Evil proves God does not exist

Cons first objection is to point A3. This point is not a premise, but derived from your premise that God can (by definition) do anything. Putting the universe in any given state, possible or not, is a thing and therefore God could do it. However that disproof of God is not relevant to this debate, and when I say any state, I mean any possible configuration of atoms, which would still contain states where no evil exists. Regardless, this can be changed to God can create a universe with no evil, which my opponent has agreed to in the end of his last post. "God can't get rid of necessary pain cause its necessary, to get rid of something that is necessary is a contradiction." As shown in point A4.x, if God were to exist, then no pain would be necessary, so all pain would be considered evil, however, the sense I have is that you agree that evil does exist, so, unless you want to correct me on that, i see no reason to peruse this. "To do the right thing = Moral , To do the wrong thing = Immoral, is that good enough ?" Sure. Do you have an objection to me calling the 'right thing' the action which causes least pain, and the 'wrong thing' that which causes the most pain, again with negative values of pain used for pleasure. "You claim that bad is the opposite of good, I seek clarification on this, does saying something is bad have a moral value attached to it ? If it does, isn't this just a reword of evil ?" I'm afraid I don't understand the question. The action of saying something is bad would have a (probably tiny) moral value, although i don't no what it is. I think your confusion is in the subtleties I am trying to address in my definitions. In the context of this debate, i would claim that all 'bad' falls into the subset of evil, but when pain becomes necessary, (which I believe to be impossible with God existing) then evil becomes a subset of bad. "Pro says "Good, being the opposite of bad, would refer to those actions which cause pleasure. " I reject this moral theory, some people get pleasure out of raping children, under this moral theory its "good"." A perfect example of why i often include seemingly irrelevant subtleties. You are correct of my objection that the rapists pleasure might be greater than the victims, (which I find very unlikely). In that case, I would say that it was a morally good action, assuming it were to happen in a vacuum. By that I mean. while the rapist might have more pleasure than the victim pain, he might cause others to rape, where the rapists have less pleasure than the victims pain. Although because the rapists could not be expected to know the societal impact of his one action, I can not hold that against him. What the question of rape really comes down to is, how often does the rapist have pleasure anywhere near the victims pain? "Pro says "One could imagine defining an anti-evil word, rightous, to refer to that subset of good which is unnecessary, this would be the opposite of evil." I don't understand this, please reword and rephrase it." I was using this to counter your statement that good is the opposite of evil. Basically i was saying that if evil is the subset of bad that is unnecessary, than righteous would be the subset of good which is unnecessary, and the proper opposite of evil. "Pro says "I have objections to this, but I think this is a perfect time to say, 'so what'. I already agree that good exists, it is completely irrelevant to evil disproving God." No, it seems to me your only agreeing that good exists as you defined it, obviously I am challenging that. I don't accept your concept of "good"" Would you mind formally providing your definition of 'good' so that i know what you are talking about? In the end of the previous round, Con has granted one key point for me, God can create a universe with no evil. Con pleads ignorance to question 2, so allow me to explain why I think the answer is yes. If any of God's properties are in contradiction to each other, God is internally contradictory and can therefore not exist. Therefore, if we assume God does exist, we can assume that he is morally good, without exception. By definition evil is a morally bad thing. By definition, a morally good being would want to prevent morally bad things. Therefore, God would want to prevent evil. To respond to Con's question. No. As I showed in A4.x, It would be possible for God to keep ALL of the good in the universe, and remove ALL of the bad. Therefore, if moral is defined as most good and least bad, then there could be no moral reason to leave in the bad, and removing it would be morally good. To leave the bad in would contradict God's morally good property.