The Problem of Suffering

Con made a lot of points, so I will try to respond to each one. In regards to free will, Con argues that "our actions are controlled by our brain". I disagree with this, at least in the strict sense, as it simply describes the belief of materialistic determinism. Con has not disproven the existence of an immaterial mind (which interacts with a material brain) and free will only has to be reasonably possible in order for the free will defense to work. Yet, Con then argues that after introspective reflection one can recognize that their thoughts are really just the product of past memories and thoughts etc. So free will isn't compatible with our experience of how our thoughts originate etc. In response, while I agree that our thoughts are influenced by things outside of us and we can't control what thoughts pop into out minds, this does not entail that we lack the freedom to choose how we respond to these thoughts. I think we choose between these thoughts. This consideration has not been disproven and I think it makes more sense of my personal experience in how I will decisions. Yet, Con still maintains that God's omniscience is incompatible with free will because a person can't do other than what God knows that they will do. Again, I see no strict conflict here. God knows what one will freely decide. This knowledge does not make or prevent a person from making a specific choice, rather it entails that God knows how a person will use their free will. From all eternity a person 'could' have chosen otherwise, but God knows how they actually 'will' choose. God simply knows what one will do, but that truth could have been rendered differently had that person chosen differently. God knows how that person will choose. Then Con argues that theism is necessarily committed to divine command theory. Yet, theists have traditionally not held to divine command theory and it is in fact historically become popular more recently. Even some divine command theorists would say that God's command must still meet the standard of justice. Regardless, I don't think theism requires the belief in divine command theory. I hold to natural law theory of ethics and that God must in fact act in accordance with justice. Again, though if I did maintain divine command theory (in the strict sense) then the problem of suffering wouldn't be a problem because God can just command anything Then Con argues that the explanation offered about angels is a far fetched claim. Of course, whether one thinks a claim is far fetched does not make it false though. Con argues that the explanation does not work though because God shouldn't create evil angels. Yet, in response, God creates humans who will use their will for evil. God does not refuse to create people simply because of how they will use their will. God creates people and allows them to choose to journey towards Him or away from Him. Con argues that it would not make sense for God to allow angels to help with creation though. However in response, it is due to God's love that He allows creatures to help Him create. If Con does not like appealing to angels though, the approach can be recast by appealing to human will and arguing that God creates a world that is consonant with the collective human will, which results in a world with imperfect physical laws etc. Con might argue that this would be unjust, BUT again perhaps it is due to God's love that He allows His creatures to help Him co-create. Con then concludes talking about the importance of searching for the truth, I totally agree.