Argument

I often read about the argument that belief in evil, or the existence of it (however one wishes to define it), logically negates the existence of a 'good' god.

(Naturally, this is in the confines of christianity, or at least monotheism with a belief in a good god)

This argument quite frankly holds nothing for me; I don't agree that this argument works. In fact, I find it counterproductive as it feeds into their desire to argue that evil is offered as a choice because god wanted us to have freewill and it even makes some sense. At this point we usually reach an impasse as I argue that a choice between life and death, if one wishes to live, is not a choice...it is being railroaded into something, i.e., if you want to live then you must live "this" way. They argue that THIS is the choice that we have been given and that we have the freewill to choose which path we take. Then, I argue that offering a hungry man a plate with a steak on it and a plate with nails on it is not offering him a choice. They argue it is a choice, etc.

I prefer to argue from the perspective that if god is omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, he knew damned well what was going to happen with his creation from the very start and, given his omnipotence, he could have done whatever needed to be done to save people from eternal damnation. Then, of course, the argument comes in about freewill which, following on the above, I use to argue that it has nothing to do with freewill if god is going to change the method to reach eternal life after having led people on with one way to it for a couple of millenia. He knew that most of his "chosen people" would reject the new way and, therefore, these people that he ostensibly loved more than any other people on the planet (he did endorse their actions of murder, torture, abortion, infanticide, fratricide, banishment, etc., when committed against others...hell's bells, he ordered it!!) would ultimately be condemned as if it is some unfathomably cruel, cosmic joke played on a whole race.

From here, you get multiple responses:

a return to the freewill argument (which can be negated by paraphrasing the argument above);

that we aren't meant to understand god (which I spit on as a dodge and state that if god can't be understood then he a) has no right to condemn me having a brain that seeks answers and is built on skepticism...a brain that he created, b) does not believe in freewill since he had/s the power to create brains capable of understanding or could have left something concrete proving his existence instead of making everything loaded with from top to bottom with clues countering his existence, and c) certainly does not love most of us since most people on the planet don't believe in this god and he's left it to the whim - which he understood at the time of creation if one accepts the limitless power on hand - of a few to get the word out otherwise condemning people to death for not hearing, not understanding, or not believing (what if it's a translation problem?));

that it was the devil that blinded and blinds people to the consistent truth all along (another spit on a dodge and exasperation leading me to state that the multiple contradictions to logic and within stories, laws, and histories are an argument for a different day);

someone stating that I will see the light someday and it will all be clear (which I use to argue that in the meantime I will do whatever the hell I want to do regardless of any god-given rules...at least until god sees fit to reveal himself to me...again; or, I might state the fact that even if god himself came down and presented himself to me and told me who he was, I wouldn't believe, no matter the number of 'miracles performed' and would probably ask, "What planet are you from, would I survive the trip, and can I go?"); and, ultimately,

the statement that I am simply bitter, angry, and hard-hearted and in need of someone's prayers (which I cast aside as a waste of time since I rejected all of it already and am, according to most, beyond redemption so one need not waste one's breath).

Yes, it is a long argument but I find it more thorough and it uses the assumptions built into the belief itself as arguments against it which is much more confounding to a person's belief than simply arguing that evil cannot be present if god is all good and the author of all creation.

Thoughts?