The Problem of Evil

Let me start by clarifying what a contradiction is. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims are made which cannot both be true Formal example of a contradiction: Claim1: If A, then always B Claim2: A, but no B Con states that the claim "the world was created in absolute perfection" is a contradiction. I'm not saying the claim is true, but it is certainly no contradiction. A contradiction must consist of at least two claims. Example of a contradiction: Con: "because nothing, at all can be absolutely perfect" Con: "The world is perfect in its balance"/"This balance is the way the world is perfect" => contradiction: both claims cannot be true Con: "because nothing, at all can be absolutely perfect" Con: "2) God created a world that reflects his perfection." => contradiction: nothing is perfect/ God is perfect, cannot both be true It would be false to claim that "absolute perfection" and "perfection" are not the same things and that there is no contradiction. There is no difference between perfect and absolutely perfect. Something is perfect if it can't be improved. If "absolutely perfect" is better than "perfect", well then "perfect" could have been improved and therefore wasn't "perfect" to begin with. ------- Getting back to the topic of our debate I would like to clarify that I never claimed the world was perfect. It is Augustine who makes that claim. Con states the following in round 1: "1) God is perfect. The world he created reflects that perfection." He also states: "The Augustinian Philosophy was theorized by St. Augustine and states that god created a perfect world, and gave humans free will." It confuses me to read that Con thinks his claim is one I am making, and that the same claim is incorrect. I fail to see how my previous objections ignore any key points of the Augustinian theodicy and I hope Con will at one point directly address the supposed mistakes in my arguments. ------- It seems to me (and I am only assuming here) that Con thinks free will changes the situation and that all of my previous arguments ignore the aspect of free will. I will now try to show how that is not the case. I will start off by putting Cons argument in my own words in an attempt to prevent further misunderstandings. I expect Con to tell me at which point I went wrong and to be specific about it. 1) Evil does not start to exist on its own, it must originate from somewhere/someone. 2) God is perfect and can therefore not be responsible for evil. 3) God gave humans free will 4) Because humans have free will, they sometimes sin which leads to evil. Conclusion: Evil originates from human beings. My objection: Human beings themselves originate from God. Therefore anything that originates from human beings must ultimately originate from God. This shows that if God created the ENTIRE universe with everything in it, he also created evil. This claim contradicts the way we defined God in the first round, proving my side of this debate. Con argues: "7) Evil enters the world through the choice of man, not God." Does Con mean that there is something in this world that does not originate from God, but solely from human beings? "Evil enters the world" is vague language. Does evil already exist and is let into the world by humans? Con: "Adam and Eve were created with the potential to be perfect much like God" Either they were created perfect, or they were not created perfect. Having the potential to be perfect is different from actually being perfect. Which brings back the following question: Is Gods creation perfect or is it not perfect.