The Problem of Evil falsifies the Christian God's Omnibenevolence

I don't perceive that I'll be using any citations. These are philosophical arguments so it's not necessary. In the name of full disclosure. I've derived most of my arguments from William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantiga. Introduction The Problem of Evil argument (here after referred to as POE) was originally designed to be a defeator argument. That means that you can't hold a belief in a god that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent (here after referred to as the omni god) and belief in gratuitous evil at the same time. I'm going to show how gratuitous evil can't be proven. I'll go through my argument and it should actually touch on every point my opponent brought up. The Problem of Evil The argument according to my opponent: P1. If the Christian God exists THEN gratuitous suffering will not exist P2. Gratuitous suffering exists Conclusion. The Christian God does not exist. Premise number 2 is the biggest problem in this argument. It's completely unsupported and impossible to prove. No matter how hard my opponent fights he won't be able to prove premise number 2. All things in moderation My opponent actually concedes the point that some evil would exist. His beef is just at what he interprets to be gratuitous evil. So I don't have to explain what purpose evil exists for. We already assume the purpose is justified. I don't need to cover the subject of why evil exists at all. So in summary. Me and my opponent agree that evil existing isn't necessarily a disqualifier of the omnibenevolence of the Judea-Christian God. It's this notion of gratuitous evil exists. Desire for Worship The Christian Omni-God desires worship and glory. New Living Translation Romans 11:36 "For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his glory. All glory to him forever! Amen." Part of the reason that evil was created, was to be able to appreciate God's glory. How could we ever know God and appreciate him fully unless we fall from his grace first. It's like the saying goes. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" If we're perfect creations, than we will never know God's true capacity for love. Of course he would love a perfect being, but he loves us despite our imperfections. It's a good thing that God didn't create a perfect world with perfect inhabitants. If he had we'd be spared from ever truly understanding how deep his love flows. This portion was just for context since my opponent has basically agreed that evil is necessary. I think it's good to mention it, so as to understand my argument against gratuitous evil existing. Ashton Kutcher This is what I refer to as my Butterfly Affect argument. In The Butterfly Affect, Ashton Kutcher kept going back and trying to fix bad things. Every time he changed something in the past it would have disasterous affects on the future. Some of these affects were stuff that couldn't possibly have been predicted. The Butterfy affect is a term derived from whats known as the chaos theory. What the butterfly affect means is that large occurrences can come from some seemingly meaningless small events. A butterfly flapping his wings in Africa can cause an unpredictable chain of events that lead to a hurricane off the coast of Florida. God is omniscient He knows all and sees all. Something we view on our tiny time scale as gratuitous evil, may in fact not be gratuitous when looking through God's infinite time scale. God's Will There is this false belief, that God's will for people on Earth is to give them pleasure. I don't care how loving God is. If his goal isn't your eternal bliss you're not getting it. His goal is glory. He wants to be glorified. Although he loves his creatures. What's more important than sparing them from suffering is to spare them from not being able to truly understand his glory and love. You must understand when we discuss God's glory. We are discussing a word translated from Hebrew and Greek. The word has a very multifaceted meaning. God wanting to be glorified, means he wants to be known by his people. He wants them to experience his love to the fullest extent possible. I know suffering sucks, but it's necessary and even beneficial when considering God's long time horizon among other things. Rebuttals My argument actually already covered most of what my opponent has already discussed and showed how he can't prove his examples are actually gratuitous evil or suffering. Here is some things my argument may have missed. "Moreover, a large fraction of these children are both unbaptised and unexposed to the Christian doctorine. Therefore are 'unentitled' to receive redemption in heaven according to the Christian doctorine. We don't even need to go this far, however. As even more compelling arguments can be made for animal suffering." Not true. Everybody gets exposed to the teachings of Jesus. After a Christian dies he goes to heaven. When a non Christian dies he arrives in what's known as Sheol. While in Sheol he'll be given access to Christian doctrine. When judgement day comes. He will be judged and either go to heaven or go to hell. http://www2.biglobe.ne.jp... Anybody not familiar with this concept. Please refer to my source for more information. "P1. If the Christian God exists THEN gratuitous suffering will not exist P2. Gratuitous suffering is possible P3. If gratuitous suffering is possible then there is a metaphysically possible world where it exists C1. The Christian God does not exist in one metaphysically possible world P4. The Christian God is defined as a being that necessarily exists in all metaphysically possible worlds C2. The Christian God exists in no metaphysically possible world (including this one) "Gratuitous suffering is a contingent possibility not a necessary possibility. In Modal logic a contingent possibility wouldn't necessarily exist in some possible worlds. I Couldn't say Barack Obama doesn't exist as president of the United States in some possible worlds. Another thing that needs to be understood about modal logic is the term "some possible worlds". It's really just a fancy way of assigning probability. If I tell you I rolled one dice. Than I asked you what number I rolled. You would use modal logic to create 6 possible worlds. After in half of all possible worlds I rolled an even number in half I rolled an odd. So in summary my opponent is trying to say. There is a chance that gratuitous evil exists, so the Omni Christian God isn't real. This argument is derived from ZMikecuber who has a good understanding of formal logic and try's to apply that form of logic to modal logic. However the argument isn't logical. Despite the heroic attempt of trying to completely understand modal logic by bootstrapping off of a basic knowledge of the MOA and a decent knowledge of unrelated forms of formal logic. My opponent spends the rest of his argument explaining how an evil god might be a just as good of an explanation, so why assume a benevolent God? My response to this, is that it's outside of the realm of this debate. The resolution is pertaining to the POE disproving the Omni Christian God. The debate isn't about an argument for an evil God disproving the Omni Christian God. I'd appreciate if my opponent just stuck to the POE argument, so as to keep the debate on topic.