The Problem of Evil is an Insufficient Argument Against the Christian God

Anything I have not addressed I have conceded or dropped. I will drop the Tu quoque argument.Non SequiturAs my opponent does not know the exact premise which must be added to the syllogism, I will do so. The premise states, “A perfectly good and all powerful God will not allow evil into this world.”Without this premise, no matter how my opponent wants to construe his arguments, he cannot win. No matter what. His whole argument actually hinges on this unspoken premise. He needs to prove the soundness of this premise before he can continue.Con states that I made a basic error of judgment in my critique of P1. Let me quote the premise and show that it has a conclusion. “If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.” The use of the words “If” and “then” is proof that Con has already made a conclusion which, once again, hinges on the premise I showed above. This conclusion, with its premise, was stated as a conditional statement (Modus tollens). His attacks are thus merely smear.Con has made an argument to authority by trying to cite Craig as saying this argument is valid. That is a logical fallacy. He has not proved it is valid, merely that someone else has said it is valid. If Con can affirm his syllogism, then I will be content to know that this is a valid argument.I will not respond to P1. There would be no purpose in doing so.P3I will go back to your previous round. The points 1-3 were all addressed in my reply to Natural Evil, which Con misconstrued. It neither is a question begging argument, nor does it respond to my argument’s analogy about the sacked employee. In regards to point 4, I have to say that evil is primarily destructive. It, however, is not a burden I have to overcome at all, because Con has not responded to my arguments regarding natural evil. I have, as such, torn down all four points, as requested. If these points wishes to rise again, they will do so in the natural evil section.If indeed my arguments attacked straw man, I apologize. Moral EvilI will note here that Con has used the very same fallacy which he accused me of. I will explain why as I refute his points. I said the short and simple answer was that four word phrase. This means that I would not have gone into it. However, seeing as you have gone into it, I might as well. The point about free will being sacrosanct is actually a straw man because in Christian theology, God can and does interfere with free will. He just doesn’t do it all the time. To do so would be to have a world of automatons who will not disobey Him. It is impossible to love an automaton. Love is reciprocal and in this case it outweighs the evil. If one were to object to this and say that love does not outweigh the evil, I must ask a very simple question. Under which moral code?Con has made a very basic judgmental error which collapses his point, which would have been very good, about rapists and murderers. If we give them unconditional free will, which we cannot, it is not the same as God giving them unconditional free will. If God gave them unconditional free will, He also gave human justice unconditional free will to punish them. As such, Con’s point about this fails miserably. Con has claimed, or rather asserted, that we do know that moral evil can be absent from an autonomous community. However, as he has said in his section about me using a straw man, he has said that he is using the EPoE, not the LPoE. At least, that is my understanding. Should I be wrong, please correct me. Since we are speaking of the EPoE, he must cite an instance of a community that fits such a criteria. He cannot.Natural EvilsI will not respond to the remarks about my explanation before the pointer of:Begging the QuestionBegging the question is a fallacy in which the premises includes the claim that the conclusion is true or that assumes the conclusion to be true (Nizkor Project). This is something I have not done. It is a fallacy I especially detest, so to accuse me of this, Con had better back it up with the facts.What is being questioned here is not the truth of Christian Theology. After all, answering the PoE does not mean that the Christian God exists. Therefore, to explain this with Christian theology is actually a testament to the internal consistency of the theology, which is what is at stake. We are not questioning the truth or falsity of Christian theology. We are questioning its validity!If Con wishes to accuse me further of such a conduct violation, I will concede immediately. This is because it would mean he does not wish to stick to what we are debating. As such, I need not show it to be any more plausible than any premises. Con has also accused me of using another fallacy, known as appealing to tradition. Not only is his claim totally unsubstantiated, it is also a straw man. Nowhere, and I advise readers to re-read my arguments, do I state that Genesis is more authoritative than anything else! I would request that Con stop this smear tactic. I have thoroughly debunked the claim that I have question begged or that I have appealed to tradition. RelevancePro has simply repeated his accusations of begging the question, of which this is a continuation. He is wrong on this point because he was wrong on the antecedent. Please try again. In conclusion, Con has never really answered my points, he has only argued against straw man.All logical fallacies were obtained from the Nizkor Project.