The problem of evil and the concept of God are irreconcilable

"all I haveto do in order to win this debate is to show that, besides hisviewpoints, alternative possibilities exist. I do not have to prove myclaims are true. I just need to show they are POSSIBLE. "I accept that, but I would like to make sure that we agree that my opponent must demonstrate that his claims ARE in fact possible. Asking me to prove that they are impossible would be a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. "Needlessly. .. That's the question. " Yes I agree, it is what it basically comes down to. "Does a cancer patient"need" chemotherapy? Only if you want the best possible outcome. Doesa parent of a child with cancer allow that child to suffer theeffectsof chemotherapy? The pain, the weight loss, the hair loss? Ifhe wantsthe best long term outcome, yes. Sometimes short termsuffering is theonly way to bring about long term happiness. "An interesting analogy, but it fails for one very important reason: we are not omnipotent, we are limited in what we can do by the laws of nature. God, on the other hand, is NOT limited by those laws and should therefore be able to cure any disease WITHOUT short term suffering. This is the whole point of my argument. "My opponent's claim assumes that all possible strategies are equal in value"I am going to need an explanation because I do not understand this sentence. What strategies? If my opponent is referring to the various ways in which God can achieve his goals, then this is false; I am NOT claiming that they are all equal, I am claiming that simply achieving the goal through the sole power of his will would be the best way. "But since we are not God, there's no way we can know that forsure. It's entirely possible that allowing suffering is the best wayto bring about the greatest number of people to eternal salvation. "No, it is actually NOT possible that allowing suffering is the best way to achieve salvation for everyone, because that would mean that God CAN NOT find a better way (in which nobody suffers) to achieve this goal, which is in contradiction with his omnipotence. Technically, God should be able to save EVERYONE right now, without needing anything. Once again, this is true UNLESS the suffering is actually part of the goal, but as I said earlier, omnibenevolence would go right out of the window. "As we know from the chemotherapy example, sometimes short term sufferingis the best way to bring about long term happiness. "And as I said, the analogy only works when we are talking about beings with LIMITED powers. "FREE WILL AND GOD ARE COMPATIBLE"My opponent claims that his version of God is compatible with free will by asserting that God is outside of time and that he sees everything at the same time (the quote from CS Lewis simply repeats this point in a longer version). There are two main problems with this explanation: First, my opponent has not demonstrated that "existing outside of time" is a coherent concept, much less a possibility (which we have agreed he must demonstrate). Second, if, at this very moment, God is seeing what I am going to do tomorrow, then my future is already set and I have no power to change it. Saying that God exists outside of time (whatever that means) does not solve this problem; if it is possible for God to know at the same time what I am currently doing and what I am going to do next, then I have no free will. "This is a common misconception of original sin. We aren't beingpunished for someone else's sin. The point is, once sin entered theworld through the free will choice of our first parent, judgment becamepossible. " So basically, we are now ALL in position to be judged because of what ONE MAN did? This still seems pretty unjust. What didn't we ALL get the chance to live without being judged? "All crime is an act of disobedience. "Point taken. Although I would point out that gaining knowledge should not be considered a crime. "t's not cruel to set up a system of justice"It very much depends on the system. A system in which one man's action can lead to repercussions that affect ALL humans is an unjust system. "It's not unjust to punish crimes"It very much depends on what you consider to be a crime. A system in which acquiring knowledge and not worshipping the leader are seen as crimes is an unjust and cruel system. "I would also like to argue that as an atheist, my opponent isn't reallyin a position to claim anyone, God or otherwise, is "unjust". Here'swhy. If God doesn't exist, then there are no objective moral truths. And if there are no objective moral truths, then my opponent is in noposition to claim someone is doing something wrong/unjust. He may not personally like something, but he really can't say that they're wrong"I was wondering when that argument was going to come up. The funny thing is, I have already addressed this issue. .. in the very title of this debate. The contention is that the problem of evil and God are IRRECONCILABLE, meaning that in a mindset where the God I described does exist (such as my opponent's), it is not possible to account for the existence of evil and suffering. This also takes care of the "New argument". As a side not, if my opponent wants to have a debate about God and morality, I welcome the challenge. "My opponent said that he believes being kind means allowing people to do anything they want as long as they are happy. I would argue thatsuch a philosophy may not always be kind. Would a parent be kind byletting their children smoke meth because it made their children happy? "No, because smoking meth actually leads to UNhappiness. "Allowing your children to set off fireworks in the house may give them"the maximum amount of happiness RIGHT NOW", but in the long run, it may provide them long term sorrow if they lose an eye in the process. That's why allowing them to suffer in the short term (by not allowing them to shoot off the fireworks inside) could be a prudent choice. "Again, this analogy fails because my opponent is comparing God (unlimited being) with humans (limited beings). I would like to remind my opponent to provide some evidence that things he is presenting are in fact possible. For example, the story of Adam and Eve is, as far as we can tell, physically impossible since it violates most of the laws of nature. My opponent also has not demonstrated that it is possible for a mind to exist outside of a physical brain (which is required for heaven to be real). I await my opponent's response.