The Problem of Evil Against the God of Christianity Is Valid.

==================== Introduction: ==================== It pains me to have to spend my time arguing against an unoriginal argument. In the future, DBC, I hope you will pay due respect to the authors of whom you unscrupulously quote. Almost all of your responses are taken from the following website: http://www.ebonmusings.org... Though it is not written by my opponent, I will respond to the rebuttals respectively. ==================== Contention 1: Whence came this evil? ==================== "Well, we have to define evil first." See, it is not about DEFINING evil, it is about objectively proving that it exists. That is to say, if everyone in the world maintains that child sacrifice to Moloch is not evil, would it still remain evil? You cannot simply make up a definition, saying everything that is green is evil, green exists, therefore evil exits. You must PROVE that everything green is evil. ^^^^ "Evil: Unnecessary suffering" Now let us test if it is truly objective, universal, and binding. I say that Evil is actually that which makes us happy and content. Therefore, anything that makes us happy and content is evil. Now my opponent and I have demonstrably different definitions of evil. Now all we need to do is sort out which one of us is accurate. How does my opponent propose we do that? ^^^^ "Gladly, I refer the universal moral system to be called ‘Universal Utilitarianism.'" This system relegates morality to the will of the larger mass of people, meaning it is ultimately relative. That means, that which is currently understood as evil, may in the future be understood has upright and good. What if I were to say that morality actually does not exist, and that everything is permissible. Why is your system right and mine wrong? So you need not only show an alternative system, but the system itself must have proof. ^^^^ "Therefore, the moral system I placed out…" The system you placed out has absolutely no evidence. As Christopher Hitchens, a renowned atheist is noted for saying, "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be disregarded without evidence." ==================== With Contention 1 ==================== My opponent has thus far failed to prove that evil ACTUALLY exists. If my opponent cannot prove premise 2 without presupposing Premise 1, then his syllogism falls apart and is not valid. The validity of his premise 2 requires the proof of his unmentioned premises (e.g. universal utilitarianism). Furthermore, my opponent claims that evil is unnecessary suffering. Since his syllogism hinges on unproved premises, I could easily say that: P1 If God exists, unnecessary suffering does not exist P2 God Exists C Unnecessary suffering does not exist We lack the necessary epistemic position to access the reasons God has for suffering. The qualification of unnecessary cannot be proved by my opponent and the theist is therefore not obligated to believe it. Burden for my opponent: 1. Prove that evil ACTUALLY exists without presupposing premise 1. 2. Prove that it is not possible for there to be a reason for suffering. That is to say, prove there exists unnecessary suffering. =================== Contention 2: There are things even an omnipotent God cannot do ==================== Definition from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Omnipotence: "This refers to God's ability to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible in itself as well as logically consistent with his other essential attributes." "Contradiction -------> Did Jesus lie?" God can do all things that are logically possible. This is not even an issue; it is so tirelessly retorted by those who have not spent enough time ACTUALLY thinking about the issue. ***** The paradox of Heaven? ***** My opponent spends the remainder of contention 2 referring to the concept of heaven. It is my opponent's burden to prove that there is any sort of incoherence. But given that it is all speculation (we know very little about heaven) it seems it will be very hard to do so. Given the nature of our understanding, there are probably many plausible answers. "3. There is free will but no sin in Heaven. 4. There is neither free will nor sin in Heaven." Well it could quite easily be 1, 3, or 4 (2 just seems stupid). I would have to say I lean towards the fourth view, though I can see how both 3 and 4 are easily reconcilable. My opponent's supposed "trap" is creatively fallacious. God desired, above all else, genuine love. In order for genuine love to occur, the opposite must be possible. Once we have consistently shown our love for God and faith in Him in this reality, and ascend in whatever manner to heaven, it is possible that we maintain our free will, but, much like iron in the presence of a gigantic electromagnet, we find ourselves overwhelmingly compelled by the vision of the glorified Christ. However, this may rightly fall under the category of no moral freedom at all. But we cannot consider the notion of heaven in isolation from the earthly decision that led to it. Since we had free will on earth, it is possible that God simply permanently solidified the free chose to accept Christ upon death. It is my opponent's burden to show that this is not possible. Even still, you cannot create a paradox using an unknown place with unknown conditions. ==================== Contention 3: Our limited perspective ==================== "Evil: Unnecessary suffering" And precisely how does my opponent determine what is necessary suffering and that what is not? Just as the man being operated on did not possess the necessary perspective to know that his suffering was necessary, so we too may not possess the proper perspective to understand that what we perceive as unnecessary is indeed necessary. "It wasn't that hard, was it?" Apparently it was, as you did not ACTUALLY refute anything. ==================== Why Evil is Not a Problem ==================== 1. Moral Evil: There is no problem if we see it in terms of moral freedom. What God actualizes is contingent on the free choice of the person choosing. It is possible that an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God wanted to create truly free creatures that chose him without physical or psychological force. 2. Natural Evil: There is no problem if we consider that the elimination of all natural evils would also eliminate an enormous amount of good. People would neither thank God nor know how to enact good if such natural phenomena did not occur. Moreover, it is my opponent's burden to show that a world without natural laws would produce more net good than a world WITH natural laws. 3. Does Evil Exist: There is no problem if it cannot be adequately shown that evil ACTUALLY exists apart from the existence of God. If the existence of objective evil is contingent upon the existence of God, then it actually works in favor of Theism. ==================== Conclusion: ==================== My opponent's syllogism claims to prove that God does not exist. I have given adequate reasons as to why the syllogisms second premise is begging the question, and why the syllogisms conclusion – given additional information – does not follow. 1. My opponent must show that both evil and his metric for determining evil ACTUALLY exist. This must be done non-circularly. 2. My opponent must show that unnecessary suffering ACTUALLY exists – this must be done non-circularly. 3. My opponent must show that he has proper perspective for determining what unnecessary and necessary suffering is and how it is quantified – this must be done non-circularly. ALL THIS MUST BE DONE WITHOUT PLAGIARISM! Thanks, InquireTruth