The Problem of Evil can be refutted effectivley.

Thanks to my opponent for a very thorough response. === PRO "Rape is a consequence of free will. So, the man who raped this child was operating under free will. Therefore, the rape is his fault, not God's fault. My theodicy states that there must be free will. A world without free will would be a slave universe with no potential for moral or character growth. Therefore, my theodicy allows for child rape." === REBUTTAL This is a big old fail for one reason; not everybody operates under what you call "free will". There are people whose minds are set from birth to become sadists, rapists, murderers. They cannot help it. Think about mentally retarded people who legitimately don't know right from wrong. Even if I were to concede that everyone else has free will, there are certainly those on the planet who have no control over their actions whatsoever. Where does free will come into that? Also, just because we are allowed to do anything within the rules, why did God make the rules as he did? For example, I wish to use my free will to fly, but God has made this impossible. Why could he not still give us free will but eliminate rape and torture entirely? === PRO "Well, some of this evil is from free will (see above argument). However, some of this evil is not. This evil (such as a baby being orphaned) can still be beneficial to character growth, just not the growth of these people. Like a orphaned baby allows for a couple to adopt the child, adoption, I think (and so should a mentally sane person think) is a good thing in this world. So, the death of the child's parents allowed for something good to happen (it provided a couple with a child). To have a child is a chance to establish a loving experience that will last a life time." == REBUTTAL First of all, this doesn't address my point at all (mentally retarded people, those with alzheimers, etc.). Second, this is just silly. Two people are tortured and slain ahead of their time just so another two can have a child. Why did God need to make the second couple sterile in the first place? If this is how God operates, he's not only evil, he's stupid and inefficient too. === PRO "In the eyes of God, animal life isn't equal to that of human life (Genesis 1:26). Therefore, the death of animals is just a way God keeps the animal population in check. As for animal torture, it establishes in Genesis 1:26 that humans can do whatever they want with animals, and therefore animal torture isn't evil. The Problem of Evil cannot exist without evil." === REBUTTAL We are not talking about the Christian God, so the Bible is not a suitable source. We are talking about a nameless creator, whose attributes supposedly include omnipotence, benevolence, omniscience. If this being sees torturing a human as evil but not a chimpanzee, this being is pure evil. If animals being tortured were part of his master plan, and he wasn't pure evil, he wouldn't have given them pain receptors. === PRO "This is actually a scenario in which God works around free will to lessen the impact of evil. The man tortured the child because he had free will, God doesn't interfere with Free Will. God dishes out his punishment after our death. God allowing this child to die was a sign of civility on God's part, he put the child out of its pain and killed it. As for the man's suicide, that is free will." === REBUTTAL You have provided nothing to show that any punishment will be dished out after death. Once again, the Bible is not a suitable source. Even if that's the case, it's too little too late for that tortured child, and the fact remains that God allowed a preventable evil to occur for days straight. Also, don't bring free will into this one, because the man in question was mentally retarded from birth and had no knowledge that his actions were wrong. Another fault by a being which would NOT occur if he were actually omni, omni, benev. === PRO "By stable natural laws I mean God limits himself in power. He has the power to do anything, but doesn't. So, when God sees a poor starving African child he cannot make food magically appear in front of him (it would violate a law). On the same subject the child must starve because the consequence of not eating is starvation, and the child must die because the consequence of starvation is death. Why must starvation be so painful? Because if the poor African child wasn't in pain then his fellow humanoids wouldn't have any motivation to help him, and no moral growth would take place." === REBUTTAL This, again, fails is several places. What about the millions starving to death and about whom the fellow "humanoids" don't even know? How is anyone to grow by that experience. Once again, it sounds like your god just likes to watch people suffer. So your god just causes people to suffer so that others may learn lessons that your god could just implant in their minds from birth, or have them learn in another, less evil way? Which part of this makes him/her benevolent, because I can't find it? === PRO "Question to my opponent: Who are you to say this? Maybe God has shielded us from 90% of evil in this world, and we just have to experience the least evil 10% of it? The amount of evil is a comparative thing, and since there is no other universe to compare it to, who are you to say?" === REBUTTAL This is a massive contradiction from my opponent. If your god is so obsessed with making us learn lessons and all that, as you've so fervently asserted, then why would he shield us from 90% of evil? More to the point, why would he have created those evils in the first place, even though he was planning on shielding us from them? These are not the actions of an omniscient, omnipotent being. === PRO "But if you see a child getting raped YOU can respond viciously or virtuously. You can either take the "I don't want to get involved" approach or help the child. Your response can allow moral development." === REBUTTAL I'm starting to wonder if my opponent understands the weight of the words we are throwing around here. What of the millions of rapes committed every year which are seen by nobody but your "benevolent" god? Perhaps your god needs a bit of "moral development", because if we are to accept that he's omnipotent and omniscient, then he is clearly far from benevolent. === PRO "Once again, see the point about the "10% of evil" hypothesis above." === REBUTTAL Once again, the "10% of evil" hypothesis above was a complete contradiction of your entire theodicy. === PRO My Opponent: iii) If we all need elbow room for making mistakes and for doing good, why do so many people die before they get a chance to do either? You mean why do babies die? Just like giving birth of a child, the death of a child can allow for the parents to grow morally. Only a challenged life is a life worth living." === REBUTTAL I apologize, but this is just silly. I hope my opponent never serves as a judge, because I'd hate to see a mass-murderer released without charge because his actions allowed the police officers who arrested him to do good and grow morally. You asserted that we ALL, every one of us, need elbow room for making mistakes and for doing good, so I ask again, why is it that so many of us die before we get a chance to do either? I will also return to a point you've failed to answer to so far; why is it that so many people are born without the wherewithal to make decisions or think in a way that would even allow them to act morally? This comes solely down to your god, you can't blame it on free will, so just where does it fit into an omni, omni, benev being's master plan? Thanks again to my opponent, I look forward to his rebuttal.