The Problem of Evil does not Disprove a Benevolent God

Premise 1:Firstly, Con responds to my vaccination example as a "greater good" and states, "God is not restricted to such profane means", to which I agree. My point was that one does not necessarily recognize what one is being protected from. This falls precisely into my "cold" analogy from R2, Premise 1, which Con did not appear to contest (Con's objections were not about the validity of the analogy). For example, one is not able to appreciate not having Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva, or "Stone Man Syndrome" [1] without being aware of it. This is a rare disorder in which muscle tissue and connective tissue are gradually replaced by bone. Some possess this, but if all beings are protected from something, there is no way to recognize it.Furthermore, Con states that "God is love", to which I agree. However, as per the same analogy, it must be possible to not experience God's love in order to recognize it and to appreciate it as good. If God were to create us as unthinking beings that experienced a perpetual, pleasurable sensation, that would perfectly qualify God as a protective and loving being. However, as unthinking beings, we couldn't appreciate that state.To demonstrate the incoherency of a world without evil, consider this analogy where this world is a poker game. The best possible "goodness" would be receiving a Royal Flush (odds 649,739:1) [2]. Now, if one is only ever dealt this hand and doesn't know otherwise, it cannot be appreciated. Now, say that one is permitted any hand, but cannot possibly lose. Since one is unaware of the possibility of losing, these hands cannot be appreciated at all since a win will occur no matter what. It is only when the possibility of losing in present that these hands can be appreciated, and if losing is experienced, it greatly increases the appreciation of winning at the cost of some suffering (losing). Further, if it is more likely that one will lose, then this further increases the appreciation of receiving a good hand. A Royal Flush is now completely awesome! This analogy is applicable to the presence evil and the recognition of good.Con states that he finds it easy to imagine a world without suffering, which I believe. However, the world that Con is conceptualizing is still being compared to *his* perception of natural possibilities of *his* world, which hinges on a definition of suffering that pertains to the negative objective states that are possible in *his* world. For those being that exist *within* that conceptual world, they cannot be aware of that which is not possible and thus, mold their definition of suffering to accommodate *their* natural possibilities. Now, God views our world in the same way that Con views his conceptual world in that, although Con does not perceive evil, those in that world do!This is precisely what Con does in his response to the Gift Store analogy; he contrasts it with his own perception of natural possibilities. Con then refers to the presence of carnivore and suffering of animals. I personally agree that this suffering is horrible, but again, such perceived evil must exist in order to appreciate that which is not, and since we can only make comparisons to natural possibilities, we *cannot* perceive this as not evil, though a being with a greater perception can.Later, Con questions my defense in regards to his "starving children" statement, stating that we would be able to compare our world to other possibilities such as those in stories. I argue that this is absurd in that, we do not actually make comparisons to *abstractions of reality*, as we do not perceive them as natural possibilities. Con states that he doubts one would be convinced by this defense, but that is because we are limited to the natural possibilities of our world. Say that you have a long board and designate one end good and the other end evil, and that you shave off a small bit of the "evil" end and ship it to another person. Can that person be aware of that which was removed? No, even though he could imagine it. In fact he can shave off another bit and pass it on. The subsequent people are equivalent to people in subsequent worlds with slightly less evil. The evil end will cease to exist only when the board is completely gone, thus destroying the good end as well.Premise 2:A neutral point (Moral Fulcrum) is established as a threshold point between good and bad, and is dependent on what possibilities are available. For instance, if passing a homeless man, kicking him would be evil and giving him aid would be good, while enacting no action would be neutral. This point must exist within the realm of possibility. For instance, on a scale between 1 and 10, the neutral point between high and low would be about 5 or 6. If the scale is changed to say, between 8 and 10, the neutral point would necessarily be changed or else high and low are incoherent; and nine would become the new neutral point. High cannot exist without low and good cannot exist without evil.I apologize to Con for my current inability to analyze his logical assessment. I will re-clarify the first half of my argument.P1: The designation of the "evil" description to a subject requires contrast with another subject. Each being makes its own judgment, be it God or us.P2: Clarified above.P3: Each being's definition for "evil" is based on natural possibilities. People in different worlds have difference definitions for evil, including God who perceives all worlds.C1: Each being perceives evil in its own world based on what it perceives as possible. We only perceive our world whereas God perceives all worlds.C2: All beings that have possibilities to compare will perceive evil.Premise 3:I agree with Con in that it is God's judgment that counts. Yes, "God would recognize the gratuitous agony of Ebola victims, and no human judgment is required". However, by using the words he did, Con is exercising human judgment. God would have created this world with unlimited perception, and can make comparison to that which we cannot.Con states that he doesn't see a reason to limit the definition of "suffering" to exclude harm to one's soul, but this misses the point. Our definitions are necessarily based on our perception of natural possibilities. The PoE can exist in *any* world. If a world consisted only of everyone receiving either 1 dollar or nothing on a random basis, then those with no dollar can formulate a PoE based on *their* definition of suffering which is based on *their* natural possibilities, which would be the unfairness.Premise 6:God could have created a world in which excludes evil by *His* omniscient perception. The world we exist within is *our* basis for judgment; our terms and concepts are founded in this world even if there is no evil by God's perception. Thus, our perception of evil cannot possibly fully align with God's. This is defended more under Premise 1.Conclusions C3/C4:The incoherence of a suffering-free world is defended under Premise 1. I present analogies that are anthropocentric because that is what we, as humans, can relate better to. We cannot truly know what animals are experiencing beyond their biological expressions, to which we are tuned to via empathy; we have to imagine what they are experiencing. I am not trying to deny that they are suffering, just that we cannot know with certainty what they perceive, so I am sticking to the human perspective. Con's other points here are address under Premise 1.Sources:[1] Generics Home Reference - http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...[2] Wikipedia: Poker Probability - https://en.wikipedia.org...I extend my gratitude to Con for engaging in this debate with me.