The Problem of Evil (PoE)

IntroPro is using the same tactics as he always uses. Instead of dealing with the actual refutation that I presented, he basically takes the argument, puts it in general category that comes with baggage that I don't carry, and argues that that system as a whole has many problems. Then he claims that I dropped a bunch of points, which I didn't. It's not my method to refute every statement that my opponent makes. I summarize the main points and respond to them. Pro has not offered any new arguments. I will conclude this debate by again showing that:1. P1 is loaded with Pro's presuppositions that I do not accept, as it is irrational to do so.2. P3 by itself is arbitrary and intellectually arrogant, and is actually unnecessary if P1 is rid of Pro's inconsistent assumptions.Refuting P1 I said that I'm perfectly fine with the way P1 is worded as long as it isn't loaded. Pro misunderstood why I was rewording P1. I wasn't simply changing his argument to basically argue for him. What I was doing is showing that P1 is flawed, and Pro can not force me to accept it just because he says "almost all Christians and atheists agree on this point".I do not accept P1, not the way Pro explained it, nor should anyone."Con’s rewrite wasn’t even a conditional statement - it assumed that God exists!"Yes. I do not and will not accept P1 unless it assumes God exists. Pro seems to forget that the PoE is meant to be an INTERNAL CRITIQUE, so OF COURSE it has to assume, for argument sake, that God exists! Pro's P1 does as well, only difference is that Pro himself speaks for God. Pro does not even know how to properly use the argument that he is using. You have to assume the whole system if you are to do an internal critique of it.Pro apparently does not agree with my rewording/explanation of P1, but he wants me to accept his. Then I might as well just accept his assertion that God does not exist. I did not ignore his defense of his explanation of P1, I refuted it.“you can’t say that all evil has a morally sufficient reason, and then say that some evils are gratuitous. This is a contradiction in terms.” -ProThis is odd, since what I’ve been trying to point out to Pro is that, you can’t say (P1) that all evil has a morally sufficient reason, and then say (P3) gratuitous evil do not. It seems that the problem here is that Pro is using the word “gratuitous” in a more literal sense as in, “unreasonable”, where as I’ve been defining it as, “overly gross, APPEARING to be unreasonable”.“Now if God exists and allows evils, it must be (given that he is morally perfect) that He has morally sufficient reason to do so. If the permitted evils are not logically necessary or have no adequately compensating good, then again God does not have a morally sufficient reason to permit them. “ -ProAgain, Pro here shows that (P3) the latter sentence, completely ignores (P1) the former sentence. P1 Issues1. Pro in P1, does not simply say that, “if God exists and allows evils, it must be (given that he is morally perfect) that He has morally sufficient reason to do so.” What Pro really means is that, “...it must be that He has morally sufficient reason to do so, and we would surely know the reason!"2. Pro in P1, states that evil is not necessarily incompatible with the existence of God if the evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good, but Pro, not God is the ultimate determiner of what is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.a. Evil is logically necessary if we see that the receiver of evil is compensated with a greater good as a result.b. Evil is logically necessary if the end good result is immediately observable and evokes Pro’s approval.This is what Pro wants me to accept. These errors are the basis for P3's flaws.God has a morally sufficient reason to allow the evil (all evil) that exists, whether we know the reason or not. Pro is not the judge of whether God’s reasons are morally sufficient or not, and he is also not qualified to determine absolutely if evil is logically necessary or not, due to his limited perspective, knowledge, and time.If Pro can be consistent and stick to his statement that, P1 “does not assume that humans necessarily have epistemic access into the reasons God has for permitting evil" without making a complete 180 by then demanding the believer to “show the evil to be logically necessary and the good adequately compensatory”, he'll render P3 pointless. Refuting P3I will start by again clarifying that Pro and I have not been using the word “gratuitous” exactly the same. Pro uses it as “literally without reason or justification” while I am using it as “APPARENTLY without reason or justification.”However, my argument still stands.P3 by it self is an arbitrary and intellectually arrogant ASSERTION. It is actually irrational for anyone to make an ABSOLUTE metaphysical statement such as P3. It basically CLAIMS that much of evil is not logically necessary, because Pro does not know the purpose of these evil. This is an argument from ignorance and self knowing folks, and Pro has not given any rational basis on why P3 should be universally accepted, or even how he can possibly know that P3 is absolutely true.P3, in light the loaded P1, basically claims that some evil is unnecessary because it does not meet Pro's arbitrary criteria. The all-knowing God is completely taken out of the equation of the INTERNAL critique, Pro assumes that he's all-knowing. The possibility that Pro is ignorant of God's purpose for allowing evil, is precluded.STI tried to google ST before my last post, since I was unfamiliar with the term but could not find a good description of it. I still maintain that I do not hold to ST based on what Pro stated ST teaches. There are some similarities yes, but Pro is strawmanning me here by categorizing one view in a whole system of ST, and then arguing against the points of ST that I don't even hold.I do not doubt God's goodness at all, in fact that is where I rest. I am not at all agnostic to moral justification. What I've been arguing is that God has MORALLY SUFFICIENT reason for the evil that exist. I do not know exactly HOW it is morally sufficient, but I do know, given God's goodness, that it is IN FACT morally sufficient. I did not deny our knowledge of good and evil. That much is REVEALED to us, in scriptures and through common revelation. These are theological issues that can be resolved by studyinging the Bible.Conclusion"If you think you have an argument against God, lie down. It will pass." (1)Pro failed to give a rational basis for his PoE argument. He simply asserts in P3 that much of the evil that exists are not logically necessary, therefore God does not have a morally sufficient reason for them. This is backwards thinking. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil that exist, therefore ALL EVIL has a logical God given purpose, whether we know what it is or not is irrelevant. Pro's PoE argument is based on mere assumptions. Is God supposed to be refuted by a personal conjecture? All Pro did is tell us what we already know, that although He knows God, he does not acknowledge Him as God. Pro wants God to subject Himself to Pro's intellectual authority and moral evaluation. When encountering evil that is hard to accept, the unbeliever refuses to trust God's goodness and like Job, demands God to explain Himself. God will ask the unbeliever, as He asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Who determined its measurements--surely you know!"The believer on the other hand rests in God's goodness and declares Romans 8:18-39, with confidence.I will end with this, the worst evil in history is the murder of the Son of God, Christ Jesus. Not only did God allow this, but He preordained every detail of it. He did so in order to show the fullness of his glory and to demonstrate his perfect love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.P.S. PoE is the unbeliever's problem.(1) Me