Exist

IntroductionIt is unfortunate if my opponent is not philosophically inclined, but the issue of God's existence is a philosophical issue. I tried not to be that technical, but if my opponent doesn't understand my arguments then that is an issue on his end; not mine. He essentially dropped all my arguments, and did not sufficiently address them. My Opponent ArgumentMy opponent claims:"My counterpart is wrong about my argument. He misconstrues it. I never said that all suffering could be explained in terms of a higher cause or that it would work out for a greater purpose. That's not even close to what I said. I said that suffering is the result of the misuse of freewill." - Con I did not misconstrue Con's argument. If the evil exists as a result of our free-will, then this free-will a greater purpose for a benevolent end. Therefore, the two positions Con mentions are inherently intertwined, and not mutually exclusive. Either way, I argued that God could have given us free-will even if we couldn't do evil. I even argued that this would be more intrinsically valuable than the free-will from which evil can flow out of. Thus, God would have given us that type of free-will. However, we don't, and evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist. The free-will defense doesn't work, as Quentin Smith's argument shows, as we would be logically determined to do good, and still be internally and externally free to commit evil if God exists (as he would enduce whatever was more intrinsically valuable). I even defined the terms in the first round I presented, so if my opponent still doesn't understand, or care to respond to my arguments, then there is not too much else to say in that regard. "I never said God was OK with it" - ConHe must be Ok with it if he exists (which is where the contradiction entailed by his existence arrives). He is the one who chose to give us the free-will that potentially leads to evil, instead of the free-will where that is not the case. We know this type of free-will is more inherently good, as it is the type of free-will God has (God can only have properties that are better to have than not). "I did say that when God created the Universe that He did so with the goal in mind of maximum freewill and minimum suffering in the context of all the people He imagined to create." - ConI already refuted the above claim in my last round. I will repeat what I said:My opponent just asserts the premise that I already tore down in my first round. In one goes back to Quentin Smith's argument, they will notice that I already demonstrated that out of these two types of free-will entailing:(i) Being logically determined not to commit evil, but being internally and externally free to commit eviland(ii) Being logically free to commit evil, and logically and internally free to commit evil...(i) is more valuable. This is because, it is the type of free-will God would have if he exists. God can only have properties that are better to have then not. Therefore, if an omnibenevolent being is going give creatures free will, since he is the most benevolent being possible, he is going to give us the free-will that is more intrinsically valuable. If this is the case, then it follows that we should all be logically determined to lead a good life. We are not though, we can commit evil. Therefore, this evil is confirmation that God in fact does not exist. "My counterpart argues that God should have made it so that people would have chosen good within the context of freewill. What nonsense! That's not freewill anymore than a loaded set of dice is a fair game of craps." - ConWhat my opponent is saying is logically incoherent, and completely contradictory to the definition of God. God is a being who cannot do evil, and has free-will. The reason he cannot do evil is because he is defined as the most benevolent being possible. Yet, he still has free-will. Therefore, my opponent is essentially saying that God is a robot, because he cannot do evil. That is nonsense, even if you cannot do evil, you can still have free-will. This is like saying that because I cannot teleport to Mars and back just by thinking about it, that this means I don't have free-will. Just because you cannot do something, doesn't mean you don't have free-will. I don't have the free-will to create a perfectly spherical cube right now (as that is a contradictory object, as it has edges, but no edges). That doesn't mean I don't have free-will. Just because you have free-will, that doesn't mean it follows that you should be able to do X (fill X with anything). There is tons of things we cannot do, even though we have free-will. If a truly omnipotent being existed, evil would have just been another one of those things. "Choice is there or it isn't. If it's fixed from the beginning then it isn't choice. REAL CHOICE COMES WITH REAL RISK. The reason choice is such a big deal to God is because Love is impossible without choice." - ConMy opponent just disproved God. If God exists, then he has a necessary nature (that of being omnibenevolent). Therefore, he is logically determined to do good but still has free-will. If a being cannot be logically determined, but have free-will; then God cannot exist. If he did evil, then this contradicts the definition of a perfectly good being. God cannot contradict himself. If God exists, then his choices have to be between only good things; God cannot logically chose evil. Thus, it is possible to have free-will, even though you cannot commit evil. God would have made us the greatest created beings if he existed. because only such a being could live up to God's definition. We don't fit that description. Therefore, God does not exist. "The whole point to this is that God wants to have a real relationship with the individuals He created." - ConHe could do that without evil if he was omnipotent. If he was omnibenevolent, he would. Thus, because evil exists; God does not exist."The Bible teaches us that God is love. The choices we have have to be real." - ConIf we only had the option to chose between good things, we would still self-evidently have free-will. The only thing that is needed to for free-will is the ability to chose between A and B. Evil is not necessary for any free-will. "That means some loaded choice that results in a predetermined outcome isn't a choice and isn't love." - ConWe would be logically determined to chose good if God exists, but we would be logically free to chose whatever good we wished. Choosing between multiple goods > Choosing between good and evilEvil completely contradicts an omnibenevolent being's nature. "He didn't 'Wire us for evil' He wired us for freedom." - ConWe could still be free even if we couldn't commit evil. Saying that we aren't free if we cannot do x, entails that I am not free because I cannot dig a hole to china right now with my mind. Just because we cannot do something, that doesn't mean we don't have free-will. If God existed, evil would just be one of the many things we cannot do already. He wired us with the potential for evil, when he didn't have to. That is completely contradictory to an omnibenevolent being's nature. "My counterpart seems confused about the status of evil. Evil does not have a real ontological (real being) status. It is a state of affairs. If you use a skill saw to cut a board and you stick your hand in front of it and lose a finger, the skill saw is not evil. You end up suffering but it's not the saw's fault" - ConIt's God's fault for giving us pain receptors. That is self-evidently an evil act. "I believe the reason many of the awful things that happen in this world are not stopped by God are not because He doesn't want to stop them. But He does have the power to that's true. He chooses not to. If he did intervene our freedom would be a joke." - ConA perfectly good being giving us the type of free-will which entails potential evil is a joke. Con is just calling a less than omnibenevolent being; omnibenevolent. Even though, the being Con believes in does not deserve the title ConclusionI presented three arguments in favor of the resolution. (i) It is self-evident based on the fact that to deny it, you have to say that God has the modal property of "possibly being the necessary condition for evil", and that this is a good making property, but necessary lacks the modal property of "necessarily being the necessary condition for only good". That is worse that something coming from nothing it is so absurd. (ii) To say that we can commit evil, is equivalent to saying we can do illogical things (like cough up round squares), as both logic and perfect goodness are inherent to God's nature if he exists. (iii) The free-will defense fails, as we could have free-will without the ability to commit evil. Since God has that type of free-will (due to being omnibenevolent, he cannot commit evil by definition but still has free-will), that is the most intrinsically valuable free-will. If he is going to create creatures, he is going to create creatures that are the most intrinsically valuable (or else he is not perfectly good). Thus, evil would not exist, and free-will wouldn't stop that fact. Evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist. My opponent only responded to the free-will aspect, all of my other arguments were dropped. Thus, they stand. The free-will defense fails on numerous accounts. The only conclusion we are left with is that God does not exist. The resolution has been established; Con hasn't even come close to sufficiently undermining my argument.