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

[fr0d0]

Please explain how any suffering is unnecessary.

You first, how is any suffering necessary?

I just did. Lots.

Thanks for butchering my quote.
Might want to fix that so I can understand what you are trying to say.
ANNNND they're off!

Butchering your quote lol?? Explain if you want.

And like I responded, god is not responsible for evil/ the negative force, that necessarily, in physics, opposes him. God works with physics, in that he provides the positive. In him is life.

Lolwut?
Evil/negative force necessarily opposes God in physics?
I see what you are trying to say, but I won't let you off the hook without proving your statements. Why is God= creator= positive and vice versa, with unknown evil force "x" being the negative force?
You still have'nt proven why creation is necessarily positive, in the general sense nor in the "special" case of original creation.

I have provided my reasoning for that statement. Seems logical to me. Please respond as to why you disagree. I'm not opposed to discussion. I'm open to changing my mind.

Do you think the singularity (not provable, but a good theory) contained positiviy and negativity, or just positivity? Same discussion.

Now a notion of anti physics; of life being possible without death, is logically impossible. It kinda wrecks the happy train before it has chance to leave the station. As many atheist will attest: what we have to do is accept reality as it is. God cannot be logically impossible. I think you conceded that above. So God could not create happy land.

"God cannot be logically impossible."
I can make assertions too.

You agreed with that above dude. If God is logically impossible then God does not exist. Care to back up that assertion? For us to have anything to consider, we have to consider a logical God. So to entertain an illogical God is pointless.

Your argument is that evil must exist in conjunction with good. You still haven't answered why a morally perfect God would have created a world with suffering of any kind, much less the huge amount of unnecessary suffering that exists. Why did he have to create any world at all?

I have explained and I seem to be talking to a wall.

Why is it unnecessary? How could it be any other way? these are the pertinent questions you must answer before this question has any traction. God created/ added something. What takes away from God isn't God adding something. What takes away is an opposite force.

Why did he have to create any world at all? Well that's a completely metaphysical question. A question about purpose. Can I say: I don't know?

Please explain how any suffering is unnecessary. If it is necessary for this logical world to function, then it is encompassed in Gods design. We may not understand fully the scientific processes. But I doubt very much that any scientist would agree that it (the process of suffering as part of life) would be illogical.

The point of contention is NOT that suffering is logically unnecessary in a world without an omnibenevolent creator God.
You must not have ever heard this argument before, or seriously misunderstood it.
So here it is: A perfectly moral God creates a world. He can create ANY world. He creates a world with unnecessary suffering (i.e., suffering that could have been averted by creating a different world or crafting physical laws differently). This created world is incompatible with a God of any kind of compassion. Just because this world must have suffering and you assume it to be God's creation doesn't make it so.
Basically, we aren't assuming a world under natural contexts, but rather under the context of a perfectly moral creator God.
He could make ANY world.
He made this world.
It not only has suffering, but unnecessary suffering.

I'm not interested in entertaining a physically impossible world. He couldn't make a logically impossible world, as I've reasoned above. He cannot make a square circle. Such ideas are a waste of time.

Please show how any suffering is unnecessary.

your argument fails to address suffering in the context of an omnibenevolent creator. You have effectively avoided the objection.

I have justified my objection to such a consideration. If you ignore the reasoning for God, and make up your own, you can come up with all sorts of alternative suggestions. None relevant to Christianity.

If you want to talk about anything but christianity, then I have no basis to object. Because I don't have to tie in what you've saying to something that doesn't fit.

So if we consider an unrelated deity to anything:

Creator = potential to create
Nothing exists (-ve)

This creator is only +ve. Can he create -ve? No

This creator is both +ve and -ve. Can he create -ve? Sure
Can a creator exist; can he possess potential if he contains equally both -ve and +ve? No

Can a creator exist if he is only -ve? No

So we must conclude that your thought experiment is an experiment in illogical premises. In an illogical reality, God can create evil = true. I'll give you that.

God cannot logically remove suffering from a logical world, so an argument against the need for suffering has to dismiss logic.

BLEEP! Wrong answer.
No, a God didn't need to create this world or any world at all. You keep assuming this, but I assure you it hasn't been proven that a God needed to have created this world. He could have created any world, being as powerful as he is. But he chose this one, and therein lies the problem; why didn't your God choose not to create a world with suffering, opting out of creation? Or, why didn't he make the world with no unnecessary suffering?
Unnecessary suffering still kills your argument, any way you cut the cake.

We don't need to prove that God needed to create this world. The world exists, therefore the world needed to be created. Our world couldn't logically exist in any other form, that you can logically postulate.

Unnecessary suffering might kill my argument, and I'd love to see how, if you could explain it.

God never acts contrary to his nature. I've shown what constituted Gods actions, and how the negative counter is not God.

Sorry, I am not familiar to your personal brand of Christianity. If your God created all things, he is directly responsible for all things, including any and all destructive forces or the possibility for destructive forces.

Well it's a quite widely held belief. I'm not different to every other Christian in this respect.

I find it odd that you label creation positive and destruction negative, because anything ever created will eventually be destroyed. Is time the destructive force you are labeling "negative"? Because God created this too- creation directly creating destruction.

And that is logically bankrupt as I've shown without opposition.

But I don't want to lose my mind in your useless waffle, so I won't bother.

Is this running away?

The creation of a world without evil is logically impossible full stop. It does not negate the presence of an all loving god, who's presence serves to counter evil.

Yes! So why does this world exist at all if your God is omnibenevolent?

Because God is +ve.

Please explain.

It's not important. I would prefer to keep this as direct as possible and avoid other topics.
If only I could avoid this positive and negative creation destruction good evil stuff too, as it reminds me of circus kooks and television psychics.

The point is pivotal to your argument to me. Your argument fails badly without this justification. You seem to want to insist on a logical imposibility. Which I concede is the only way that your argument works.