The problem of evil

I would like to point out my opponent's syllogistic logic shows the logical problem of evil, not the evidential problem of evil (1). The logical problem of evil can be summed up as such: 1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist. The evidential problem of evil (according to Paul Draper) is summed up like this: 1. Gratuitous evils exist. 2. The hypothesis of indifference, i. e. , that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism. 3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists. My opponent's argument is summed up like this: P.1 If God was omnipotent he could prevent evil. P.2 If God was all-loving he would want to prevent evil. P.3 If God was morally perfect he would be morally inclined to prevent evil. P.4 Therefore, if evil exists God does not exist. My opponent is attempting to show a logical contradiction between God and evil. The evidential problem of evil does not assert that evil and God are logically contradictory whereas the logical problem of evil (as well as my opponent's argument) does show they are logically contradictory. Therefore, my burden is to show God and evil are not contradictory. Now for my attack err defense err whatever you want to call it. I am an advocate of Plantinga's Free Will Defense. Now I shall begin. Alvin Plantinga provides a morally sufficient reason as to why God would allow evil and suffering to occur. God created people with morally significant free will. This has tremendous value in the world. God could not eliminate evil and suffering in the world otherwise God would be eliminating the greater good which came out creating man with free will with whom God could have a relationship with and who are able to love each other and do good deeds. The above claim basically means the allowance of certain evils are smaller in value than the greater good which they are connected to. It God eliminated evil, he would have to eliminate good as well. Let us take a woman getting a shot, for example, she allowed pain (the needle) to bring about a greater good (immunization from a disease). The free will utilized in this defense is known as libertarianism which is defined as "the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise. " (2). Libertarian free will, according to Plantinga, is known as a morally significant free will. A person has morally significant free will if they can perform actions which are…morally significant. Let us say God created a world with limited freedom. In this world, a person who faces a decision can only choose a good decision. They are incapable of choosing a bad decision. If three choices are present, two good and one bad, the person is incapable of making the bad decision. They only have freedom over good decisions. This is not morally significant free will. People will always perform morally good actions, but, why should they be credited with these actions? It is literally impossible for them to do wrong. The decision to act good is presupposed. They do have morally significant free will as nothing morally significant is done. In the actual world, people are fully free and responsible for any actions they may perform. If a person does right, they can be praised. If a person does wrong, they can be punished. Now my opponent will probably argue something along the lines of "why couldn't god create a world which has free creatures but, does not contain evil or suffering? " There are some worlds which God cannot create as they are logically impossible. God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, what would 2 + 3 equal? God cannot create a stick which is longer than itself (I want to see this actually :p). God can do what is logically possible. World 1. 1. People have morally significant free will (MSFW) 2. God does not choose what people do 3. There is evil and suffering World 2. 1. God does not create people with MSFW 2. God determines what people do 3. There is no evil and suffering World 3. 1. God creates people with MSFW 2. God determines what people do in situations 3. There is no evil and suffering World 4. 1. God creates people with MSFW 2. God is not determinate 3. There is no suffering or evil. Let's figure out what worlds are possible. World 1 seems awfully like the world we live in today. It describes our world. It is possible World 2 is not logically possible. If by definition, human beings are free people, then, we would not exist in this world. As creatures with MSFW, we must live in a world with MSFW otherwise, we are not who we are. In this context, it is not possible. World 3 seems to be completely contradictory. If man has MSFW, then how can man, at the same time, be caused to do good? It contradicts itself. If man has MSFW then, God cannot cause man to either do action "A" or not do action "A". If God does cause action "A" then man is not really free. Now is World 4 possible? Yes. It is possible. Worlds 1 and 4 are similar in the sense that God does not cause man to create evil or not create evil. Man does that on his own. In World 1, people choose to do wrong at least some of the time. In world 4, people choose to never do wrong, always making morally good decisions. Whether or not the world has immorality is dependent upon the creatures in the world, not God. People deserve the blame. Not God. My opponent is now going to cite things such as natural disaster or disease and go to say, this defense cannot serve as a sufficient reason for God to allow disasters. Here is where I must draw a distinction between Moral Evil and Natural Evil. Moral Evil is defined as evil or suffering resulting from immoral choices of free creatures. Natural Evil is defined as evil or suffering resulting from nature or nature gone awry. I have two responses. 1. God allowed natural evil into the world as punishment for Adam and Eve's sins in the Garden of Eden. Since we are discussing the Judea Christian God, what better source is there than the bible? Genesis 1 describes the first MORAL sin which then led to all natural sins. So because natural sin arises from moral sin, and your moral free will causes any sins to be punishable, then, natural evil was the punishment for this first sin. 2. Free, nonhuman persons are responsible for natural evil (rebellious spirits, or fallen angels). Since angel's have free will under the Judea Christian God, then other moral actors are responsible for natural evil. Since they are defined as having free will, then they are moral actors. They are responsible for their own actions. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.theopedia.com...