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

[Skepsis]

Butchering your quote lol?? Explain if you want.

Not important, other than the fact that I don't bother reading quoted material that has end quote commands and quoted names embedded in random spots. You did nothing to the words, I wouldn't accuse you of that.

I have provided my reasoning for that statement.

You did?

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.

I don't even know what you mean when you say things have inherently positive or negative attributes. I honestly don't even understand the proposition. I wouldn't be the one to prove things don't have these attributes, however. Burden of proof and all that.

You agreed with that above dude.

I agreed that a God could have made the universe, then semi-detracted that statement with the observations I made that directly followed it. You know, the ones about how God how have simply skipped the creation of any universe at all?

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.

This argument assumes a omnibenevolent creator God. Little bit of disagreement on the issue of God's possible existence, but it was another thing I shouldn't have bothered with.

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.

Irony master indeed.

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.

1. It is unnecessary because there didn't need to be a world at all. Also, this objection might carry much more weight if there was no suffering that could be eliminated in another version of the world. Imagine a parallel world with "greater good" sufferings (granted just because) but no needless sufferings that serve no purpose.
2. It could be literally ANY other way. This God had the power to create or not create, and thus could make a world where no suffering was needless and served no purpose.
God added the universe and everything in it, including this "destructive agent". What takes away is directly descended from that God, making God responsible for it.

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?

No, because I am not asking a blanket question. In the context of his moral obligation being a perfectly good being, the question "Why did God make the world?" is perfectly reasonable.
How about this: If I could create a colony of sentient... ants, knowing they would suffer needlessly, would I do so (in the context of mere humanly morality)?
No, because to do so would be immoral.
Same with God. He could have potentially created a world with no needless suffering by changing the world itself to support the change.
you are too stuck with the idea that this world sets the standard and you need to get past that to realize a God such as the one being proposed could have created whatever world he wanted.

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.

Sure thing.
Example: African woman dies giving birth in a faraway jungle running from malicious militia. Her child then dies from starvation/disease.
The reason your "the world must logically have both good and evil" defense doesn't work is because God is capable of creating a world where this type of completely unnecessary evil doesn't occur.

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.

Did your God create EVERYTHING?
If your God created every single thing in existence, then he created whatever it is you suggest destroys. If that is the case, then your God is responsible for all destruction.
If you claim your God created all, you basically said your God is illogical.
If there is another entity alongside God that destroys, you have two new problems, the first being that he is un-evidenced and the second being that a moral God would destroy this evil.

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.

I have explained it, and you just keep coming back with your lame ass excuse for an argument.
You can logically postulate a world with less unneeded suffering than this one. If you can do that, then a benevolent God can't exist. Think back to my African example: a benevolent God could make a world where the timeline is altered in such a way as to spare the life of the woman and child, due to genetics or weather conditions that day or some such anomaly.

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

If that is this case and you are simply conceding God to have created everything, then by your own logic God can create -ve (by extension).

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

Yeah, nothing opposes you when you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell. That doesn't mean I never objected.
I'll once again assert that a God who created everything also created destructive force.

Is this running away?

It's refusing to forfeit my mental faculties to a meritless back-and-forth that would inevitably take place.

Because God is +ve.

I specifically remember you saying God was the potential to create. Hmm.
If you are asserting he must create by nature...
Then his base attributes conflict one another. a God who is infinitely good cannot also be compelled to create as a necessity. Good and evil can only exist as a pair, but that doesn't mean they must be created. A moral God wouldn't allow a world where evil existed, in some situations, without good, like the world we live in.

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.

"God's creation is this reality"
I didn't disagree with the statement, but with what it implied. This reality didn't have to be the creation of God. It could very well have not existed, with another reality in its place. I can know this because an all loving God wouldn't create a reality in which I, as a human with limited knowledge, could think of a morally superior alternative world. It wouldn't be possible, because the world ought not be improvable at all.
What this comes down to is that you contradicted yourself with your creation/destruction thing, being as it is that your God created everything by your own admission. He contradicts himself by nature.
If he is only the potential to create then it stands to reason that God shouldn't have created a world of suffering at all.