The argument from evil (AE) is sound

Not only was my Theodicy given an uncharitable hearing but Pro lies that I dropped arguments while he attempts to refute them under seperate headings. Critiques P1: Yes, the theist isn't committed to actually gratuitous evils, but I've affirmed its appearance which I’ve argued is compatible with Christianity & omnipotence, hence ~P1. Pro doesn’t defend against this but straw mans, thus P1 is false & the resolution won. P3: I then deny the inference to actual gratuitous suffering from it's appearance, given my theodicy + ST. The fallacy of accident charge stands if Pro's examples are maintained since he applies a general rule (God wouldn't permit gratuitous suffering) to an irrelevant situation (a baby / fawn who aren't known to have pain awareness like us). I responded to all P3 justifications. For ‘prima facie’ I showed its both an argument from ignorance & analogy. Pro just repeats 'no' without any further justification. For Rowe's non conceivium I showed that the fawn's 'suffering' is irrelevant since beasts lack the necessary frontal lobe to have a higher order awareness, so at best we're ignorant on such matters. Pro says dualism is presupposed here but if one thinks there’s a PoE, they must affirm there’s an irreducible & teleological mind as a substance that exists to be wronged in the first place! Pain quale can’t exist only as causal inputs & outputs for there to be a PoE, it must be irreducible to physical states, hence at minimum a denial of functionalism & eliminativism must occur, which makes my response 100% legitimate. For nature of evils, Koons argued there's no reason to consider global suffering as bad simpliciter, Pro conceded. Epistemic consistency not only confirms my existential PoE, but I've argued it's a fallacious argument from analogy if it were used any other way than existentially. I argued our moral epistemology is limited on an all knower [AK], but justified on partial knowers [PK], so I agree PK's can reasonably consult appearance when it comes to other PK's. But Pro's trying to disconfirm an AK. Such reasoning is fallacious from the start. (& how would science halt, does science disconfirm God or postulates of his creation? Only the latter) Pro then concedes my point that the EPoE isn't a problem for the warranted theist. My evil qua existential also makes this inference to non-theism irrelevant. Pro just repeats himself against infant reincarnation. Who was the victim when my infant-self experienced the pain of birth? I claim no awareness of it, & if I had died & later reincarnated as a functioning infant, then where’s the evil? On theism either infant reincarnation or salvation occurs -all while the infant is never pain-aware like he is well into development: Graciously designed, their frontal lobe isn’t fully functional until long after birth. Pro chose a poor example yet I'm following the implications of the nature of God in relation to the possibilities of his free creation, which isn't contriving. So I deny knowledge of infant/beast higher order pain awareness, not that they don't feel it. 3rd order awareness of 1st order pain comes late in the infant / evolutionary game, but is necessary to experience the goods of which my theodicy describes. Metaphysical evil is non-moral, intrinsic pain whereas physical evil is moral & extrinsic. The latter is a case where God would unjustly allow a sentient creature to experience the former. But “there is nothing morally unjust about allowing a beast that is not self-conscious and is unable to represent itself as experiencing pain to experience such a quale and its intrinsic, metaphysical evilness” (Goetz). Theodicy My theodicy was shown to be a basis from which many complex answers can be made. I then applied it to E1-2 thereby answering Pro’s ‘just-so-story’ charge. Kane’s definition of an SFC shows how Pro’s character destruction point affirmed my theodicy. For a person who freely chooses a destructive way of life in the pursuit of happiness cannot justly experience perfect-complete happiness. But remember the ‘fail-safe’ of which I spoke of in this life? Pro never responded to this paradox. Thus his point concedes part of my theodicy.God has no reason for preventing any person’s essence into existence despite His resolution not to interfere with freedom & the possibility of gratuitous suffering. For God would know that the abundance of goods faced in the world in which my theodicy describes (Wholeness, Divine Love, complete happiness, first fall only, atonement) all out-balances any evil. Even so, God’s effective freedom of intervening can be limited only by a divine binding resolution, of good reason. But God’s prevention of bad things would’ve violated this resolution in a particular way so it provides God with an overriding moral reason not to intervene. So God’s love doesn’t provide a compelling reason for God to do anything that would violate such a resolution, nor can he have compelling reasons for logically incompatible actions. Thus God’s Love & apparent gratuitous suffering is compatible. P1 is false & the resolution is won. So it’s possible for experiences of pain to be unjustified in this life but God’s teleos spills over into the next life. Paul lived with this eternal perspective; more time in eternity results in a decrease in this life’s sufferings (2 Cor.6:4-5 / 4:16-18). Complete-Perfect Happiness is nothing but pleasure & if this pleasure quale continues with the prospect of forever then evil is out-balanced, this is intrinsically sufficiently attractive now to make immortality desirable. O Felix Culpa: The atonement not only implies that created persons can be saved from the consequences of their choosing wrongly, but also that they know that they’re saved from themselves by such an obvious demonstration of true Love. In this way any future ‘fall’ back into sin would be virtually inconceivable- thereby allowing God to create a sustained world of free creatures with minimum evil by only an initial fall where the atonement fixes man’s brokenness forever. Skepticism I didn't drop ‘moral paralysis,’ I defended my position. Pro claims I'm a hypocrite but the context of my quote he uses was within a Pk's existential condition. The resurrection can be falsified by PK's, it also had religio-context, a fly forcefully mating with another fly doesn’t. So far from making God undetectable, I’ve shown existentially that things with religio-context can be disconfirmed thereby disconfirming the religion associated with whatever event is in question. Flew himself became a theist upon observing the fine-tuning of (& not in) the universe. Anyhow, necessarily, we’re limited in applying what we partially know of moral ontology to what an AK would know of moral ontology. But just because our discovery of such truths are limited that doesn't mean it’s meaningless to talk of them. So also Pro’s conclusion that “theism would be meaningless” is not only unsupported, but overly dramatic & unreasonable. Existential PoE Pro needs us to believe that the PoE is an evidential problem but it's an existential problem masquerading as evidential, that is, we don't prefer pain & so we should’t prefer a God who allows it. But why reject theism because questions like, “what is the meaning of this pain” are often left unanswered in this life? Conclusion What makes my theodicy so potent against Pro is 1st that it’s a Christian response, & 2nd that God is also presented with a choice subsequent to his creation’s fall. He can choose indifference letting the destructive nature of our false love run its course, or instead demonstrate true Love by saving us from ourselves by letting us use him as the ultimate sacrifice to atone for us. What cosmic amour, the greatest love story ever told, that All Love lay down His life for his friends so that we may know him. An eternity of God’s creation & true Love: the àpropos for perfect-complete happiness.