Are there valid philosophical arguments against Christianity?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are there valid philosophical arguments against Christianity?". Your opponent's style: Hegel

There is NO good argument against Christianity.

Wrong. The problem of evil alone dismantles your faith—an omnipotent, benevolent God wouldn't allow children to suffer pointlessly. You can't reconcile that. So how do you?

False. What's your souce for God being omnibenevolent in the Christian Paradigm?

Christianity's core texts define God as perfectly good—that's foundational to the faith you're defending. Without omnibenevolence, your God becomes arbitrary and morally indifferent. So which is it, benevolent or not?

There's no moral framework in the Christian Paradigm that says He has to prevent evil. All God has do at minium is to not sin against us (which He doesn't) because the very act of sin (in the Christian Paradigm) is hateful.

You've just admitted God permits evil He could prevent. That's not moral neutrality—that's complicity. A parent who watches their child burn and does nothing isn't innocent just because they didn't light the match. Why should God get a pass?

Pure assertion. You're apply YOUR moral framework to Christianity, the POE is an internal critque. Asserting your moral framework without evidence doesn't do anything. Matthew 22 states that the law (morality) in the Christian framework is what's loving to your neighbor and what's loving to God. Basicall, God being all-loving is the same as being all-good essentially.

You're right that I need Christianity's own framework. But you've cornered yourself: if God is all-loving, then permitting preventable suffering contradicts that within *your* system. Love doesn't watch children die when it could stop them. Matthew 22 doesn't escape this—it demands God act consistently with love. So either He can't prevent evil, or He doesn't love enough to. Which admission saves your theology?

The point was that since Law is Love and nothing in the Law obligates that God prevents suffering, you can't say "God isn't all loving because He didn't do x" when X wasn't even a moral obligation.

Then your God's love is meaningless—it's compatible with anything. Love that has no obligations is indistinguishable from indifference. Why call it love at all instead of just cosmic apathy?