The 'Problem of Evil' never succeeds (Attempt 1)

INTRODUCTION: I appreciate Skeptic's willingness to engage this debate. It is definitely a hot button issue, the Problem of Evil (PoE), being described so often as the strongest argument against the Judeo-Christian God. From articles online and books in print to university classrooms and church pulpits, from philosophers and theologians to atheists and theists, many seem to agree that it is a formidable problem. There was a time when I thought so, too, and clearly my opponent has confidence in its force. But I have to stress the absolute importance of what this debate is about, and perhaps to underscore what it is NOT about. First, it is not my task to present arguments for the existence of God. I am not expected to prove he exists, nor to convince anyone that he does. If at the close of the debate anyone should happen to think I failed miserably at proving that God exists, then he or she will have missed what the debate was actually about. It is rather difficult for me to fail at something I was not trying to do in the first place. The biblical God of orthodox Christian theism is being assumed for the sake of argument; I am affirming his existence, while Skeptic must show that his non-existence is more probable using a PoE argument of his choosing. My resolution is that "there are literally no versions of the PoE argument that succeed at proving the non-existence of God." To defeat me, my opponent need only present one that does succeed. I REPEAT: The burden of proof lies with my opponent, who must show a PoE argument that does succeed. In order to defend the debate resolution, the only thing I need to do is show that his argument fails, being just one more in a constellation of others that fail. Second, I am not here to convince anyone to believe in God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or that Christianity is true, etc. If at the end of the debate you still reject God or Christianity or the Bible, that's fine—because it is completely beside the point. Moreover, to think that clever arguments could convince someone into the faith is an idea at odds with the Bible anyway. It doesn't work that way. And it is totally beside the point in the first place. The debate is about Skeptic showing that a PoE argument does succeed at proving the (probable) non-existence of God. Third, I have invested several years in philosophy and Christian apologetics, going after the sharpest learned critics and searching out the strongest arguments against Christian theism I could find, subjecting my world view to the most powerful scrutiny available in order to test it, to see if it can withstand critical analysis. It has, and it continues to do so. Consequently, with all I have learned and experienced it became my passion to make a spectacle of this trial by fire for the benefit of fellow believers, in order to show them that the Christian faith is on firm foundations. By this I mean to say that my aim is not to convince or convert non-believers; they can stay non-believers if they like. My aim is to strengthen believers and glorify God, using the non-believers' own arguments to do so. DEFINITIONS: My opponent has agreed to the definitions I laid down (see the Comments area), that this debate will confront biblical Christian doctrine. Since he wishes to confront the Christian view under its own terms, he has left it in my hands to define the two contested terms: "evil" and "all-good." Since "evil" is a moral term (sin, wrong, bad, etc.) it calls upon biblical meta-ethics, [1] which holds that moral order is grounded in the nature and character of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. [2] As a result, evil is therefore a privative term expressing a want of conformity thereto; i.e., being contrary to his character or against his commands. Evil has no ontological substance; it is not a thing in itself, but is rather a term describing a breach of relationship between some entity or circumstance and the character and prescriptive will of God. Given that moral order is grounded in the nature and character of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands, the term "all-good" refers to the immutable consistency of God, his character, and his commands. To say that God is infinitely benevolent, then, is to say that God possesses no malevolence (i.e., exhibiting or wishing malicious harm to others) against which his benevolence might compete, but leaves room for God to possess more attributes than just benevolence, such as his just wrath against sin. So he is all-good in the sense of his eternal, unchanging character; e.g., God is not sometimes just, he is always just. "As exercised with respect to the miseries of his creatures, it is mercy, pity, compassion; and in the case of impenitent sinners, long-suffering patience; as exercised in communicating favor on the unworthy, it is grace." [3] FIRST ANALYSIS: Skeptic presented what he classifies as an evidential PoE argument "relying on the concept of gratuitous evil." There is not much I can say toward an analysis of his argument because he has not fleshed it out quite yet (and on purpose, he notes). There are, however, two serious issues he will have to contend with in his following round, and they are related to the two premises of his argument. My opponent asserts that "gratuitous evils probably exist," by which he means unjustified, pointless evils. However, by having assumed that gratuitous suffering exists, he has begged the question against the biblical God of Christian theism. How so? Quite simply: God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; consequently, given those attributes in concert, there can be no such thing as gratuitous suffering! They are mutually exclusive, in the same way that an Irresistible Force precludes an Immovable Object. Gratuitous suffering stands in logical contradiction to such a God. Either gratuitous suffering exists, or God exists; it is logically impossible—by the very definition of the terms involved—for them to both exist. That's the sticking point. It is not just theologically untenable, a matter of being "incompatible with the God." It is a logical impossibility. (That is the error of his second premise: it is not a matter of incompatibility but rather impossibility. His evidential argument turns out to be a logical version.) Either one or the other is false, or they are both false, but it is impossible for them to both be true. This is why presupposing the existence gratuitous suffering commits the question-begging fallacy. Therefore my opponent must do far more than just assert that any evils are gratuitous; he must prove the probability of their gratuity without begging the question (i.e., keeping in mind the God at issue). If he can, then the Irresistable Force vanquishes the Immovable Object on the point of logic. I look forward to discovering how my opponent contends with these issues in Round 2. ==== REFERENCES ==== 1. Meta-ethics is a branch of philosophy concerned with identifying and understanding the origin and meaning of ethical concepts—"the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). See also: James Friesen. "Metaethics." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...); Geoff Sayre-McCord. "Metaethics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) 2. Scott Rae. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995 (pg. 32). 3. "Goodness of God." Easton's Bible Dictionary. Web. (http://refbible.com...)