The problem of evil and the concept of God are irreconcilable

If it is possible, I would like my opponent to put the quotes from this debates in bold so that they are easier to differentiate. This is very important: I would like to know what my opponent's view on Hell is. Is it a simple separation from God or is it the "fire and brimstone" version? "Fair enough. That's all I've been doing- showing possible alternatives. "Asserting that they are possible is not equivalent to demonstrating that they are IN FACT possible. Demonstrating possibility can be done in various different ways, either by pointing to a set of priors or by proving that all the prerequisites are present. My opponent is welcome to demonstrate possibility any way he wants, but he MUST do it. Regarding the chemotherapy analogy, my opponent 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 toallowing suffering to take place. I've heard countless stories, forexample of cancer patients "getting right with God" before they die. Whereas, if they had died instantly, in a car crash, for example, theywouldn't have had the same chance. "Many problems arise from this:- If suffering was indeed a requirement for salvation, wouldn't it be equally "distributed" across the world? - Why are Christians (assuming that my opponent believes in the Christian God) suffering? Aren't they already saved? - 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. - 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. - 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? As a side note, I would like to know if my opponent believes that more suffering leads to a better time Heaven. "As for God using his power to bring everyone toHeaven, He certainly could, but that wouldn't be something anomnibenevolent being would do. "I must admit that I am quite surprise that my opponent would concede that God CAN in fact bring everyone to Heaven without any requirement. Fortunately, he gives an explanation:"Here's why: God loves us and wants us to love Him back. Could He force us to love Him? Sure, but that's not real love. Forcing someone to love you is not benevolent. So, He gave us free will. Doesn't everyone agree that having freedom is a good thing? So, because He is omnibenevolent, God gives us the freedom to choose whether we love Him or not. " This is very weird reasoning; according to my opponent, 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? "I've shown above that forcing someone to love you is not benevolent. "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? "Nope. Even if you have unlimited power to choose which strategy touse, the way that brings about the greatest number of eternally happypeople is the benevolent thing to do. Even if it includes short termsuffering. "Let's say person X gets cancer, what happens? - Everyone close to that person gets sad. - The person suffers. - The person and some people close to them might go bankrupt (depending on where you live). What results from this? - 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. Now we move on to freewill. I would like to point out to the audience that even if I manage to prove that freewill is incompatible with an omniscient God, that does NOT mean that God does not exist (it would simply mean that, if God exists, we do not have freewill). "Whem I referred to God existing outside of time, I was referring tophysical time (the linear, temporal duration we experience in ourphysical universe). Physicists and cosmologists almost universallyagree that physical time began at the beginning of the universe. Stephen Hawking is one of them. The source I provide is one where you must download the pdf version of the lecture, and go to page 2. If physical time began to exist, then in order for God to have created it, He must exist outside of it. "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; if you exist now and. .. now, then you have existed for 2 seconds. 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). "Again, it's possible that God doesn't experience time in a linearfashion like we do. The concept of beginnings and endings may notexist outside of our physical universe. And if that's the case, Godexperiences everything as a "now" experience. Therefore the knowledge He has is not something He has predetermined which allows for free will. "I am going to make this a simple as I can: 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. Whether or not he's the one who has predetermined my future is irrelevant, determinism is destructive to freewill. Arguing for a special perspective on time is a dishonest apologetic (appealing to something no one understands in order to hide from the objections) and does not help my opponent's case. "Again, as I said in the previous round, as an atheist, my opponent isnot able to declare any action unjust/wrong. He may not prefersomething, but cannot truly believe in the existence of objectivelywrong actions. "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. Even if I was a pure moral relativist (which I am not), it would make no difference; the question is whether my OPPONENT, with HIS view on morality and justice, can reconcile them with God. As I said earlier, I phrased the debate that way precisely to avoid having to address the moral argument, but I would gladly accept any challenge regarding this issue (on another debate). I would now like an answer to my objection. "I challenge him to show where he argued that atheists can argue whether an action is objectively wrong/unjust. Simply saying you addressed something doesn't make it so. "I NEVER argued (and do not intend to argue) what atheists can and can't account for because it is IRRELEVANT to this debate. "He one who has made the claim that allowing suffering is wrong in all cases, so I am right to bring up the fact that as an atheist, he can't possibly believe objective moral truths exist. And as such, he cannot validly argue anyone, Godor otherwise, has done something wrong/unjust. "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? I really like this kind of objection because, to me, it really seems like an admission of defeat. The intellectually honest answer would have been: "As an atheist, you can not account for these things. That being said, here is why God allows this: . .. ", but that is not what my opponent said. "If objective moraltruths exist, then God exists. If God determines what is a moraltruth, then no one has any authority to say God has acted unjustly,because He is the supreme judge of what is just. "I would gladly accept a challenge on this topic, but the short version of my answer is: 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. "Also, since Burncastle didn't even attempt to refute my "new argument" from last round concerning the existence of evil being indirect evidence for the existence of God, it should be considered "dropped" and presumed true for the rest of the debate. "Granted, I may have glossed over this argument too quickly, but I did so because it does not seem relevant to this debate. I will correct that mistake right away: My definition of evil is actually "the set of things which decreases general well being". Regarding the meth analogy, my opponent said:"That's why a good father doesn't always allow his children do anything they want. And in the same way, our Father in Heaven acts in the same way. " I do not recall my opponent ever saying that God PREVENTED us from doing anything, he simply ALLOWS some things. Same goes for the fireworks analogy. If God actually PREVENTED us from doing something, wouldn't he be violating our freewill? Since I am short on characters, I will address the Adam and Eve question as well as the article from the Examiner in my next round.