I posted this on a philosophy forum, where a lot of nonsense is posted about "the problem of evil" - the scoffer claim that God couldn't allow evil.

If you haven't encountered this silliness, this may not mean a lot, but I'll share what I wrote.

------------------------------
Advocates of the problem of evil have definitions backwards. They define 'good' as simply and exclusively "opposition to evil". Of course we know the truth of the matter: Evil is properly defined as "opposition to good."

Advocates for theism need to stop letting this narrow, self-serving, and utterly worthless definition of 'good' pass. It is an abomination, and failing to point out its failure only serves to build the confidence of the liars who employ it. Here are some things to keep in mind the next time you encounter this "problem of evil" nonsense, okay?

There is much more to 'good' than merely opposing evil. Causing flowers to grow is good, whether or not any evil beings are present to resent their beauty. Generosity, mercy, patience, and grace are also good. Note the voluntary nature of these things.

If generosity were compulsory, it would be something other than generosity. Paying a debt you owe is not the same as voluntarily giving a gift. By definition generosity is voluntary rather than compulsory - by definition! No amount of weaseling with words, finite or infinite, can possibly make it otherwise.

The "problem of evil", in all its formulations, treats good as strictly compulsory, strictly and exclusively a matter of responding to evil. This is a set / subset fallacy. There are some obligations associated with being good, but not everything good is, or even can be compulsory. Compulsory good acts (duties) are only a subset of all possible good acts.

In order for the good act of forgiving to ever, even once, be performed, there must be something to forgive. With no sin, this is not the case. Forgiving is not possible if there is nothing to forgive. The temporary and transient existence of evil (not permanent, as scoffers happily presuppose) is the very prerequisite for this good act, for an entire class of potential good actions! That's the case under the true definition of 'good'.

So from a logical standpoint, "the problem of evil" is a trainwreck. The whole idea is to get people thinking about all the pain and suffering in the world, and then transfer the guilt from the responsible parties to the loving God who sent His Own Son to suffer and die for sinners. The consequences of sin are ugly, disgusting, vile, and repugnant. What do you expect to result from opposition to good?

The appeal of this trickery is blatantly superficial and strictly emotional, and even there it fails. Which is better: our loving, living, caring, forgiving God, or the "maximally good" god they posit as being "better"? The "better" god they propose isn't better at all! It never forgives, never shows mercy, never demonstrates love. How can anyone prefer such a being, even on an emotional basis?

In what twisted, misbegotten sense would things really be better if God immediately hammered everyone who committed any sin? Think about that. I don't think that's what you want. That's how these scoffers misdefine 'good'. Remember? That's their strict requirement: an instant and overwhelming response, without hesitation or mercy. That's what they insist would be "better" than the God some of us sinners have come to know and love. In my opinion, the deception fails emotionally almost as much as it does logically.

The word 'almost' in that last sentence was not an accident. We do have pride, and pride helps one to deceive oneself if one really puts a whale of a lot of effort into it. Be lazy.