The Problem of Evil does not Disprove a Benevolent God

Sub-Argument 1Premise 1:Firstly, "loving" and "protective" are not necessarily truly perceived by the recipient. Parents subject their child to an inoculation in which the child faces a needle prick. Although the child may believe his parents are cruel for allowing this harm, the parents are certainly acting in a protective and loving manner. In this respect, we may simply not be able to rationalize why God permits suffering to exist. I can speculate that such a being would be concerned about protecting and loving our eternal existence (soul) rather than our temporal form.Con: "Therefore, I can completely bypass Pro's justification for subjectivity, since I do not focus on human judgements, but semantic content instead."The semantic content ("relating to meaning in language or logic." [1]) is rooted in human judgment. The meaning of these descriptive words are based on the observation and assessment of objective actions, but these terms are still subjective. People can disagree on the application of these terms. The term "loving" has a generally universal meaning, but it is still subjectively assigned. If it is still argued that these terms are not subjective, I ask that this be demonstrated.Secondly, I will certainly agree that the pain and suffering that we observe in this world is terrible, but it is not possible for me to demonstrate how cancer can be not perceived as evil. My perception is, like everyone's, confined to natural reality. We cannot perceive that which is not within our natural world or from a perspective outside of our natural world, but that does not mean that we cannot recognize this without understanding it.To illustrate this, some butterflies have a duplicate gene allowing them to visually discern ultraviolet colors [2], and are believed to be possess pentachromatic vision [3] while we (humans) possess trichromatic vision. It is *impossible* for us to visualize or imagine seeing with pentachromatic vision, as we lack the capacity to imagine that which we cannot perceive. However, we can conceptually understand that it exists.We can properly imagine a limitation to our perception, but not an expansion of it. We can better understand this unimaginable concept by making a comparison between our vision and a lesser capacity such as dichromacy. Essentially, trichromacy relates to dichromacy as pentachromacy relates to trichromacy. Using this means of comparison, I can demonstrate that a limitation of perception exists by creating an example of a more limited reality and then comparing it to ours. On that note, I shall present a hypothetical example.You and three other people exist in a world that is devoid of all that you view as evil or suffering. You are to purchase gifts for these three people who await you at a party. You have the following options based on your budget and availability of gifts at the store:(A) Purchase 3 mediocre gifts.(B) Purchase 2 good gifts and 1 lame gift.(C) Purchase 1 outstanding gift which is given to one person.Remember that these the only possibilities in the scenario. Options (B) and (C) will inevitable cause mental distress in the people that receive a lame gift or no gift due to the obvious unfairness. This may seem trivial to us, but this is because we compare this to what is possible in our natural world. If you were confined to this scenario (one of the three people) you have no perception of our natural world in which to make a comparison. Since there is no such thing as pain or anything bad (by our judgment), the people in this scenario will view this unfairness as evil and as suffering because it is the maximum negative in these terms.Overall, this example contains, by the standards of our world, only positive actions (giving a gift) and nothing is taken away and no harm is brought to anyone. Yet, the possibility of negativity is clearly present within this world.Thirdly, Con: "It does not explain why this amount of suffering ok for God, but not say a world where 500 less children die of starvation every day."This argument is subject to Reductio Ad Absrdum. If 500 less children were spared in another world, that reduction is not perceivable within that world because they cannot compare to the "original" world. This means that this basic statement can be said again for that world, and again in all subsequent worlds.Premise 2:I apologize for the confusion, but I did deliberately choose the term, "least non-evil". An equivalent statement would be, "least non-negative", which is not exactly the same as "least positive". If this is placed into a numeric context, the former term captures zero while the latter does not, because zero is neither positive nor negative. My intention of this term was to capture the "zero" (neutral) point. This point represents something like experiencing neither physical pain nor pleasure. I hope this is clearer.Premise 3:I thank my opponent for presenting the proper terminology; Natural Possibility should suffice.Although Con insists that suffering is an objective state of affairs, I must disagree. The conditions by which the word "suffering" is defined are objective (i.e. pain). The word itself is a subjective term used to express the degree of hardship or pain that a subject is undergoing. Pain is somewhat measureable (they have a 0-10 pain scale in medical facilities), whereas "suffering" is not. This can be demonstrated in that, two observers can discern that a subject is experiencing distress, but they can disagree on whether they consider it suffering or not.This label's definition is dependent on the existence of the objective states that we have deemed negative. These objective states must exist as natural possibilities in order to support the existence of the definition. For instance, if it was possible to cause direct and apparent harm to another's soul, then the definition of suffering would be molded to account for that objective state. If this were a natural possibility, it would certainly qualify as suffering, but this is not a perceived natural possibility. Inversely, if physical pain did not exist, then we would have no concept of that objective state on which to base the definition of suffering.This establishes that the definition of suffering (or Evil) is molded to suit natural possibility.Regarding the example, it merely demonstrates perception that is subject to limitations. We are under the limitations of natural possibility, so our perception of the example is loosely resembles God's perception verses our limitations.Sub-Argument 2Premise 5:"An omniscient Creator perceives all possible worlds"I think this is acceptable. Please forgive my unfamiliarity with the proper terminology.Premise 6:"A benevolent Creator can create a world lacking any evil (suffering)"Accepted. This premise intends that the Creator can create a world that lacks evil (suffering) according *His* judgment and omniscience, which is reflected in my Diagram (B) in R2. This simple notion is the entirety of this premise, and since I agree with Con's rewording, this premise stands.Conclusions C3/C4:The existence of evil/suffering is dependent on perception, so the definition/meaning/use of those terms is entirely dependent on the natural world. Even those beings within a least-evil world (according to the Creator's perspective) will contain evil/suffering to those within that world. A being that exists within a world has no perception of other worlds. Since a being cannot make comparisons to other words, all comparisons must be made between natural possibilities. Thus, no world can be perceived as a world without evil from within it. These regards Sub-Argument 1.Sources:[1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] ScienceDaily - http://www.sciencedaily.com...[3] Wikipedia: Pentachromacy - http://en.wikipedia.org...