Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God

I agree to my opponent's rule of arguing from an atheistic standpoint, and as I'm an atheist myself we shouldn't have a problem with me bringing up the "God is good" argument. Instead, I will be proving the resolution wrong through both my evidence and the refutation of my opponent's logic.My Case:Evil:To determine whether or not the existence of evil itself proves that an evil God exists, we must first look to the definition of evil itself. I don't intend to turn this semantical, but it's neccesary for the debate so that we can be absolutely clear on what the other is talking about.e·vil http://img.tfd.com...; type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> http://img.tfd.com...; /> http://img.tfd.com...; /> http://www.macromedia.com...; /> ( v l) adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est . Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.[1] Morality:When askiing the question of "Is this man evil?", what one is really asking is "Does this man conform to my morality?". Although that may look a little strange at first, but what evil truly is is making actions that go against your morals. After all, did Robin Hood find himself evil for stealing from the rich? No, because in his morality giving to the poor was a greater good, despite the fact that he was causing harm to others. Lord Devlin states: "... society means a community of ideas, without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live." [2] Simply put, every person has a different view of the word "evil". Therefor, evil as most people know it - A force of wrong that exists only to harm others - actually does not exist as it is merely the negative moral iterperetation of certain actions that is normally shared by a society (which can be backed up by looking at how the vast majority of America as a society views the sexist actions of Saudi Arabia as morally wrong).This puts evil into an entirely new light, one that is based on moral beliefs rather than black-and-white good and evil. For example, an altruist would see hoarding money, causng a rival business to collapse financially, or skimping on costs that could benefit lives as evil, but to an egoist the actions would be perfectly acceptable. Because of this, we cannot look to the existence of a morality that contradicts our own and automatically assume an "evil" god made it so, it simply was the result of a different moral system at work.Pro's Case:I'll start by showing how science explains evil :P : http://www.scientificamerican.com...I won't quote every paragraph as my opponent's case is largely focused around a single idea, and so I'll target that. My opponent's entire case revolves around Natural Selection's lack of removing evil traits such as murder and rape from the human psychology, as well as self-harming traits like suicide.. However, not only does he irrationally link this to an all-powerful entity without sufficient proof, he misunderstands how natural selection works. Sure, it would be great if natural selection just erased everything that caused death such as homocidal urges, psycopathic genes, and stupidity, but that's just not how it works. Natural selection is simply the driving force behind evolution, in which those with the strongest traits survive and those with the weakest traits do not. For example, when food sources on plants closer to the ground were consumed from the competitive ecosystem, only girraffes with longer necks could reach the edible leaves, and so those with smaller necks starved to death. As a result, the long-neck gene was passed down while the small-neck gene was not, and now Giraffes have long necks as a result of natural selection.As we can see, natural selection is based on survival,not on random mutations in the body (that leads to things like cancer, not evolution). There is no gaurantee that those that harm others will be killed simply for doing so, and so the psychopathic or otherwise harmful genes can be passed down after reproduction. Furthermore, individual morality is determined by upbringing, education, and environment[3], and because Evil is just a different interperetation of morals, there is no reason that everyone with a different moral belief system as you will suddenly die out.Pertaining to the self-harmful tendencies like suicide, although children of suicidal parents are more likely to commit suicide, the death of the suicidal will not eradicate suicidal tendencies. This is because it only has partly to do with genes, and also has to do with psychological conditions and experiences[4], as well as being part of human nature. My opponent is right that humans wish to preserve themselves, however this does not always extend to preventing death. It more often has to do with preventing harm, and at times in a human's life they may feel like their lives will never get better, or experience an event (like a terminal illness) that will cause them to feel pain for the rest of their lives. In order to preserve themselves from this pain, instinct will kick in and we'll seek to kill ourselves to avoid this harm.Conclusion:Evil is simply a negative interperetation of morals, and so without it being an existant entity there is no reason to draw that it comes from a god. Furthermore, my opponent's reasoning based on natural selection is flawed, and he jumps from "Evil exists when it shouldn't" to "a god made it happen" without sufficient proof, making a "far-fetched hypothesis" fallacy by jumping to a conclusion without sufficient proof[5]. Therefore, not only has the resolution been proven false, but the my opponent's argumentation for the resolution has been negated. Vote Con :)Works Cited:1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2.) "Morals and the Criminal Law" in The Philosophy of Law (ed R M Dworkin) Oxford (1977) at p 74 3.) http://www.angelfire.com...;4.) http://www.eubios.info...;5.) http://www.iep.utm.edu...;