These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1E.

>>>Does he mean that the God of the Bible doesn't exist or that the teachings of Christianity doesn't? It would seem more likely the former, because we have huge amounts of teaching of Christianity right from the Bible.<<< ----> Yes, I indeed worded this bad. Fortunately, my opponent has not played a semantics game and understood what I meant. Onto the debate! =====Counterarguments===== My opponent copied my formatting. Did he do this before? I can't remember. Oh well, it's cool :) 1. This world is meant as a test for the next This is quite simple to refute - why would God prefer for us to be "tested" instead of being morally perfect and all being out of harms way and eventually into heaven? This is the same as if you were to reply with the free will defense - it is your burden to show why God would desire for a big "test" rather than having us all being without suffering and going to heaven. 2. Natural disasters I'm sorry, but this argument is just off. Not only do you preposterously say that since natural disasters take up a minuscule amount of total deaths we should LOOK THE OTHER WAY, you actually say it's my burden to produce the model of another universe to you. Simply hilarious. A. Natural disasters My opponent comes up with the total of 3.2% deaths caused by natural disasters. This doesn't specify whether it means per year or in all, but this can definitely be calculated to range over MILLIONS. Now let me ask you - if God demanded a human sacrifice every 10 years would we call him benevolent? Would we call him good? NO. Just because natural disasters don't take up the majority of deaths DOESN'T mean there is still evil in the world. It's insane to say something is not evil just because it doesn't happen a lot. B. A world of different physical laws This one is even worse. Let me ask you, do I SEEM like an omnipotent and omniscient being to you? Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for an ALL-POWERFUL God to create another world where the physical constraints do NOT need natural disasters? This is insane - you have actually refuted God be contradicting his definitions. You say an all-powerful God that is restricted by logic (probably?) can not create an alternative universe where physical laws allow for no natural disasters or diseases. I do NOT have to produce to you the formula of such a universe because, quite frankly, not only do I and every human being NOT have knowledge of this, but it doesn't matter. A god that can do all and knows all would CERTAINLY know how to do this. Are you saying it's impossible to have a world where there will be no disasters and it still can function? You seriously saying that? Quite simply, my opponent has not refuted the Argument from Evil ( we haven't lifted off from the basic arguments) and instead makes an egregious argument of claiming a world without natural disasters is IMPOSSIBLE. A heavy burden for my opponent to uphold. 2. Argument from Non-Belief Well, my opponent puts forth a syllogism in response to the argument from non-belief. While I would have preferred for him to go ahead and just attack whatever premise he desires from the one I presented, I'll just gladly do it to his syllogism. The first and quite large premise my opponent uses has many holes and burdens he hasn't fulfilled. His main argument is the Free Will Defense - a common and popular defense. So here I shall tackle the FWD: 1. Revealing something to a person does not "violate their free will". By revealing the truth to people, God can fulfill people's will or desire for the truth. If someone anonymously gave you a Ferrari, that wouldn't violate your free will but make you freaking happy. Do realize that God doesn't have to flat come out and explicitly reveal himself - in the Information Age he can do many subtle things like have angels everywhere preach or spread convincing pamphlets over the internet. Saying that every time someone is shown something they have their free will violated is ridiculous. 2. If free will is supposed to be the highest priority, then God doesn't seem to care much about it in the Bible. There are countless stories of God killing people (that CERTAINLY violates someone free will when you kill them) or performing miracles as Jesus. God can easily do these miracles in a wide-spread fashion. So why is free will many times NOT a priority in the Bible? 3. The FWD seems to say that God wants people to believe in him irrationally, such as faith. Now I'm sure my opponent and other Christian apologetic on this site believe in God through reason and evidence, but the FWD disposes them to belief irrationality. For example, if God made the evidence so clear that any simple rational mind will know who he is from looking at the evidence, then this would be strong evidence and thus no more rational dis-belief (for example, making the scriptures prophesies with amazing accuracy and detail). In fact, Christians say that the evidence is supposed to be in the wonderful design of the universe, world, etc. However, saying that God giving strong evidence for his existence violates free will is then contradictory to the earlier claims Christians make of rationally believing in God. =====Conclusion===== I have refuted my opponent's theodicy for the argument from evil and from the argument from non-belief. The consistent defense from free will has a lot of holes in fact, and I await my opponent's answer eagerly.