The Problem of Evil Disproves an All-Loving, All-Powerful God

1. Con seems to introduce another point here. He claims that no one knows God's true limitations, and that we can't know what God's plan is for the big picture. This line of argument seems very similar to the 'God works in mysterious ways' argument. I have earlier argued that we can prove that God can't have have a bigger picture in mind through the process of elimination. P1. An all-loving God would only allow suffering if it is in pursuit of something which He values as higher than human happiness. P2. An omnipotent God would achieve any such higher values without allowing suffering, except in cases where suffering is logically necessary for achievement of that value. P3. An omnipotent, all-loving God would only allow suffering to achieve values for which suffering is logically necessary. (from 1 and 2) P4. Since these values are greater than suffering, and suffering necessarily must occur for achievement of these values, God would cause or allow suffering in all situations possible in order to maximize this value. P5. Suffering does not exist in all situations possible. 2. Con then states his definition of evil. I agree that this is a good definition of moral evil; however, philosophers also describe natural evil, which is anything which produces suffering and unhappiness which is not a moral agent (in other words, a human). Examples of moral evil can include natural disasters, disease, and starvation. 3. Regarding free will, Con concedes that our choices come from an outside influence, but then states that he still believes in free will. I will assume he means libertarian free will, as I have already shown how compatabilist free will is insufficient. He claims that a child who grows up in a family that loves basketball still has the choice not to like it. The problem with this contention is that it ignores the fact that for libertarian free will to exist, he must freely choose whether he likes basketball or not; however, the choice, like any other, is determined by his values already held, the same can be said of those values, and the next, ad infinitum. To escape infinite regress, we must posit an initial value, which is not chosen. This means that all of our values, and by extension our actions, are necessarily determined by a value which was not freely chosen. 4. Regarding the Bible, Con agrees with me that proving some Biblical claims does not prove the rest of the Bible. 5. Con asks what's wrong with the Bible, because even if some of it is fabricated, it still makes peoples lives better. Here I am inclined to agree that Christianity does improve people's lives. Despite the extensive damage religion has caused historically, today it arguably stands to confer a net gain, at least in the western world. However, this does not mean that it is true. If this were a debate on whether or not religion is beneficial, I would likely stand in limited agreement. However, this is a debate on the truth of religion, so this point is simply not relevant to the subject. 6. Con next claims that those who are more unlikely to pass on Judgment Day can go to a different type of heaven, stating that God wants us to prove ourselves worthy to go to heaven. The first problem with this is that it still offers less happiness to those who do not pass God's test; however, if God is all-loving, he will desire everyone to get the most happiness, not just the best. Next, God, being omniscient, already knows who's worthy and who isn't, so what is there to prove? Third, the reason the USMC does not let everybody in is because not everybody has sufficient capabilities to join; however, God, being our creator, could simply create us all in such a way that he considers us to be worthy. For this reason, comparing heaven to the marines is a flawed analogy. 7. Con next theorizes that other countries suffer because of their religion. I would agree that religion has a hand in the quality of life in a country; however, I also would claim that what affects quality of life is more dent on the nature of the religion than the religion itself. However, this still leads us to ask why God would allow other religions to exist and Christianity to develop into a religion of a harmful nature. If the root of suffering in Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, and any other non-Christian country is the lack of Christianity, then why does God do nothing to fix this problem? 8. In response to my claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, Con claims that you are more likely believe a friend if he claims he ate a cheeseburger than you are if he claims to have won $10,000 at the casino, but it still is feasible. This misses the point; my claim is that the more unlikely an event is, the more evidence one is justified in demanding. As such, the Bible claiming Jesus existed may be sufficient to make me believe he existed, but it is not enough to get me to believe the more extraordinary claims about him. I hold supernatural events to a higher epistemological standard than existence, as it is far more likely for someone to exist than for them to perform miracles.