The Problem of Evil

To begin my argument I shall state that I believe some level of suffering is required to achieve some states of the human psyche, and that a complete and utter lack of suffering would infringe on humanities ability to persevere beyond our boundaries and achieve great feats. Some of humanities greatest philosophies were born from suffering, however, at what point does suffering cease to exist solely for human improvement, and become suffering solely for the sake of suffering itself. To give an example, exercise requires some level of suffering for a lot of the population, however, overcoming that suffering in itself will not only lead to healthier body, but a more sturdy state of mind. Now, to play a point from the other side. Would we as humans not prefer to live in a world where it was not necessary to suffer, even minimally, in order to achieve that state of mind? And would we not prefer to live in a world where exercise is more easily accessible to everyone to  begin with? Is a person with an abled body, more deserving of experiencing the benefits of exercise than, for example, someone with a chronic pain condition? Or someone who experiences the symptom of paralysis? Is one man more deserving of suffering then another? If so how does one calculate the level of suffering a person is deserving of, beyond the will of the Father? This will bring me into my next point

The Will of The Father vs Suffering

This point will be kept more brief, as there are two more specific examples I would like to discuss separately.

It has been well established that there is an inexplicable amount of suffering in the world. From acts such as murder, rape, and greed, which you could argue, are man made. All the way to disease, natural disaster, environmental circumstances, genetic conditions, etc. Now you could argue that is impossible to create both a being that has complete free will and also will never deviate from what is considered, in Gods image, "good" or "just". That would account for why man made suffering is allowed to exist under an all powerful, all loving God. However, even if we were to simply scrap the existence of all man made suffering, it still does not account for all natural suffering. To give a simple and often used example, I have yet to receive a good answer as to why children with cancer (or any other type of terminal disease), or why animal suffering should or could exist under the Christian God. 

Christianity vs Suicide 

This is a highly sensitive but most important topic that I must bring attention to in this argument. The existence of suicide in itself under an all loving, all powerful god is inherently oxymoronic, and here is my reasoning. 

Suicide is, to cite the definition "Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death". It is a highly taboo and often even criticized act within the Christian theology, and whilst this also somewhat dependent on your own moral system, as well as which form of Christian theism you practice, it is also widely considered a sin. Whilst the Bible does not inherently state that suicide is a sin, many have interpreted that through passages such as Exodus 20:13 (Thou shalt not murder), as well as passages such as Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 9:6, stating that humans are created in Gods image, and therefore, giving human life inherent divine value. Many modern takes of Protestant and Evangelical theism state however that suicide is not an unforgivable sin, but that  it is a grave sin nonetheless. 

My point here is that if you believe that God is all powerful, all loving, and all righteous, why does he allow for humans to be put in the circumstances in which they would even consider suicide as an option to escape their suffering, then directly punish that act, although (if you believe that everything is pre determined by Gods will), he would have known that putting you in those circumstances would lead to that outcome. This would imply that God is either not, all powerful, all righteous, or all loving. If your life is created as Gods plan, that implies that God either did not have the foresight to know that your suffering would lead to suicide; he did not have the power to stop it, or he simply did not care for the outcome, all of which point away from the existence of such a God. To really drive this point home, Even if you were to argue that suicide is a forgivable sin, or is a supposed "test" from God. How does God decide who to test and who to not test, and what gives him the right to decide who should go through immense mental and physical distress simply as a test of faith, that he would then punish should you fail? Does that not point to the idea that God can pick and choose favourites?

Christianity Vs Slavery

That's a rather insightful perspective; however, many people also believe in the existence of God. Personally, I estimate that over 500 million people believe in God because of miracles and unexplained mysteries, all recorded in historical chronicles and passed down to this day. Although it's impossible to pinpoint the close connection between the sacred elements of the past and present, the role and belief in God cannot be denied. Rare events like pain or head injuries cannot be attributed to divine intervention; only miracles can heal them. Supernatural elements cannot be easily obscured in photographs, and sensitive issues can be hidden, but we believe that miracles are real and that God creates those miracles, and society and humanity in general.

I appreciate your side of the debate on this, however I still have to somewhat bash you on providing no sources on your arguments and going off of assumptions, guesses, and personal beliefs. Your figure of 500 million is completly made up and there is no study or research backing this estimated claim. You also claim that these miracles were historically recorded and passed down in generations to this day, however provide no sources on where these miracles were recorded, and even if you were to provide this proof using miracles from any of the scriptures or any holy books/texts, you'd be using circular narrative, which makes your argument completly void. 

Alright, I truly appreciate you for answering again. However, I will once again have to bash you for not tackling any of the questions in the original argument, providing no reliable sources to back up any of your points and using holy texts in order to  back up your points which negates your whole point and renders it null.

Lets start with your very first point. You say that we don't only "need" to believe in miracles "but also learn many good things that have been recorded and passed down, such as solidarity, collective love, hard work, having dreams to build a career, and the list goes on". I fail to see how any of these things relate to Christianity itself, however what I think you are trying to portray here is that Christianity had a role in shaping human ethics and morality, which I already pointed out and agree with you on in my previous statement. Nevertheless I disagree that it is solely because of the Christian theology that humans evolved all of these drives and instincts. Humans are naturally social creatures, and it was beneficial for us to develop things such as "collective love" and "solidarity" in order to survive during our early years as a developing species. You are not born knowing Christian theology unless it is directly taught to you in your yearly years as often is with most children growing up in Christian homes. However, you are born with a natural need for social stimulation, affection, support, nurture, a safe environment, etc. The importance of nurture is much more heavily broken down in studies such as "Nurturing Care for Early Childhood Development" done by the world health organization. As well as many studies done on the need for the social factor within human life in order for survival. Such as, Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton (2010) - PLOS Medicine, The Social Safety Theory (Eisenberger & Cole, 2012), The Social Brain Hypothesis (Robin Dunbar), the list goes on. Alas, I will stop there as to not get to side tracked with this and entirely forget the point at hand.

"If someone is affected by Agent Orange and is suffering from disability, there will be people to help them". Now you do go on to say that this isn't really a point about God. Nonetheless, I am confused as to what it is a point about? It also negates my previous point that you did not properly address. Yes, there will be people there who will help those afflicted by things such as "Agent Orange". As well are really any physical or mental disease/disability. Manmade or naturally occurring. However, are you saying that this simply completly negates the suffering and pain of the individuals who were afflicted by these conditions? Hospitals exist, yes. Although, many people do simply die of horrible inherited, genetic and naturally occurring disease everyday. Quite painfully might I add. The existence of hospitals does not negate human suffering. Rather, its a preventative, manmade solution to minimise human suffering. My point however is. Would it not be better to live in a world where there was no need for humans to scrape together hospitals that are often understaffed and underfunded? Would most humans not prefer to live in a world where they didn't need to see their family members die of terminal illness and genetic disease? A world in which suffering and struggle we're not necessary to begin with? You claim that isn't possible, but do not really explain why. I would like to see you further break that point down. You also claim that "disabilities and injuries are crucial buffer zones and vital arteries for the development of coping mechanisms". Now, you are indirectly stating that coping mechanisms are a crucial part of human survival, which is true. Nevertheless, I don't think you quite understand the nature of coping mechanism to begin with. We do not suffer in order to develop coping mechanisms, but rather we develop coping mechanisms as a result of that suffering. You state that injury and disability are crucial for the development of coping mechanisms, but do not explain why coping mechanisms are necessary in themselves. If suffering did not exist, there would be no need for coping mechanisms, that links back to my point of. Why does suffering exist in the first place? Which you have still yet to address in your entire point. You then justify all animal suffering under the pretence that some animal species instinctually help each to survive. However, once again, that doesn't negate their suffering to begin with. Many prey animals are eaten alive and have to endure dying or in some instances rotting in suffering. Now of course, the existence of prey animals in itself is crucial for the existence of our fragile ecosystems. Even so, that doesn't negate their often significant pain and suffering they experience for seemingly no coherent reason. 

To close my statement off I apologise if there are any grammatical or typing errors in my text, it was quite late when I wrote this. I appreciate you for admitting that some of the points you are making are mistaken/irrelevant to this argument. Although that does not absolve you of your burden of proof when debating in general. You've still yet to address most of my original points. As well as most of the points I brought up in my second argument. I urge you to do at least some research on the incidents I brought up as well as The Problem of Evil as a whole before you publish your next argument. 

This is the last round, and you have still failed to respond to anything in the original argument. I will not forfeit out of principle. However, I have given my side of the debate and said everything I need to say. This debate is going nowhere