The problem of evil and the concept of God are irreconcilable

He has conceded that he dropped my claim that evil is indirect evidence for the existence of God. MORE DROPPED ARGUMENTS: In the previous round, my opponent admits that he dropped my claim that Adam and Eve truly existed. He also didn't respond to my claim that a mind can exist outside of a brain. This means that my claims are presumed true for the remainder of the debate. [4] I don't know how my opponent wants me to "demonstrate"'my claims are possible. .. . Become God and save more people without suffering? ?? I'd be happy to as soon as he becomes God and save more people without suffering! Last round I said: "Again, it's possible that the way to bring about the most conversions, and therefore the most long term happiness in Heaven, is for God to allowing suffering to take place. I've heard countless stories, for example of cancer patients "getting right with God" before they die. Whereas, if they had died instantly, in a car crash, for example, they wouldn't have had the same chance. " My opponent had several issues with this. Below you will find his concerns preceded with a -. After each of his concerns, you will find my response. - If suffering was indeed a requirement for salvation, wouldn't it be equally "distributed" across the world? No. Again, evils are not something God "distributes". It's something He allows to happen. - Why are Christians (assuming that my opponent believes in the Christian God) suffering? Aren't they already saved? Salvation is a two sided coin: Justification and sanctification. The sanctification part is a process where we're made holy. This sometimes involves suffering. Romans says 5:3-5:"3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. " - Why would God create a Heaven in which suffering is sometimes required in order to gain a pass? Couldn't he create a Heaven in which NOTHING is required (thereby saving everyone)? I will address the "forced love" objection further down. He could, but wouldn't BECAUSE He is omnibenevolent. Forcing someone to spend eternity with you is not benevolent. - My opponent said that people dying instantly do not have the chance to "get right with God". That being the case, I would ask him to explain fatal natural disasters (tornadoes, tsunamies, volcanoes, etc. ) which DO often cause instant death. Again,these exist because of the sin of Adam. And it doesn't necessarily take years to be reconciled. - Last but not least: if God is using suffering in order to allow people to "get right with Him", isn't he trying to violate our freewill, but doing it in a way that has less than 100% chance of success AND is evil? No. Influence does not equal coercion. On the issue of benevolence, Burncastle said: "God is basically saying: "I could bring you to Heaven, but instead I am going to allow you to suffer until you start loving me on your own so that I can THEN bring you to Heaven". Wouldn't an all-loving God send us to Heaven EVEN IF we do not love him back? " My response: No He wouldn't. Forcing someone to love you isn't benevolent. My opponent said: "But allowing them to suffer (sometimes greatly) until they do IS omnibenevolent? Isn't it better to restrain SOME freewill if it ensures that we are not going to suffer greatly? " My response: Not if suffering, in the long run, brings about more happiness. Burncastle said: "In the cancer example: - The person MIGHT accept God and get saved, but might also not. - Some of the people close to that person might LOSE their faith in God (if the person dies), thereby losing access to Heaven. This seems to be rather badly thought out. " My response: Not if it's the best way to bring about the most salvations. The family members may also begin to realize how short life is, and how preparing for the next life is more important. On the beginning of time, he said: "Here my opponent is simply arguing for a beginning of time, which I accept. But arguing for a beginning is NOT an argument in support of existence outside of time. My objection to this concept is the fact that existence is a TEMPORAL concept. " My response: Existence is only a temporal concept for things that begin to exist. God has always existed. Even before the creation of physical time. He said: "And by the way, the fact that time began to exist at the Big Bang is actually a good objection to the claim that God created the universe (because there would be no need for a cause). " My response: No it wouldn't be a good objection. The Big Bang could have simply been the process He used to create the universe. He said: "Either God knows what I am going to do or he does not, these are mutually exclusive. If God does know it, then we do not have freewill. If God does NOT know it, then he is not omniscient. If God's NOW is equivalent to my FUTURE, then he knows NOW what my FUTURE is like, thereby killing freewill. " My response: Or a third option: Linear progression of time doesn't exist outside of our universe. In that scenario, there is no past or future, only now. So the knowledge God would have wouldn't be of the future. On the issue of objective moral truths, Burcastle said: "I am pretty sure I already addressed this, but I'll do it again. My supposed inability to account for justice or morality is IRRELEVANT to the topic of this debate since this is about whether or not it is possible to RECONCILE one's idea of justice and morality with one's belief in the existence of God. " My response: First, it's not irrelevant. In order for someone to say something is unjust/wrong, they must have a basis for doing so. I have shown my opponent does not, so his arguments in this issue are invalid. Second, I HAVE been showing how God and the existence of evil (gratuitous or otherwise) can be reconciled. He said: "I admit that I was simply assuming that my opponent agreed with the fact that suffering is evil, perhaps I was wrong. If I was in fact right, then the question is: Can my opponent RECONCILE this fact with the existence of God? " My response: Yes, that's what I've been doing. He said: "If God determines what is moral, then morality is NOT objective, it is subjective to God and we can disagree with it all we want. If I do not recognize God's authority, then his existence does not solve a single issue. " My response: That's not accurate. The one who creates the rules has the authority to decide what the rules are. When driving a car, it's not up for debate what a stop sign means. You can say it means "go", but you'd be wrong. You'd be wrong because the authorities who put it there get to decide what it means, not you. He said: "My definition of evil is actually "the set of things which decreases general well being". My response: I don't accept this definition. Regarding the meth analogy, my opponent said: "I do not recall my opponent ever saying that God PREVENTED us from doing anything, he simply ALLOWS some things. " My response: I'd be happy to re-word my comments: A good father allows his child to suffer less happiness by keeping meth away from his son because in th long run, it will bring his son more happiness. Burncastle said: "Same goes for the fireworks analogy. If God actually PREVENTED us from doing something, wouldn't he be violating our freewill? " My response: When a father hides the fireworks, he's not violating his child's free will. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: 4. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate)