True. I knew it was largely bunk, I just couldn't resist the Nazi analogy.
Kudos for conceding it right away, so we have that out of the way.
It´s already forgotten.
But He allowed forces to attempt to act contrary to His plan, thats the point.
To be more precise (and I disagree with the wording of the thread title here): He must have
created it.
Last time I checked god was said to be the creator of everything, and not the creator of something and the allower of other things. If "freewill" is necessary for there to be love, and if "evil" is a necessary byproduct of "freewill", god must have created evil, else his plan of creating love out of "freewill" could not have worked.
When talking about an omnipotent omniscient creator of everything, a wording like "allowed something contrary to his plan" is utterly meaningless. He knew every outcome, every development, every result of the way he created things - and for such god quite apparently there is no "oops, that came unexpectedly, I didn´t want it, that came all by itself". For an omnipotent first cause creator omniscience is a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]: Everything that will happen
IS his plan.
But first something about your argument. You said that God should only allow those who are good to exist.
Not to be nitpicking, but that´s not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that god
could have done that without harming anyone or infringing anyone´s "freewill".
(And while I am at clarifying: I don´t believe in a god, and I have yet to learn about a concept that makes "freewill" a meaningful term. Just for a caveat - I will use both terms hypothetically, trying to refer to what your arguments tell me about your ideas).
This implies that God is restricting the existence of those who wouldn't be good.
Not really. Something non-existing cannot be restricted in its existence. That´s nonsense, that which you picture as restricted in its existence, doesn´t exist, after all.
That is to say, God is intervening where if He did not intervene a person who would commit evil would come into existence. Thus, there are people who are being denied existence because they will at some time commit an evil.
No, there aren´t people who are denied something. They don´t exist, so there is nobody who can be denied anything.
I mean, it´s you theists who ascribe the unique ability of creating something from nothing or from scratch to your god. On the other hand, time and again, you seem to forget about the uniqueness about this ability, and think of it as though it were just that which you actually want me to distinguish it from: manipulation of something already existing.
If you want to think of creating (or not creating for that matter) as an intervention (which semantically makes no sense, imo, but there goes), then god´s creation was the greatest intervention conceivable, anyways. Thus the maxime "god should not intervene" has no credibility. You make it sound like there was an exact number of beings and things stood there in line waiting for coming into existence, and god, instead of created exactly this number of beings (not more and not less).
No. Your god allegedly had the power to create and not to create, and he created exactly as much as he saw fit.
Now, what I was trying to say[...]was that it is morally abhorrent to refuse somethings existence because it will be evil.
I understood that this is what you meant to say, but I really don´t see how and based on which moral frameset you arrive at this judgement. The ability to create and not create something from scratch/from nothing is allegedly unique to your god, it doesn´t happen here in our world. Therefore I do not see where you pull the framework and standards for making such a moral judgement. Morals in regards to non-existence is a completely new one, for me.
I am not at this moment responsible for any choice I will make two years down the road, even though I will be then. Thus, to punish me now for what I will do then is wrong.
Yes, but the difference is that you do exist and something can be considered being a punishment of you, the existent being. "Punishing something non-existent" is a non-sensical assembly of words.
In the same way, to refuse my existence because at some point I will sin is wrong.
No, it is a completely different thing, and not covered by anything in any of the moral systems we know.
And again I have to insist on realizing that non-existent things do not exist. There is nothing that can be refused anything, to begin with.
When I am innocent I should be treated as such, when I am evil I should be treated as such. God is not justified in punishing me until I have in person committed an offending act and not before.
And he couldn´t, since you didn´t even exist.
Now if you wish to say that you meant there to be no such "potential persons", fine and good--there is likely enough such a world somewhere.
Ok, let´s contemplate on these "potential persons" for a moment.
For staters, let me say that, in my book, this is a semantics mind game. There are things that exist. That´s all. There aren´t even things that do not exist, even less things that "potentially exist".
I will try to make sense of that term as good as I can, nonetheless, and I hope in the end it will be clear why it is complete nonsense, ok?
The only meaning that "potential person/being/object" can have, as far as I can see: Something that can be conceived but doesn´t exist.
Now, what did your god do when creating? Did he create everything "potentially existing"? No. Just to pick one of the gazillions of "potential beings" he didn´t create: He didn´t create an elephant-like being with eleven legs, the size of a cat, who can climb trees. I conclude that your god did not allow create everything into existence that "potentially existed", and that - by your standards - punished gazillions of beings with non-existence.
Did your god allow every being and thing he created "freewill"? No.
My cat doesn´t have "freewill", the spider on the ceiling doesn´t have "freewill", the tree out there doesn´t have "freewill", neither has the rock, for all I know. If following your argument that not allowing something freewill is an illegitimate restriction, your god has violated this rule of yours in more cases than he complied with it. Although there potentially existed cats, spiders, trees, stones with freewill, god punished those beings with denying them existence.
By now, I hope, it should be painfully clear, that the concept of potential existence does not help your case one bit.
Something else: We agree in that the idea good requires the idea of evil. It does not, though, require evil to occur or become manifest.
Like, we have the freewill to take a chainsaw and cut our own left legs into thin slices. It is an option, this option is cnceivable and available, yet, as far as I know our inclination to do so is somewhere between neglectible and none. Does the fact that nobody feels like doing mean an infriction on our freewill?
Another example: Not to be bragging too much, but I have little to no inclination to taking a bat and hitting persons on the head. As a matter of fact, I feel a strong inhibition to do so. It never cost me anything to abstain from doing so. Au contraire: It has never even suggested itself to me as a realistic option. For practical purposes we can say: This option has if looking at it realistically never been an option for me. Do you think I have to feel punished by god for this infriction of my freewill? Seeing the theoretical option, but factually being unable to act upon it?
However, as long as this is true, God could not just write off the existence of our world because we messed up.
This comes as a surprise. For all I know "omniscient omnipotent creator god" and "could not" do not go together well in one sentence. I don´t seem to understand what you mean, here.
I was rather assuming that in this world there would have been, had God allowed everyone to exist, been people who would have sinned. Since He did not, they merely remained, I don't know, "potential people." I don't think you are quite getting what I meant so I'll talk a bit more about it below.
The potential existence thing was not my idea. Moreso, it was a direct and necessary concept that followed from your take that there is a moral obligation to something non-existent.
No, not really. Certainly, they may be happy to choose good, but that's only because it is all they can.
No, the idea is being able to do X, but not doing it. It is an idea that your worldview accepts as a realistic possibility, ->god, -> heaven. Quite apparently you yourself don´t think that it is an illogical concept.
I think it may be somewhat advantageous to look at God for this explanation. The Christian God is omni benevolent and omni potent. The point of this debate is to show that God is not one of those two things and thus that God doesn't exist.
Err, actually I wasn´t aware that this was the point I was trying to make.
That is to say, we both understand that God cannot choose evil; as soon as He does He ceases to exist as God.
In the same way a good person cannot choose evil and remain good.
Yes, that makes sense. I do, however, not see how this necessitates the existence of people who factually choose evil.
In a world where goodness is required to live, a good person thus cannot choose evil.
I´m not sure where this is going. You seem to keep rephrasing. the trivial fact that good and evil are antagonists and incompatible by their very definition.
A world in which only good is allowed to exist is a world in which only good is possible; thus, a world in which evil is not possible; and thus, a world in which there is no choice.
I am not talking about a world in which only good is allowed, but about a world in which everyone can conceive of the option of evil, but doesn´t do evil. (See my examples above).
Whilst if, as you seem to argue, the awareness of the option of evil necessitates evil to come into existence, then the factual existence of evil is a necessary part of god´s plan.
I have never seen this happen. For those children and babies who die they go to heaven. They are now living, and are not dead. What a deal... to be able to live in Paradise for eternity. 
