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

[fr0d0]

Yours is the only irreality I see Epi.

[Mystic]

So two problems we have Skepsis:

1) The issue of special pleading to the Designer (I'm working to explain this one)
2) The issue it's possible for God to bestow the value and virtue of the experience of struggling against evil by free-will without evil.

If these two issues are solved, does it seem the problem of evil is solved?

[Skepsis]

So two problems we have Skepsis:

1) The issue of special pleading to the Designer (I'm working to explain this one)
2) The issue it's possible for God to bestow the value and virtue of the experience of struggling against evil by free-will without evil.

If these two issues are solved, does it seem the problem of evil is solved?

My last and seemingly knock-down argument is that no ultimately moral God would create a universe with ANY evil, much less the amount of evil we find in our world today. Much of the suffering today is needless and as such would not only casr doubt on a benevolent God, but rule one out completely.

---

Now if you assert that an originating source was destructive, how does that work? From nothing he... erm... couldn't make anything.

See what I mean?

A destructive force has to be a subsequent force. It cannot be the originating force > God.

Where do you get off assigning meaning to creation and destruction? The two aren't intrinsically good or bad. Controlled demolition or fireworks are both examples of "good" destruction. Nuclear weapons and M16s are example of the "bad" that can come of creation.
You can't get off with saying that evil is necessarily destructive or that goodness is necessarily creative, because this simply isn't the case.
Now, back to your point that a "destructive force" cannot be the originating force.
...
O.K. Sure. What about a force that can destroy OR create? What about a force that is simply evil? How do you knock these out of the equasion?
So far you have only given me lip and flawed logic. I had thought I could expect more from such a prestigous Christian member.

[fr0d0]

Again you depart from the subject. Yes I know generic creation can create things of destruction.

God cannot, however. God is a positive only force, as I've explained he needed to be.

Now what God created, being a sub set of himself, is necessarily less than him. It contains the potential of decay/ negative force. We can create destruction.

The assignation of meaning is a simple and obvious logical step. To create = positive = good.

Once more you fail to either successfully confront the reasoning or present viable options.

[Skepsis]

Again you depart from the subject. Yes I know generic creation can create things of destruction.

The assignation of meaning is a simple and obvious logical step. To create = positive = good.

Once more you fail to either successfully confront the reasoning or present viable options.

You are simply wrong if you assume that creation is necessarily good. Creation is an action and has no inherent moral qualities, so your "simple and obvious logical step" is kaput. You will first have to prove that creation of ANY kind is necessarily inherently a "good" action. You also have to prove creation precludes evil of any kind.
The + and - on a bettery don't translate to good and bad, morally. the faster you process this, the better. I won't sit here and talk to you about the moral nature of the creation of a straw hat from its components, nor will I debate you on the merit of destroying said hat.
Creation and destruction aren't inherently good or bad.

[fr0d0]

You must adress the subject Skepsis and let go of your insistence of avoiding it. Perhaps if we refer to what I'm talking about as first cause it might help you to focus?

[Reforged]

Again you depart from the subject. Yes I know generic creation can create things of destruction.

God cannot, however. God is a positive only force, as I've explained he needed to be.

Now what God created, being a sub set of himself, is necessarily less than him. It contains the potential of decay/ negative force. We can create destruction.

The assignation of meaning is a simple and obvious logical step. To create = positive = good.

Once more you fail to either successfully confront the reasoning or present viable options.

Oooooh, I'm sorry. The price for the mp3 enabled toaster was actually $1200 which is $10000 over your answer of "GOD! GOD DID IT! GOOOOOOOOD! AGH! " but thanks for playing. As a consolation prize you get a fantastic The Price is Right boardgame and a stunning set of fine china with The Price is Right logo and my laughing face printed on it.
How do you feel Fr0d0?
"Well I'm just glad to of had the experience. Hey could I interest you in a church get toget-"
Ha ha ha, of course you were. Anyway, thats all from us. Till next time, bye. :-) *waves*

[Skepsis]

You must adress the subject Skepsis and let go of your insistence of avoiding it. Perhaps if we refer to what I'm talking about as first cause it might help you to focus?

If I'm headed off on the wrong trail, perhaps it is because I am following the breadcrumbs you are dropping. I can only refute one issue at a time, and when I do you generally ignore me and change the subject. It really isn't worth my time to talk to you if you are only interested in saying your peace and then hightailing it out of the situation.

[fr0d0]

Dude, all I'm trying to do is explain this one point to you, about original creation. I keep explaining to you that original creation and creation are two different things, and then you go ahead and conflate the two again. I'm not asking anything difficult here. Do you understand the concept of first cause? As opposed to say, you creating a weapon of mass destruction?

[GodlessGirl]

The bible says God is all-loving all-powerful and all-knowing. He is capable of creating a place like heaven. So it would be illogical for him to create a world of suffering.