The problem of evil is a false argument

Rebuttals II "By asking "which God do we pick?" You've already proved the ineffectiveness of the argument for evil. not everyone believes there is one God or that he is omnipotent, omniscient, or that a God exists. The problem of evil argument would not work on Buddhism or Hinduism, it wouldn't even work theism (a belief which states God doesn't act on the world) only on a religion with a monotheistic concept (namely Christianity)." - {Let me narrow it down}, "The problem of evil argument would not work on Buddhism or Hinduism, it wouldn't even work theism (a belief which states God doesn't act on the world) only on a religion with a monotheistic concept (namely Christianity)."{ Now let me restate the original argument} "The problem of evil is a false argument". Con's position had collapsed in upon itself and he now agrees that the original statement he supports is false. 1. "My opponent drifts away to the discussion of God's existence, not on my argument, but i will explain why it doesn't work later." Your argument is not only based on gods existence but is narrowly focused on just your faith out of many. The discussion of gods existence is the main relevance not only to your position but the whole debate. If he did exist as a fact and your faith was the universally accepted faith then the original statement would be true, but reality states otherwise. 2. "For the sake of the discussion, we will use my belief." - The argument is "the problem of evil is a false argument" not "the problem of evil is a false argument in Christianity". My opponent is attempting to go against the true debate and argue a circumstance of the debate to prove his points. Even if the argument was the latter example, it is only the opinion of you, there are numerous christian faiths and no one interprets the bible or the Qua-ran or any religious book the same way. 3. "I never said there was no argument of evil, but that it isn't a valid argument." - The very statement that we are debating suggests otherwise. Plus if it isn't valid that technically means that there isn't an argument, Because the argument being made is false. 4."This assumes that humans and God's will is the same, it isn't. Job never sought to argue with God on his rights to life and a world full of evil. Job is a great man of faithfulness whom after God questioned said this Job 42:1-3 "I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. 3 You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?" Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." Poetically, God was attempting to compare his infinite knowledge of the creation to his causing of evil, but notice that Job did not demand his own human will to be fulfilled, rather he said "Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes." This refutes your claim and demonstrates that humans should submit to the will of God, even though it's not always easy to understand." - If you do not understand something that is called blind faith. Blind faith is not based in logic. Just because you blindly believe in something doesn't mean there isn't an argument against it. It means you choose to ignore logic and [unquestioningly] accept whatever someone or something else tells you. 5. "We already established we're using the Christian concept of faith, whatever concept of evil you introduce (disease, pestilences, robberies, etc.) Job overcame them."- You established that the original statement that we are debating doesn't establish anything it is a blanket statement. Here is a definition of the word disease "a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment."- There is no mention of the word evil in this definition, your belief is the only one putting any negative moral value to the term disease. This same logic can be applied with anything. http://dictionary.reference.com... 6. "In conclusion, there is no contradiction within the character of God."- The concept of god itself is a contradiction. As I established earlier the mere existence of god does not prove anything of his moral character. so this statement is a contradiction and is dependent on your belief. Conclusion My opponent continuously ignores the parameters of his own argument. The only points he argues only hold value in his own belief and is arguably even untrue within his own belief. He continuously ignores the very relevant factor of other beliefs and the difference between opinion and fact.