Someone debate me

[genkaus]

This relies upon the question, what is the goal being accomplished, and what is necessary to achieve that goal?

And since you cannot even establish the existence of such a goal, much less determine what is necessary for it, the entire position is unjustified.

If the ultimate goal of all life for God is to make the greatest amount of free creatures to enjoy God to the greatest degree and glorify Him for the longest amount of time, then all sorts of things can be necessary.

And a lot of suffering would still be unnecessary.

For example, consider the following possible scenario.

*snicker*

Possible. Yeah, right.

God is perfect in Holiness. For one to dwell in the presence of God, one must achieve perfect holiness. If God were to create free creatures to be in His presence forever, this would mean that they would have to be perfectly Holy as perfect holiness is incompatible with sin. And if God were to create them free, then they would have the freedom to sin. When they sin, they necessarily suffering must be in the world or God would be unjust to not punish sin. Consider also the fact that an omniscient being would know all truths and comprehend everything past and present in an instant. In such a scenario, it seems hard to believe that you could know that God couldn't have a reason for allowing suffering to occur, especially when it seems that there are possible scenarios in which He could have a reason for suffering to occur.

So much bullshit packed in one paragraph that it all stinks to high heaven. This by itself has the potential to derail the whole topic if we go into the bullshit of omniscience vs free-will and your god's convoluted idea of justice. So, I'll just stick to the following points.

1. The position you are trying to justify is that "no suffering is unnecessary" or that "all suffering is necessary". So far, all you have given are empty hypothetical scenarios showing.

2. According to the latest one, if suffering is the consequence of sin, then anytime the innocents suffer, that suffering is unnecessary.

Finally, is it common Christian apologetic practice to simply ignore arguments that you cannot respond to? Is it common to see a bunch of arguments, all of which go against your position and then pick the easiest one to counter and pretend none of the others ever existed? Can anyone tell me the name of this fallacy.