The Problem of Evil can be refutted effectivley.

I thank you for creating this open debate, and I hope we have a great debate. Theodicies are especially amusing, so I'll be glad to humor your attempt - I'm sure it'll turn out great for the both of us. But before I begin, a piece of advice: define your terms. If I were to be particularly snarky today, I could easily twist the definition of God to easily make you concede this debate. However, this isn't my intentions when coming to this site, but you never know when others will ;) So that said, we need to be clear on what the "problem of evil" and "God" is. I shall define God as being of the Abrahamic conception, since this is what the argument from evil primarily, if not only, targets. He is defined as having 4 "unlimited attributes", namely omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresent (everywhere at the same time), and omnibenevolent (all-good). Note that from here on out, when I use the word "God" it will directly refer to this definition. The "problem of evil" can take several conceptions. I shall use the more common form, the evidential argument from evil. This means that my argument will take the form of showing that some fact about evil is evidence against the existence of God. So without further waiting, my arguments: ==================== Argument from Evil - A simple syllogism ==================== The argument of evil is a particularly old argument, and thus it has garnered a notorious amount of responses. In fact, these responses themselves have been bundled into a group called "theodicies", namely attempts at reconciling the existence of evil with the existence of God. I don't know what theodicy my opponent will use, and I can't hope to refute every one in existence due to character limits, so I will simply supply a syllogism of the argument of evil. I then invite my opponent to give his rebuttals, which in turn I can refute and thus get the debate on it's feet. So here it is: Situation L = the situation of the amount of suffering and premature death experienced by humans in the world at the present time being significantly less than what it actually is at present. (In other words, if the actual amount, at present, is, say, a total of n units of suffering and premature death, then in situation L that amount would be, at present, significantly less than n units.) Then AE, making reference to situation L, can be expressed as follows: (A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others): (1) being able to bring about situation L, all things considered; (2) wanting to bring about situation L, i.e., having it among his desires; (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation L as strongly as it; (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes). (B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation L would have to obtain. (C) But situation L does not obtain. The amount of suffering and unfairness in the world at the present time is not significantly less than what it actually is at present. (D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A). (E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist. ==================== Conclusion ==================== The syllogism I gave is copy-pasted from an article by the philosopher of religion Theodore Drange (you should go read his book concerning the argument from evil and nonbelief). The article will be linked to in my references, so you can check it out if you want to. So there you go, the syllogism is wide open for attack. Take your best shot :D ---References--- 1. http://www.infidels.org...