Evil proves God does not exist

It's been only my second debate on DDO, and I am grateful for the discussion. In conclusion, I will show how once again my opponent has distorted arguments and logic present, and that his claims are false. This has come to a matter of one thing: to exist, God must be consistent with his nature; evil shows inconsistencies in God's supposed nature; therefore, God cannot exist. Con brings up the metaphorical car situation once again. My opponent relates this as follows: "your objection seems to be, oh God allowed some sort of free will decision, knowing that this would start a chain of events resulting in evil therefore God act is evil," and asks what did God do wrong? Con is mistaken. God didn't allow a free will decision: > God created an Earth, and all its attributes. > God is aware of all end results of his actions (above) because he is all-knowing (his nature). > An attribute of Earth is natural disasters. > Natural disasters result in death. > God knows death will occur from creating an Earth with natural disasters, therefore he is allowing death to happen. Now, to tie this together. .. My opponent justifies evil as necessary to free will. I fail to see how creating natural disasters relates to our free will. We do not will them to happen. Therefore, God created evil (by his actions resulting in natural disasters) that causes death. God is committing murder (intentional killing of human beings) because he knows death is the end result, and this is evil. This means God is not "infinitely good". He's not consistent with his nature, thus he does not exist due to his actions of evil. Next, Con says: "In case it wasn't obvious I was arguing that once evil exists by free moral choice, evil doesn't restrict its self to human moral choice, since its evil, that what evil does, and thus natural evil occurs. That's my defense of natural evil existing. " Why does evil not restrict itself to human choice? God could allow evil to exist as SOLELY the immoral actions of humans (and if my opponent would have it, immoral being actions God would not commit). But God DOES commit evil. Independent of our will. Did my opponent miss that God does not NEED to allow death by natural disasters? God could stop this act of evil, without affecting our free will, but he does not. My opponent is incorrect in assessment and conclusion. God handing us free will does not necessitate murder through natural disasters on the part of God. It still stands that God is not "infinitely good" if he allows natural evils, because stopping them do not interfere with free will, therefore, God cannot exist. He is not consistent with his nature. Moving on, my opponent states he refuted my claim that heaven can be handed straight away without cost with the following logic: if there is no evil, we have no free will. But he does not stand against my claim that there is no free will in heaven (he failed to answer my questions, more on that following). So, if we got heaven straight away before life, we would not lose free will. In heaven, free will exists without evil, thus my opponent is incorrect in his refutation. My point stands that God is forcing us to suffer pain through life when heaven could be given first. This is not "infinitely good". God is inconsistent and cannot exist. My opponent skips my questions: "I am not required to answer those, the resolution is "evil proves God does not exist" not ask your opponent 101 questions and if they can't answer them that must prove you right by default. " But why skip them? By not opposing my claims (not answering them) or showing they are false, the following stands: Free will is available without evil in Heaven. I asked if we lose free will in heaven, my opponent did not disagree with this. Thus, my opponent is wrong about "free will's cost being evil" (as shown above). Free will does not equal moral; and if God kills thousands because of the natural disasters he causes, it is NOT justified. I asked if it was justified, and opponent offered no answer; thus I assert it is not (as shown above). Con continues that objective morals without God cannot exist. This is wrong. I believe my opponent is mistaken on objective morality. Francois Tremblay, an Objectivist atheist, states: "The basis of ethics (morals) is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly. " Much like we "discover" scientific truths, we "discover" right and wrong through reason (Tremblay says reason is our tool to rule obj. morals). [1] This also serves to show that objective morals do not need God. Reason is our guiding principle to morality, not an entity only prophets can hear. My opponent says: I never said there can't be morality without Gods existence, I only argued that objective morals don't exist unless God exists. .. " Con, our capacity to reason allows us to examine actions in context, and decide if the consequences are consistent with the actions. Values are derived from our reality, and our values determine actions. Thus, the basis of obj. morality is reality. [1] This is the standard. Not God. If God DID exist, he SHOULD act according to reality. His reality being God is "infinitely good"; but his evil acts show God doesn't act according to reality. Thus, he cannot exist. God is not needed because obj. morals come from reason. God commits acts that cause evils we do not choose, thus disregarding "evil only existing as a cost of free will"; God keeps Heaven, a "perfect world without evil", from us by making us suffer through pain and his acts of evil in life; God should be consistent with his own reality, his own nature of "infinite good" but the evil he causes compromises this; so, God cannot exist. God's inconsistencies stand; God's necessity fails; so vote Con. 1. . http://www.strongatheism.net...