The Problem of Evil Does Not Disprove God

The problem of evil argues that the idea of theism (in this case, specificially Christianity) is not true because the paradigm as a whole is inconsistent or invalid. So, in order for my opponent to successfully refute my arguments for Christianity, he must attack them on their own merits. This is to say that, even though my opponent doesn't believe in some of the claims of Christianity, he is trying to say that the model is inconsistent.For example of what I'm saying: The Christian religion states that, in the beginning, God created Adam and Eve with the free choice of either choosing eternal life by eating from the tree of life, or by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Even though my opponent does not accept this story as historical fact, the Christian paradigm does, and he can only attack the validity of the entire system to show that evil is not compatible with God.However, If my opponent wishes to attack the soundness of the premise of an orignal paradise situation at the beginning, we can explore that in the final round. But the problem of evil usually only deals with the validity of the Christian paradim, not the soundness. This really depends on the generosity of my opponet. Argue what you wish.Animal SufferingWe cannot know that animals have the same capacity of consciousness that humans do. It is true that animals feel pain, but that is the extent of what we know. Pain is used to correct a problem, or it is used as an alarm system. But we cannot know if animals have the full capacity of self-reflection and realization of the self that humans have. So, even though animals have pain, it is not something that animals truly and intellectually understand. And I argue that suffering is only possible if the victim can truly and intelletually understand the pain that it is going through, and be able to feel the emotional pain of another moral agent willfully causing them harm.Natural DisastersIn theism, under the Christian paradigm, humans were given the ability to choose eternal life at the beginning. They rejected this. So, it was possible for humans to have never been affected by this. Also, natural disasters are amoral, that is, they are not performed by a moral agent. Events happen, and there is no fault in them. An amoral event cannot be evil, because evil requires bad intention. For example, if a person lives by a volcano, or on a fault, and an eruption or earthquake happens and people die, that is not an evil event. Events happen, and humans may attribute a type of meaning (good or bad) to events, but that is only their subjective opinion. Moral agents may attribute meaning after an event has occured, but they are not the ones establishing meaning. Amoral actions have amoral consequences.Child Suffering This falls under free will. Every person knows that sex leads to a possibility of children. Every person also realizes that bringing a child into the world can be a great joy, but they also know that bad things may happen to the child. They realize that it's possible that this child may have a horrible life, plagued with diseases, ridicule, torments from others, yet they still decide it is worth having a child. If child suffering were really an issue, then people would stop having children. If the suffering truly outweighed the happiness, then the human species would discontinue procreation. Yet they continue, and this utterly refutes this claim that child suffering is a problem. It is a free willed decision by the parents. Human Free Will Can Exist Without EvilI completely agree with this statement. This is why, in the beginning, mankind was given the free choice of a life without evil. Mankind rejected that, and then made a free choice to procreate knowing that there would be bad things that would happen to the entirety of their offspring. However, the suffering did not outweigh the happiness. ConclusionThere is no problem of evil for God (specifically the Christian God) to exist. Free will allows for evil to exist, and since humankind freely chose to allow evil, and procreate in a world with it, free will refutes the problem. Also, humankind continues to outweigh the suffering with happiness by continuing to procreate children in a world with evil. If the problem of evil was truly a problem, humankind would show this, and cease to exist. Yet we persevere.Also, my opponent has not refuted any of the arguments I set forth, so they remain unrefuted.