The Problem of Evil

Fallacy of CompositionPro states: "to say that God is evil doesn’t refer to some part of God that is evil but to God in his totality." That is the problem. Saying that a part of God is evil does not entail that God is evil in his totality.Pro argues that God is evil because God created, among many other things, evil. God's creations are parts of God that do not define God in his totality. Pro makes a fallacious leap in logic by defining God as evil in his totality because God creates evil. Think about it: God created elephants. Is God an elephant? God created many things that God, in his totality, is not. When Pro says God is evil because God created evil, Pro's logic operates only through the fallacy of composition. Nothing more needs to be said at this point, the resolution is negated.Evil does not existPro quotes a statement I made in R2 out of context. The full statement read: "Pro provides no evidence evil exists. If the Judeo-Christian God exists, it is more logically consistent to conclude that evil does not exist... Even if God created all things and evil exists, it does not follow that God created evil." Pro argues that I admit evil exists in R2 when I did no such thing. I challenged Pro to provide evidence that evil exists, and stated that if God exists, evil does not exist. Likewise, if evil exists, God does not exist.Readers should take off conduct for Pro's blatant misrepresentation of my argument. Pro claims: "Now he states that he rejected our second premise all along which is demonstrably untrue." Normally, I would refrain from charging someone with intentionally distorting what I argued and assume misunderstanding at best, but in this case, Pro's entire argument rests on concealing what I argued in both R2 and R3.Pro attempts to argue evil does exist with the following claim: "Should God be omnipresent, this argument fails as there is nowhere where God is not, thus the notion is absurd." But that argument presupposes that God is evil, which is what Pro is trying to show in this debate. Claiming evil exists because God exists and God is evil is circular and question-begging. It begs the very question that this debate asks. For Pro to argue evil exists with this argument, Pro would have had to already show that God is evil. But Pro cannot show God is evil without first showing that evil exists. Argument is circular and empty.Expression implies IntentionIf God allows us to have free will, it is reasonable to believe we will act in ways that God did not intend us to act. This is an example of how God creates things with unintended effects. Not everything expressed by God's creations is intentional.Expressions are merely representations of an underlying nature or principlePro does not really contest my argument. All expression is mediated by language. Language is a self-contained semiotic system that can never refer back to an underlying nature or principle. Pro's argues we understand what is referred to when the word "Tarkovsky" is used, hence language must refer to some underlying nature. Wrong. Our ability to understand language is purely subjective and cannot be proven. When Pro uses the word "Tarkovsky," I have no way of knowing with absolute certainty what it is Pro is referring to. I might think Pro is referring to a cat. Language, and its particular significantions, cannot point to an underlying nature. This is a fact about linguistic structures and has nothing to do with our practical ability to communicate using language.ConclusionI have shown that Pro's argument is fallacious: it depends on the fallacy of composition. I have shown that Pro's argument depends on the existence of evil. Pro does not provide sufficient evidence that evil exists. I explained that what we, as limited human observers, think is evil could actually be morally justified by God. In other words, our perception of evil is deceptive, because what appears to humans as evil is, in actuality, good and morally justified. This conclusion is more logically consistent with God's existence. Pro does not contest it. On these two points alone it is enough to vote Con.I went further and showed that the other two premises underlying Pro's argument are also false. There are examples of creations and expressions that are unintentional effects. And expressions themselves do not point back to an underlying nature. The reason is because all expression is mediated by a metaphysical structure that is self-contained: language. I have fully refuted all of Pro's argument. The resolution is negated.