Biblical descriptions of the nature of the Christian God and free will are contradictory.

REGARDING BIBLICAL SEMANTICS My opponent continues to object to the biblical descriptions of God, even though he never uses these objections anywhere in his case, and even uses claims to the contrary (omnipotence, omnibenevolence) as advocating points in his defense. Even though he has failed to tie this into any arguing point and cannot do so in his R3, I will briefly address his points. Note that these points are meant to be brief; I daresay we should leave most of the debating to the main issue at hand, especially when my opponent uses the exact opposite of these assertions to prove his own case. OMNIPOTENCE The KJB and the original Greek Bible are both Bibles, and both can be sources as biblical descriptions. Nonetheless, for my syllogism to be valid, God's omnipotence only need extend to the point where he could eliminate evil, which is proven by the verses provided. OMNISCIENCE This can pass; my case is not harmed and my opponent's case is not helped by God's omniscience (or lack thereof); however, we do know that God knows that evil exists, as already stated. BENEVOLENCE Many bible verses require a bit more "reading between the lines", as they say; while the authors might have felt like writing down "God all-loving and all-powerful", it doesn't make for good reading. They instead prefer to use more colorful lines like: 1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 1 John 4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. - Again, just like omnipotence, God does not necessarily have to be explicitly all-loving; he simply must be caring enough to want the best for his creations, as shown by both your case and mine. "EVIL ABOUNDS" My opponent again asserts in his R2 that we cannot criticize God for allowing evil because we cannot determine what is and what isn't evil. However, in the case of an omnipotent and benevolent being, such benevolence is negated by the mere existence of evil (explained later) as opposed to specific, designated acts which we know to be evil. Though we may not know exactly what is evil, we do know that evil exists, as quoted from the bible and conceded by my opponent in R1: "The Christian God created humans which are free-willing and capable of doing evil, and who have done and continue to do evil. " To which my opponent responded: "I accept the first three premises as accurate representations of the Biblical God. " Evil does exist and continues to exist, and such evil is allowed by God to occur. Exactly why he does so has lead us to the rest of the argument. REGARDING FREE-CHOSEN ACTIONS My opponent asserts that only free chosen actions are evil or good but fails to provide any sort of evidence, logical or otherwise. I cannot respond to this point by fault of having nothing substantial to negate; my opponent has not asserted any reason why this is true, and I thus cannot refute his lack of an argument on this point. THE FREE WILL CONTRADICTION To quote my opponent, "THERE ARE SOME THINGS EVEN AN OMNIPOTENT GOD CANNOT ACTUALIZE. " This is true; God could not create a square circle or something inherently contradictory to itself, simply by fault of the fact that such a thing cannot exist. This presents us with a problem: could a being exist that is both all-loving and malicious? The obvious answer is no; if a being is malicious is by definition cannot be all-loving. We know thus far that evil exists and that God allows it to exist, but that God does not choose himself for such evil to occur. However, we must realize that passively propagating evil is still a malicious act. Say that bioterrorists spark an epidemic that has a one-in-three chance of killing any person who comes into contact with it, and unleash this upon the world. The terrorists have no definite control over whether or not their disease will kill any single individual; however, the odds show that many people will probably be killed. Would unleashing such a disease be evil? Say that I am babysitting a toddler; while watching him, the toddler climbs up to a windowsill and, leaning over, begins to wobble, obviously about to fall to his demise two stories below. Of course, the toddler did wander to the windowsill himself, and there still exists a chance that he may correct his balance; however, would it be considered a morally acceptable act to watch the toddler possibly fall to his death? My opponent insists that evil cannot be to the fault of God's lack of omnibenevolence because God is not the one choosing to do evil; the evil is beyond his control. Such reasoning would lead us to believe that a roll of the dice would be enough to make an immoral action permissible; however, such reasoning obviously fails. My opponent's syllogism as stated at the end of his R2 is flawed from the initial premise: an omnibenevolent God could not create morally autonomous beings, as by doing such, God would be an accessory to the evil that would almost inevitably result. Both passive and active propagation of evil are still evil actions and are thus contradictory to omnibenevolence, and thus the creation of almost inevitable possibility or evil is indeed almost as bad as carrying out the evil by oneself. The Christian God simply cannot logically stand beside the constants that exist in this world.