If an omnipotent, omnicient, and omni-benevolent God can exist with evil.

========== Introduction ========== Thanks to Mr_Jack_Nixon for the opportunity to debate a very interesting topic. I'd first like to make the resolution clear - I presume Con is going to argue that God cannot exist with evil so what he is claiming is that the existence of God is incompatible with existence of evil. So if I can prove that the existence of God is compatible with evil (no matter how implausible it may seem to some readers) I have fulfilled my share of the burden of proof. ========== The Problem of Evil ========== Again, I'd like to point out by the way the resolution is worded it seems as if Con is committed to *logical* problem of evil and NOT the *evidential* problem of evil. This is may seem trivial to point this out but it's not. The logical problem of evil aims to be a disproof of a God conceived of as all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing because it claims that the existence of any evil whatsoever is incompatible with God's existence. God could not exist at all if the logical problem of evil succeeds. If my opponent chooses to take the *evidential* route to the problem of evil he has already conceded the debate because the evidential problem of evil concedes that God's existence is compatible with evil - just that God's existence is rendered very, very, very unlikely if the argument succeeds. So, I will assume until otherwise corrected that Con is propounding the logical problem of evil. What is the logical problem of evil? It was most admirably stated by Epicurus over 2000 years ago (according to David Hume): ""Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"" And more recently the late philosopher J.L. Mackie claimed that one or more of these statements must be false; that all of them cannot be true at the same time: (1) God is omnipotent (that is, all-powerful). (2) God is omniscient (that is, all-knowing). (3) God is perfectly good. (4) Evil exists. [2] Anybody can see that a Christian, at least an orthodox one, will want to affirm all 4 statements as true but it seems as if per Epicurus' quote that this cannot be. If a Christian were to deny any of the of the first 3 statements they would be admitting that God (as defined in this debate) does not exist. And no Christian could deny that real, actual evil exists (say in the acts of the Nazis in regards to Holocaust) even if it is just the "privation" of good. It seems like the Christian has a problem here. ========== The Free Will Defense ========== But hold on! There is a way the Christian can affirm all the 4 statements and it is just by adding one more statement to the 4. (5) There is a morally sufficient reason that God has for allowing evil. What *COULD* (emphasis on *could* because that is all that is needed to defeat the logical problem of evil) this morally sufficient reason for God allowing evil be? Free will. And thanks to Alvin Plantinga there is a nice exposition of this defense. It goes that free will is a good of the highest order and God, being good, decided to bestow his creations with free will. But, the thing is, free will necessitates that choice is possible; not only that but choice between genuine alternatives - good and evil. This means that God values free will (because it is an extremely powerful good) in moral agents so much that he is willing to allow the existence of evil because it is unfortunate consequence of non omni-benevolent creatures endowed with free will. This also means that an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God couldn't have been truly good if he didn't create his creations with anything less than the capacity to choose evil because the free will that they will sometimes used to choose evil actions is a greater good than the evil they might do. And more importantly, in the context of this debate, it means that God can exist with evil. I could go into more detail this round but I shall await Con's rebuttals first in order to clarify what points I should be arguing for and against. I turn it over to Con now. ========== Sources ========== [1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...