I was just in a debate with a christian

[Esquilax]

The design is good overall if it allows for freewill but it does bring evil, suffering and death into the equation. There were two trees in the Garden of Eden, The tree of knowledge is your freewill this brings sin and death and Jesus on cross is the tree of life this gives you salvation from sin and immortality. So if you put everything together you can see how the universe fits into the context of a loving God. You can see the creation as good and life/freewill as gift, not a gift that can be taken away.

The design might let evil in, but it also makes good to a standard that would make us safe impossible. If god's stated purpose was to save his creation, there's a much more straightforward way to do that, but it includes not winding the failure state around our existence.

I know you won't see it because... well, I won't be mean, but could you envision being involved in any other trial where the definition of "failure" is the same as "involvement"? All you've done is denied that this game is stacked against us, but fiat assertions in the face of... the facts of the game, aren't going to get you very far.

It's a lot better than the system you have in mind.

Now, is this the system I actually have in mind, and explained to you exhaustively in another thread, or is it the system you lied about me having in the same thread, and kept repeating your misrepresentation until I gave up explaining to you and just pointed out how disrespectful you were being?

Which system? The one I believe in, or the moral relativism one you're going to say I have, even now knowing that's not true?