The problem of evil

Gods' moral perfection Let's address the various issues my opponent has with this. First he asks what the difference between heaven and earth would be if humans were perfect. I find this irrelevant. This would assume that there needs to be a substantial moral difference. That evil is required. Those premises have not been established. Next my opponent says that humans must develop into moral perfection and on their own. There is a huge problem here. Christianity completely contradicts these assertions. The basic view of life and death based on the scriptures and most religions is you live a life as a sinner, then you die, then you go to heaven and are perfect. In other words the step taken from immoral to moral perfection is instantaneous. It does not develop but contrarily happens in just a moment. So there is no development to perfection as my opponent states, rather it is done by a supernatural act. And if God could make us perfect in one act than that of course re-presents the question of why he could not just do so from the beginning. So my opponents claims that moral perfection is "not something which can simply be bestowed upon a person" are completely contradictory. Moral perfection would be something achieved in an instant. I don't find my opponents response to my question of why God is exempt from this problem satisfactory at all. To quote him; "it is because that is God's definition; man's definition is having been created in the image of God they are in the transitional stage to the likeliness of God. " I don't even know exactly what my opponent means here. All I can deduce is that it is parallel to saying God is exempt because he is exempt, and man is transitioning to moral perfection because man is transitioning to moral perfection. I have no idea how saying God is exempt from this problem because that's his definition a suitable response, thus please extend this argument. Trade Off v benefits (Evil in exchange for morally significant free-will would not be desirable. ) My opponent first claims that God does not allow evil but that man chooses evil. This is confusing to me as there has been no attempt to refute the premise that God can prevent evil. If you can prevent something but refrain from doing so you are allowing it. Thus God does allow evil and man has no say on the matter. //Evil allows man to understand what good is// Moral perfection entails objective moral knowledge. Knowledge and understanding are necessarily included in moral perfection. My opponent seems to forget that we derive moral facts from our moral intuition. Our senses tell us that torture is wrong. Not only would we still know these facts, we would know many more such facts so our moral knowledge would be even greater. And even assuming my opponents opinion, is such an abounding force of evil in this world really necessary just for the sake of moral knowledge? I also reassert the fact that according to my opponents statements God has no knowledge of good. Con continues to support his claims that the ability to choose an immoral act is a good thing. A world in which humans could only do good would be a much better and happier world thus I negate. My opponent goes on to claim that happiness is not what is best but then goes on to contradict himself and say it is better to have eternal joy than finite joy. In other words it is better to be happy forever than temporarily. However the contradictions go further. Being happy forever directly conflicts with the existence of evil. If evil exists we are not happy forever, for our time on earth consists of much suffering. However without evil our lives would be exempt from suffering and sadness. Thus without evil eternal joy would exist and with evil it would not. // Furthermore, without evil, how could have Christianity even existed? Since Christians hold Jesus Christ was killed and then resurrected, there must be evil for Jesus Christ to become the savior. // Why is this a necessary occurrence again? In support of my opponents claims that evil gives us the ability to have relationship with God, do good deeds and love each other, he says, “If a person cannot commit evil, then, good becomes meaningless. If there is no evil, then there is no point to goodness. ” This is not adequate support. The experience of evil is not necessary in order to have a relationship with God. If anything it makes it harder for God hates sin and therefore would find it harder to forgive. Our doing good deeds would abound with moral perfection, and I’m still not sure what my opponent means by saying we could not love each other. That if God wanted evil he would more likely create a world in which it was not so rampant My opponents response to this is to say that this is what the current world is. I do not find this at all evident though. A world in which 21,000 children die mostly from poverty, hunger, and often easily preventable diseases every single day[1] is not one lacking in suffering. Evil is far from being overwhelmed by good as my opponent says. God would not need to make such a evil ravaged world in order to deposit moral knowledge on humans. It is simply not plausible. Not all evil is from free will My opponent has conceded his first response Note that my opponent does not really respond to my statement that “the human race should not be so greatly affected for the actions of those outside their species". He quotes it but does not give a response. Please extend. I also still assert that spirits causing natural disasters does not seem plausible. What act from a spirit could cause the earths plates to shift and cause an earthquake? [2] Those are purely natural, thus not the cause of spirits. My opponent basically concedes the debate when he says, ”An all-loving God would want man to have infinite joy, not finite joy. ” I don’t know how you could support the belief that absolutely zero suffering gives us less joy. If evil did not exist our lives would only consist of joy. (Short over-view) Why pro has achieved his burden There is no way to morally justify God allowing evil. My opponent can only defend his position by presenting the argument that evil is in our best interests but not a single human would welcome evil; only God. The creator has a duty to take care of his creations. Not leave them in a world of suffering. God is directly responsible for us. Thus allowing evil is a sinful act and since a perfect being cannot commit a sinful act, God does not exist. Furthermore an all-loving being would want us to stay away from evil. If you love someone you don’t want to see them suffer. That is a evident fact. It is highly unlikely that the numerous sufferings of the world exist by allowance of an all-loving being. Sources [1] . http://www.globalissues.org... [2] . http://www.soest.hawaii.edu...