The Problem of Evil is an invalid argument

Pro has forfeited. I’d like to remind him and our audience that, per our agreement, he will be unable to post arguments in the next round. Because my opening contentions have gone unrefuted, and Pro is unable to respond to them at this point due to our Round 1 stipulation, I'm going to extend all of my arguments. Because those arguments have flown through, there is virtualy no way that Pro can still win this debate. I will now rebut his Round 2 arguments. My opponent begins by stating that he will use the Book of Job for the crux of his case. Note, however, that this is non-topical. Let’s review the rules I specified in the opening round and to which Con agreed: “Pro and I have both acknowledged that the question of whether God exists has no truth value. Neither of us can categorcially prove whether God does or doesn't exist. However, we will be evaluating the merits of this argument with respect to the God as defined above in order to come to a concusion based on a preponderance of evidence. Thus, the person who best proves their case, on balance, will be the winner of this debate. Note that we are not making any assumptions walking into this debate, and thus both debaters will be require to elucidate their cases and cite their sources.” (7) First, to accept the Book of Job as prima facie evidence of God, we would need evidence that the Bible is in fact the word of God, or at least divinely inspired. However, the question of whether God exists possesses no truth value, so the Bible is nothing more than an unsourced anecdote. We have already agreed to this stipulation. Moreover, we have no reason to take the Bible as prima facie truth as to the workings of God, especially given the fact that the Bible was translated and re-translated several times, contains a plethora of inconsistencies and factually incorrect information (e.g., two conflicting creation stories, telling of an “omnibenevolent” God who committed mass genocide, stating that the Earth is 6,000 years old when we know from modern science that it’s about 4.5 billion years old, etc.). Moreover, the Bible was written over a span of 40 years with over 1500 authors (7). Using the Bible to justify God would amount to nothing more than circular logic, when the crux our discussion is not a debate on the contents of a holy book, but on the philosophical question of the Tri-Omni God. Note that I stated in my opening round that we were to source our arguments without making any prior assumptions. We did not walk into this debate assuming that God exists; the argument, in fact, attempts to refute God. Pro cannot say, “God exists because he did (x).” The conclusion is effectively the justification, so we must discard this circular, non-topical argument. Pro asserts that there is a logical inconsistency in the first plank of the Riddle of Epicurus, which poses that if God is willing, but not able, he is not omnipotent. There is absolutely no consistency with this whatsoever. If you are omnipotent, you are all-powerful; you are able to do anything. Note that this plank presupposes willingness -- we’re considering alternate scenarios, obviously, within the framework of this argument -- stating that if God is willing (contrary to the Job example, of course, which is still non-topical, but I’m going to respond to it nevertheless) but unable then he isn’t all-powerful. That is obviously a sound statement, because being limited or incapacitated means, simply by definition, that you are not all powerful. Pro then points out, in the example of Job, that God wasn’t willing to help Job, but could. Note that this is the second plank of the Epicurean Paradox: that God is able to intervene, but not willing. It followed from this that the action was not omnibenevolent. Pro argues that, because God was teaching Job through pain and suffering, the action wasn’t immoral. However, this is a ludicrous argument. As I pointed out earlier, and as Pro has not contested, there is a categorical moral wrong not only in allowing evil to occur when you are the only person to halt it, but also in actually committing atrocities yourself. This is a violation of F.L.O., deontology, and utilitarianism. It is the epitome of Kant’s remarks that we shouldn’t use people as a means to an end. God used Job as a means to an end -- to make a bet with Satan. Looking beyond the fact that an omnipotent God shouldn’t need to make a bet with the devil to prove his own power, this does not in any way justify the harm he inflicted upon Job or the suffering he incurred: the loss of his livestock, his children, etc. That was a categorical moral wrong. What did his children do to deserve being violently slaughtered, all for the sake of an irrelevant bet? How in the world is God justified morally in killing people? The fact that he gave Job back twice of what he once had is utterly irrelevant, as it attempts to stipulate that the end justifies the means; this is, of course, not the case at all. God could have doubled Job’s livestock et al. WITHOUT taking the lives of his family. Again, why must they suffer? Moreover, what did Job did to incur God’s wraith? What did he do to deserve such suffering? By all accounts, he was a good, decent, succesful, faithful man. In the beginning of the story, God was bragging about how wonderful Job was. Why in the world would he need to "test" Job's faith? Furthermore, how is that test morally justifiable? Pro's argument makes utterly no sense, and because he hasn't responded to the moral arguments I posted in my last round, there is virtually no way for him to justify those actions. My points stands that there is not only evil in the world, but that God himself has created it and inflicted it -- Pro himself ADMITS that God used evil as a means to a end. Why is it justified for God to inflict evil, but not a person? Isn't God supposed to be the standard bearer of morality? How can an action be morally right for God, and morally wrong for a human? Pro then points out that parents "allow their children to suffer in order to reach them a lesson and help them improve as individuals." Indeed they do, and how in the world is this morally justifiable? Simply because you think you may gain from something does not mean that you may use persons as a means to an end and completely disregard the fundamental duty you have to act in accordance with another person's moral worth. Moreover, you could achieve the same outcome -- I'm not a fan of appeals to consequentialism, but I can even refute Pro's argument with a simple appeal to one -- WITHOUT inducing suffering on your children. Again, there is absolutely no moral justification for imposing suffering on another person. Per Kant, if you wouldn't want an action to be accepted as a universl maxim -- that is, to be accepted as objectively moral or immoral -- you simply should know, per rationality, to not carry it out. Pro then points to God giving back to Job -- which I've already commented on -- and comes to three conclusions. I will rebut each separately. Pro claims that God has a "will to overcome evil." How is this possible when it is his own evil that he is overcoming? How can you overcome your own evil that you willingly induced on other people? Again, how in the world is it "overcoming" evil if Job and his family, not God, were made to suffer by virtue of a ridiculous bet that virtually no human would accept as morally correct?Pro claims that God uses evil so that good can be accomplished. By admitting that God "uses evil," this debate is over. If God uses evil, he simply cannot be omnibenevolent, and thus the resolution falls. But, again, why must God use evil as a means to an end? He can accomplish evil by doing the exact opposite or, better yet in the case of Job, absolutely nothing. He could have done absolutely nothing, refused to sign on to a ridiculous bet, and allowed Job and his family to continuing living as they did. How is it merciful to "remove evil," especially when he didn't in fact "remove it," but merely acted post hoc in a feeble attempt to effectively say, "mea culpa" for imposing so much gratuitous suffering? How is it merciful when he himself is responsible for the suffering? The same thing happened after the flood, actually. In the Bible, God promised Noah that he would never again try to kill off all the humans -- effectively a "mea culpa." If God does wrong and admits that he does wrong, he cannot possibly be omnibenvolent.Pro asserts that the "removal of evil from Job demonstrates that he is still at power, all knowing, and all good." I have explained extensively why this isn't the case, and this is nothing more than an assertion from Pro that he has failed to back up. I have explained extensively why the end doesn't justify the means and why God's actions were gratuitous, unjustified, and quite frankly evil. ConclusionThere isn't anything left to say. I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments and mine remain untouched. He isn't able to post in the next round, per our agreement. Vote Con. Sources(7) Round 1 Heading “Framework and Burdens”(8) http://tinyurl.com...