Yes, I've often seen atheists trying to exploit that 'argument from evil' or some variant on it.
Thank you for that. At least that clarifies it's not just a few persons that hear this from Atheists.
The title is appropriate then.
Well, premise 1 seems wrong to me. It's based on the traditional theistic attributes along with the assertion that if God exists then God must possess these attributes. I'd question how anyone (especially an atheist) supposedly knows that about a putative transcendent being.
So the argument would work a lot better if 1. was replaced by something like
1. A traditional set of theistic attributes attribute omnipotence, omniscience, and moral perfection to God.
Which would require changing 7. to
7. Therefore, this particular set of traditional theistic attributes isn't consistent.
Very nice.
I still don't think that the argument succeeds even if we make that move, but it's stronger.
My primary objection would probably be to premise 4. If 'evil' is read to mean 'imperfection', then a pretty strong argument can be made that imperfection is necessary in order for life to be most perfect (or perfected).
What I mean by that rather paradoxical statement is this:
If a person never knows fear, he or she could never know courage.
If people never knew suffering, people would never know compassion.
If people never knew ignorance, they would never know learning or discovery.
If people never knew difficulty, they would never know strength.
If people never knew loneliness, they would never truly value love.
If everything was already perfect, people could never grow.
And on and on, most of our most valued virtues only make sense in conditions of imperfection.
So one might argue that a truly good and truly loving God might intentionally throw eternal souls out of heavenly bliss into human avatars in a sort of transitory video game environment so that they might fully develop as persons, so that they might come to know what the human virtues mean.
I think your argument would be better if you didn't use the word "imperfection", since that can mean different things.
For example, perfection does not mean invincible, or infallible. So to one who understands the term different to what you have in mind, that could cause... a bit of confusion.
However, taking your argument, from the perspective you are presenting...
It's not unreasonable.
The scripture I quoted in Romans 8, actually helps us to visualize things in that way.
There, Paul said... "For I consider that the sufferings of the present time do not amount to anything in comparison with the glory that is going to be revealed in us."
In other words, what we suffer now, is temperary, and the reverse of it will be both permanent and as one writter described it, "exquisite delight in the abundance of peace".
It would be like going through an operation, to give you a whole new pair of legs, or remove cancer, or hernia.
The temperary pain may be hard to bear, but the way you feel after, words cannot express. You are grateful.
I like how James puts it. James 1:4 . . .let endurance complete its work, so that you may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything.
We could liken the situation to one where, a reckless individual creates a tragedy, and one has to take time to repair the damage.
Thing take time, and we have to endure, but we do not complain, when persons are doing something to fix the problem.
God is not sitting twiddling his thumbs, as some may suggest.
He is actively involved in his desire, as expressed in the Bible... “‘For I well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward you,’ declares Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give you a future and a hope." (Jeremiah 29:11)
