The Problem of Evil is Sound

"THERE are two ways that I have formulated the argument, as both ways are sound and basically the same; though different wording. "The two arguments you presented are not "basically the same" as you suggest. One attempts to show that evil and God are logically contradictory, and the other one attempts to show that unjustified evil occurs which would be a evidence against God. "The word omnipotent means all-power; hence if God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate evil. Moreover, if God was morally perfect and omnibenevolent, then by definition of necessity, God will want to have the desire to eliminate evil. "I agree that God can eliminate evil and wants too. However, this is not the only thing God wants. Is it possible that God wants to make free human beings who can choose either to accept Him or not? Of course, that is what the Christian has always believed. When humans choose to do contrary to what God wants, that is when evil happens. The only way to eliminate evil would be to eliminate free will (other than humans always acting in accordance with what God wants). My opponent seems to think that there is no chance God could have morally justifiable reasons for allowing Hitler to do what he did. However, he did not explain his reasoning, he only said that the claim "is ridiculous. " This goes back to my point that what Hitler did is an inscrutable evil, not a gratuitous evil. My opponent can not know that God does not have morally justifiable reasons for allowing such evils, only that it seems so. However, even if there is the chance that God has morally justifiable reasons for allowing such evils it negates my opponents own resolution that he presented in round 1 that The Problem of Evil successfully refutes the existence of a Judeo-christian type God. "The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish worldview presupposes the existence of a heaven. Consequently,it concedes that it is possible for God to create a situation wherein free agents would always choose to do good. "The kind of robust freedom on earth is a requirement for choosing one’s own final destiny—by freely responding affirmatively to God’s loving influence or by resisting it so that our earthly desire to be with God or away from Him is “sealed. ” Thus God couldn’t have created a heaven-like state on earth in which the redeemed can’t sin. (Another view is that God foreknows that no one will sin in heaven which guarantees heavens sinlessness. )"Why can't it be feasible? God is omnipotent; therefore anything is possible and feasible for God. Likewise, I believe the concept of heaven negates such a wordlview (see above for explanation). "This is false. There are things not feasible for God to do such as sin, create a square triangle ect. This does not make God non-omnipotent. A sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible but, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God’s grace and love. My opponent thinks that there can be another world where natural evil does not occur but, for all we know, there may not be a more suitable world that is governed by laws which have no source of natural evil as a by-product. Asking God to make a world governed by laws that do not have natural evil as a by-product may very well be like asking him to create a square triangle. Microsuck has shown that 1) evil exists 2) God can eliminate evil 3) God wants to eliminate evil. All of which I agree with to a certain extent. However, he did not show that evil is logically contradictory to the Judeo-Christian God, and I agree with the atheist William Rowe when he said that no philosopher has been able to show that [1]. Microsuck then told us that evils seem gratuitous, but provided no reason why we should think it is gratuitous rather than inscrutable. He was not able to defend my contentions that a good being does not necessarily eliminate evil insofar as he can or that there are limits to what an omnipotent being can do. He did not show that it is feasible for God to create a sin-free human world. I believe I have shown that God and evil are not incompatible and that at best Microsuck can say that evil seems gratuitous, but as long as there is the possibility it is only inscrutable, that is enough to negate the resolution that the Problem of Evil disproves the Judeo-Christian God. [1] Quote in round 2