The argument against "evil", theists please come to the defense.

[Nemo]

The concept of evil is a grey area. What is evil to one person is possibly good to another. Society, moral and teachings (both non-religious and religious) do guide us in what is generally speaking evil/bad and what is good. However i maintain the believe that we do not need the bible or whatever other book you deem holy as the ultimate guide of our morality.

[FallentoReason]

Hence why I said theologically

And how does adding that qualifier make the delay any more satisfactory?

Hmm I believe this is a strawman unless I misunderstood what you said. Was point A referring to reality and how Jesus didn't exist or that Jesus wasn't sent to earth at the beginning of humanity?

I take it as a non-believer this is obviously your view because the Bible simply fails. Yes... I agree, but I was merely talking hypothetically/theologically. Learn to think outside the box a little

I accept your hypothetical in this scenario. My point is, even by your standard, your god failed. Given the tardiness in sending Jesus to remove evil and suffering means he isn't always willing and given Jesus's failure to actually remove the evil and suffering, his ability is questionable as well.

I agree. I look back now and think it's rather funny I was getting away with such a loose argument.

[genkaus]

Hmm I believe this is a strawman unless I misunderstood what you said. Was point A referring to reality and how Jesus didn't exist or that Jesus wasn't sent to earth at the beginning of humanity?

The latter.

[Skepsis]

The concept of evil is a grey area. What is evil to one person is possibly good to another. Society, moral and teachings (both non-religious and religious) do guide us in what is generally speaking evil/bad and what is good. However i maintain the believe that we do not need the bible or whatever other book you deem holy as the ultimate guide of our morality.

Hense why the arugment is typically labeled the argument from evil/suffering.
There is no moral teaching that I know of that values human life which dictates the unnecessary suffering of the unborn, the innocent, children, and/or the incompetant (lame). An omnibenevolent creator shouldn't allow these evils and these sufferings to continue their furthered existence- in fact, an omni benevolent creator shouldn't have ever allowed things like this to occur.

[Mystic]

The argument is not stating all suffering is incompatible with a benevolent creator. It's stating some of suffering is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good. Example, multiple personalities.

I don't believe "since sufferring exists, then benevolent creator does not", that's too general. Neither do I believe the argument "There is too much sufferring..." because that is too subjective.

What I'm stating is that it seems, that some suffering is unnecessary for the system to bring about a greater good (character building) and doesn't do so.

I think think this is a stronger version of the argument, and classical theodicy doesn't address it.

[Skepsis]

The argument is not stating all suffering is incompatible with a benevolent creator. It's stating some of suffering is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good. Example, multiple personalities.

I don't believe "since sufferring exists, then benevolent creator does not", that's too general. Neither do I believe the argument "There is too much sufferring..." because that is too subjective.

What I'm stating is that it seems, that some suffering is unnecessary for the system to bring about a greater good (character building) and doesn't do so.

I think think this is a stronger version of the argument, and classical theodicy doesn't address it.

Are we talking about a generally good God by human standards or an omnibenevolent one?
There shouldn't be ANY suffering in a system created by an omnibenevolent God. That is paradoxical.
Why do you feel it is "to general" to say that suffering disqualifies an omnibenevloent God?

[Mystic]

The argument is not stating all suffering is incompatible with a benevolent creator. It's stating some of suffering is unnecessary and doesn't bring about a greater good. Example, multiple personalities.

I don't believe "since sufferring exists, then benevolent creator does not", that's too general. Neither do I believe the argument "There is too much sufferring..." because that is too subjective.

What I'm stating is that it seems, that some suffering is unnecessary for the system to bring about a greater good (character building) and doesn't do so.

I think think this is a stronger version of the argument, and classical theodicy doesn't address it.

Are we talking about a generally good God by human standards or an omnibenevolent one?
There shouldn't be ANY suffering in a system created by an omnibenevolent God. That is paradoxical.
Why do you feel it is "to general" to say that suffering disqualifies an omnibenevloent God?

Because greater good (character building) can come out of suffering.

[Skepsis]

Are we talking about a generally good God by human standards or an omnibenevolent one?
There shouldn't be ANY suffering in a system created by an omnibenevolent God. That is paradoxical.
Why do you feel it is "to general" to say that suffering disqualifies an omnibenevloent God?

Because greater good (character building) can come out of suffering.

Like you said, "goodness" is subjective. Why is character building greater than the suffering it takes to acquire it?
You didn't answer me when I asked why an omnibenevolent God would require there to be a single bit of suffering in a creation of his own. This is contradictory, and I still haven't been given a satisfactory answer to this question. This nearly defeats the purpose of justifying certain sufferings with "character building" because of the fact that such a God contradicts itself in a different way. Instead of allowing suffering for a greater good, this God contradicts itself by creating a world with any evil/suffering despite moral perfection.

[Mystic]

If you find the classical argument of suffering strong, then that's fine, I find it to be ok, but not strong. This version of the argument is actually very strong. However, it's also not a knock out argument because it appeals to ignorance. The premises seem to be true, but for all we know, premise 2 is not.

[Skepsis]

If you find the classical argument of suffering strong, then that's fine, I find it to be ok, but not strong. This version of the argument is actually very strong. However, it's also not a knock out argument because it appeals to ignorance. The premises seem to be true, but for all we know, premise 2 is not.

So you'll just give up this point? I had thought you believed the old argument to be lacking, so much so that you even said it had been debunked. I never really expected you to simply give up on it, much less ignore all my points.

Anyway, I too feel that the newer argument is stronger even than its predecessor. Appeal to ignorance? No, I don't think so.
It simply put a torch to the fact that there is currently no understood way that a benevolent God can exist. That is, the argument is currently unrefutable, so, for all intents and purposes, it can be said that the argument is true.
It is undeniably true that no perfectly moral creator God exists. That is evident. There can be no creator God whose creation contains natural and orchestrated moral abhorrences. The two don't coincide.