i have read your arguments....i've read them several times....even last night, when makin' my response, i went over them a few times....and quite frankly, you were confusing the shit out of me.....and to assume that i wouldn't read your arguments kinda belittles me....

i mean, there i was arguin' fine with Guy, but you were just confusing me....and you kinda just answered why you were confusing me...

and thatz fine....i'm the same way, but when arguin' it is best to take one possibility at a time and justify it.....the way you were wording it (to me) is A + B + C = X because of C......well, what about A & B......thatz kinda where i was gettin' tripped up at......i think you knew what you were tryin' to argue, but i don't think you were gettin' your point across, or i was too ignorant/confused to understand the point....

your last post is your best yet....i finally have a better picture of what your argument is aiming to do....

first off, philosophy does work that way....i do stand under the strength and rationale of the arguments.....itz like, take for example empiricism.....itz flawed in itz logic....it will forever be flawed in itz logic....you'll never have a philosopher ever justify empricism as an eternal truth....ever

the same goes for many philosophical arguments.....including the Problem of Evil....itz an old argument that philosophers and theologians have been trin' to justify for centuries.....so itz not like itz sumtin' they haven't given a great amount of time thinkin' about....

but thatz besides the point....

so anywho.....your argument is that:

1. evil is usually a product of mistakes we makes as human beings

2. sayin' that humanity is the god of evil is like sayin' humanity is the god of losing tennis....the possibility of losing or winning a game was created by the player, but losing the game doesn't mean that itz out of the players jurisdiction and is in the nature of God....

3. in either case, the argument that because evil exists, God must either not or must not be both all good and all powerful remains weak; being all-powerful does not need to include things that do not have truth value, nor does it need to include failure.

therefore, God and evil exist simultaneously....

the problem with your first premise is that term "usually".....evil is not necessarily caused by humanity....and we've already discussed this and know this.....a deer that dies in the woods because of a forest fire created by heat lightning is a type of evil in itself.....so you have the difference between what is generally refered to as "natural evil" and "sentient evil".....both exist....

now, you're mainly concerning yourself with "sentient evil" with your second premise.....the tennis players go into the game on their own free-will, and it just so happens that whatever the outcome, it is because of their own doing......but the way this sounds, is that the outcome is not set in stone.....both players could refuse to play, thus avoiding the outcome.....but, in order to be a tennis player, one must play.....so the outcome is set in stone....how? well, you have to dive into the realm of "fate".....now, the free-will defense doesn't usually concern itself with the idea of fate for obvious reasons....but it should.....and here i go again, usin' another Philosopher's logic, but i think itz quite interesting.....Hume had a rather interesting idea concerning fate.....for most people, fate seems to be something that is set in stone to happen....you got fired....it was going to happen, it did happen, etc.....this is known as A to B fate.....however, it was Hume's theory that perhaps fate is more of B to A......that is, why did you get fired? because you didn't go to work.....the best way i can describe it is: you wake up in the mornin', and you can decide to either go to work or not go to work, and lets say you decide to go to work.....did you truly have free-will when making your decision? well, yes....however, there is still an underlying sense of fate....because you chose do X over doin' Y, you created the fate from your decision.....never, ever, could you have done Y because you didn't do Y.....can you buy that? if not, thatz alright.....but, just bare with me for a second....so, you have two tennis players who decide to play (free-will), if you win (good) you created this fate; the same goes for if you lose (evil), you created this fate......so there is a sense of fate when regarding a tennis game, because no matter what, someone must win (good), someone must lose (evil).....now, it is up to you to decide (free-will) if you're going to win or lose......you must decide your own fate.......now, i can see how this argument sounds: win (good) or lose (evil) is the fate of the outcome, and it is up to you to decide (free-will) which fate you create......and this is a pretty good argument when concerning the "free-will defense," i mean it is essentially the argument in itself, but the problem lies in the notion that there is this fate, even though you create it, but why is it there? why must someone lose, why must someone win? because these are the outcomes of the game.....okay, but why are they the outcomes? because thatz the way the game was designed, thatz how tennis players engineered the game.....so, not only are the tennis players responsible for the outcome overall, they're responsible for their own free-will and their own fate......hence, tennis players are the god of tennis.....therefore, humans are the god of their own fate and of evil.....and you say that although this may be true in an abstract sense, it's irrelevant.....but i don't see how itz irrelevant....how is anything irrelevant in the world of philosophy? every little subject must be considered in understanding the object....now, Guy Person used his epistemoligcal argument, which the best that i can understand, means that the subjects do not always need to be considered......is this what you're also saying?

also, if tennis players are responsible for the outcomes and their own fate, then doesn't humanity work in the same way? i mean, if humans are their own god of evil, are they not their own god of good? is tennis players decide whether or not to win or lose, don't humans decide whether or not to be good or evil? well, yes....thatz the "free-will defense"....but if this is the case, if humans make their decision which creates their own fate, then why even need a God? why consider God to be one or the other? how would we know? we say, "oh, well there's good in the world, something must have created it....letz call it God.....and oh, there's evil in the world, something must have created it....letz call it satan, or better yet, lets call it humanity!".....this seems rather absured and illogical....i mean, if tennis players designed the outcome of the tennis game, then surely humans designed the outcome of humanity.....or did they? if they didn't, a part of the outcome must be outside of their jurisdiction....yes? tennis players might decide the outcome, but if they didn't create the outcome entirely, then surely a part of this is outside of their jurisdiction.....

then you stated "God doesn't lose tennis games".....so, the problem here lies in the idea of fate as well.....does God create his own fate? well....no, not in the same way tennis players or humanity create their own fate....God's fate isn't B to A fate, it's A to B fate....of course God always wins.....winning is good, God is good, God must win.....so God doesn't have free-will naturally, nor can he create his own fate via free-will, but humans do......so this has to have some relevance when concerning the existance of evil.......

but, now your argument is switching over to your third premise.....being all-powerful doesn't need to include failure....well, i don't see how....of God always wins, then this does include failure, because the fate of God always winning doesn't allow God to lose.....itz biased....his fate is biased....that is itz failure.....so being all-powerful does include failure of some kind.....it includes the failure of God being able to lose, of God being evil....