Arguments Against Syllogism

Through the remainder of this debate please keep in mind that in reference to the syllogism I provided my opponent explicitly agrees that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows. Miles addresses evil in two types; Moral and Natural. Based on my arguments it seems obvious that the evil in which I am referencing is natural. Indeed, all of the examples I gave were natural. This is important as the word evil in the syllogism I provided is in reference to evil as I argued it. That is to say, natural “intense suffering of the innocent” is evil and is incompatible with a tri-omni God.

Understanding the problem of evil in the context of natural evil is crucial as my opponent’s defense is via Free Will. Concerning the free will defense a professor of philosophy at Duke University Walter Sinnott-Armstrong stated the following; “Probably the most popular response to the problem of evil is that free will is so valuable that God let us have it even though he knew that we would, sometimes at least, misuse it and cause evil. And sure enough a lot of evil in the world is caused by human actions… there’s much evil that cannot be justified in this way. And that’s because it’s natural evil. That means evil that is not brought about as a result of
He asserted that the view that evil and a tri-omni God are compatible “stands comfortably within the mainstream of philosophy.” It seems to me that if the bar for a convincing argument is this low, or rather, if my opponent feels this to be a sufficient argument perhaps Miles should consider that in the modern world of philosophy 72.8% are atheist, 14.6% are theist, and 12.6% are classified as other. (2) I don’t think he or anyone reading this should consider the issue of a God’s possible existence solved simply because atheism stands “comfortably within the mainstream of philosophy.” Likewise, all ought to dismiss the idea that the logical problem of evil is