The Problem of Evil and Hell

I empathize with Pro's struggle to work within the 8000 character limit. It was the very reason I asked for a four round debate, since I was certain we'd approach that limit in every single round. I hope four rounds will invite more DDO readers.The Problem of EvilA. The Argument MapIt appears my opponent provides this map as a background to the history of this argument. I do hope he does not intend that this map constitute his argument in this debate, as in so doing, he risks cheating the character limit. If he insists I have to refute this map to win this debate, then I will take that as permission to write a 50,000 character response, capture it as an image, and paste it into my round.That being said, I see no problem in referring to it throughout this debate to help illustrate his arguments. I do not believe my objections are accurately depicted in the map anyway.B. The Argument in a NutshellPro's second image breaks my heart. It sadly depicts how some Christians actually live, treating Christ like a cosmic personal assistant. Thought the Church in America has become very inward in many ways, there are also many Christian ministries actively involved in the troubled areas of the world. My church supports missionaries living deep in Mexico despite the increased cartel warfare. We fund a surgeon living in Africa providing lifesaving surgeries to the poor and destitute. Locally, we support The Hope Center, a place where young single mothers can get the help they need to get back on their feet whilst ensuring their children are cared for along the way. We're just one church supporting a handful of ministries. It's not much, but we strive to do our part.I hope the readers can agree that such emotional imagery serves only to distract us from the purpose of this debate. Christians might be petty, ignorant, apathetic, or even downright mean, but that seems to be possible of any people regardless of belief. We should not allow the feelings generated by such images to poison the well before we've even had a chance to objectively examine the evidence.C. The Argument Formulated1. If God exists, then he is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (by definition).It is true that God has all these qualities, presuming we aren't adhering to interpretations of these terms that render them intrinsically impossible. However, it's worth point out that God is also "most just" by the definition I provided in my first round. Perhaps benevolence implicitly includes justice, and that's fine, so long as we recognize that being just is indeed part of God's definition.2. If proposition 1 is true, then unjustufied [sic] evil will not occur.I will agree with this premise. Given God's characteristics, we would not expect unjustified evil to occur.3. However, unjustified evil does occur.I contend that this premise has not been properly demonstrated to be true.Pro defines evil as "unecessary [sic] suffering." I defined it in my first round as "morally bad or wrong; wicked." Like I said, I expected the definition to be disputed, but I will now explain why Pro's definition cannot prove his case.suf·fer·ing [1]n. The condition of one who suffers; the bearing of pain or distress; an instance of pain or distress. (The American Heritage® Dictionary) The pain, misery, or loss experienced by a person who suffers; the state or an instance of enduring pain, etc. (Collins English Dictionary) Pro's definition of evil is ambiguous. How does one objectively determine when suffering is unnecessary? The Problem of Evil is arguing for the reality of God's non-existence, so we need a way to identify real unnecessary suffering. But the term "suffering" involves entirely subjective experiences such as pain, misery, and distress. My daughter is certain she is experiencing unnecessary suffering when I deny her dessert after not eating her vegetables, but it is hardly objective truth.Consider Pro's four examples of evil. I think just about everyone agrees they are appalling. They all involve intense suffering. But what makes them unnecessary? Pro's opinion? Pro must give us some way of objectively identifying his examples as unnecessary. Author C. S. Lewis writes: My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of "just" and "unjust"? . . . What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. . . . Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. In other words, Pro's lack of objective criterion for unnecessary evil means he can only assert, at best, the following premise: In my opinion, unjustified evil does occur. This, of course, does not reach the desired conclusion. Pro needs objective evil to make his case, but this is problematic for the atheist, as Alvin Plantinga notes: Could there really by any such thing as horrifying wickedness [if there were no God and we just evolved]? I don't see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obligated to live. . . . A [secular] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort . . . and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (. . . and not just an illusion of some sort), then you have a powerful . . . argument [for the reality of God]. Not only does Pro have an uphill battle when it comes to showing us that unnecessary evil is a reality, but he risks making a case for God's existence in the process.4. Therefore, it is probable that proposition 1 is false.Pro has failed to show that Premise 3 is true, and so the conclusion cannot be reached.The Problem of HellAlthough my opponent was not able to discuss this argument in detail, I will go ahead and state now that it suffers the same issues as the Problem of Evil. Namely, the second premise states that Hell is an unjust punishment. The natural question to that proposition is, "Says who?" Microsuck? America? The Universe? In order for this argument to reach an objective conclusion, Pro needs to show us that Hell is objectively unjust.TheodicyThe question will surely be asked of me, "How does Christianity deem all suffering as necessary?" Or, "How can Hell be justified?" I will give a brief theodicy, but note that I have already fulfilled my burden of showing the Problems of Evil and Hell to be unsound.When Adam and Eve sinned, they chose their own answer to the questions "What is right?" and "Who am I?" They revolted against God, essentially saying "we don't need you." If God let them rebel without consequence, he would not be just. So, he gave them one: He cursed the earth. Thus, all suffering is necessary as it is the consequence of saying, "Leave us alone, we can make our own way."As a result, all humanity inherited both Adam's guilt and corruption. Adam's choice to do things without God meant he would raise his children without God. Consequently, his offspring would then be born in sin, and so on throughout all generations. "But wait, such consequences are not just!" cries the atheist, to which I respond, yet again, "Says Who?"Sources http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1960), p. 31 Alvin Plantinga, "A Christian Life Partly Lived," Philosophers Who Believe, ed. Kelly James Clark (IVP, 1993), p. 73