Argument from evil, restated

[Zarith]

That's the choice to be made. Do you want to be who you are, who is dying? Or do you want to be what God can make you to be, which lasts forever? If there is a Creator, would you not think he knows what is best for you?

This doesn't address my question though. I would also argue that history shows that creators generally don't know a lot about the stuff that they supposedly created.

Are you acknowledging that both good and evil exist? If so, where do their ideas come from?

All I need acknowledge is that there are categories of actions which Christians call good and evil, and that the way in which they make this classification is inconsistent with the rest of their beliefs, and that the Christian explanation for the existence of good and evil appears more man-made than anything else. Don't try to put this back on me.

Also, I can tell you where good and evil most certainly don't come from, and that is from the circumcision-obsessed, shellfish-hating, genocidal god of the OT. Nor do good and evil come from ideas saying that I am responsible for someone else's actions (original sin), or that I am now absolved of that responsibility (vicarious atonement).

The problem with the argument from morality is that if God defines what good and evil are, then the statement "God is good" has no meaning. God is good, good is whatever God wants it to be, therefore God is good. OK then.

This thread is called 'Argument from evil.' It attempts to disprove God by saying that if there is evil, no good God can exist. I just explained that evil can, and necessarily does, exist when God introduces love. So if you or anyone use this argument, you take love down with it. Love exists. Therefore, a good God has reason for allowing evil. Was I mistaken that you support the 'Argument from evil'?

I think Rhythm summed it up pretty well, so I'll add just this one thought.

The issue that I have with people arguing the "free-will defense" or the "evil really has to exist" or "evil is just absence of good" is this: suppose that we were all to wake up tomorrow to find that hunger, starvation, famine, disease, natural disasters, war, violent crime, and so on, no longer existed.

If I am to believe the arguments you have made in this thread, then such a state of affairs would have you scratching your head and saying, "Hrmmm, this is clearly a most troubling development, vast amounts of people have been deprived of their exercise of free will and their capacity to love. What deviltry is this?"

Of course, this is ridiculous, no Christian would be saying this. Christians of all stripes would instead be saying it is a miracle, and it would be trumpeted as evidence of God's existence and perfection. So I find it a bit hard to accept when you guys argue that the current state of affairs is somehow necessary or better.