The Problem of Evil is an Insufficient Argument Against the Christian God

In this round, I will answer P3 first, which is focused on Natural Evil. I will assume here that Con accepts the explanation of Free Will, hence I will not be defending Moral Evil any longer as there is no need. All of Con’s points can be rolled into one and answered at the same time. However, I will first address the restriction of not having ad hoc storytelling. ad hoc means “for this” in Latin. [1] For this particular restriction, I will take Con to be meaning a story concocted just to explain the PoE. As I will show, no such thing will occur. The common date for the earliest versions of Genesis is far before any concocted PoE was ever documented. This means that to appeal to Genesis is not to have ad hoc storytelling. For this, I will be taking information from [2]’s section 6, An Objection: Free Will and Natural Evil. I am aware that I might be repeating some things said in the opening round. Plantinga’s explanation is as follows: “God allowed natural evil to enter the world as part of Adam and Eve’s punishment for their sin in the Garden of Eden. ” In effect, this claims that all natural evil is the consequence of the first divine punishment. The Garden of Eden was a peaceful, vegetarian community before Adam fell. This is perfectly possible. To make the PoE more effective, Con must only use evil from after this event and assume there were none before. Otherwise Pro can just deny there being any. So now I will address P1. There has been no logical refutation of my point. Nonetheless, I will address the issue. The question phrased in the quote can be just as validly phrased in the negative. This means there is no reason to suggest that this is an impossibility. Now why did I admit the probability of evil and free will? It, in it’s simplest purpose, was to refute moral evil before it came up. Unfortunately, as I have ruled out many ideas due to them being easily refuted, I will not be adding much points. I will only add points which I think hard to refute because I do not see the point in spamming this debate with points that take time but not effort to refute. I will add one/two more points. (I will request that Con refute my opening points, as well as the following, in the next round)Non sequitur in Con’s syllogism: This point basically states that Con has either left out a premise or has not another premise, in either case, the conclusions does not directly follow from the premises. I will not aid Con in adding the missing premises. However, if he does not do so, I must conclude that the syllogism is invalid. P1 already has a conclusion which does not necessarily follow: This point, even including the points made in the defence of P1, is valid. To explain myself, I must point Con to my answer to P1 above. However, I have more to add. I would agree with the fact that God knows about and has the power to wipe out all evil from the world. I do not agree, though that being wholly good is a motivation to wipe out evil. The two do not necessarily follow. For example, Hitler was definitely not wholly good, but he had motivation to wipe out what he considered evil, the Jews[3]. To take this to the converse, a motivation to wipe out evil does not necessarily come from being wholly good. Thus, there must be a driving motivation other than being good to removing evil. In conclusion, I would like to thank Con for a thought-provoking argument, once again. It is not easy to reply to. I will note that non sequiturs, or Latin for “it does not follow,” somewhat plagues Con’s syllogism. This does not make the conclusions unsound, merely invalid. 1. . http://rationalwiki.org...2. . http://www.iep.utm.edu...3. I am merely using Hitler as an example because he is more prominent. I could use others, but I doubt they would be as impactful.