My assertion was that evil is comprehensible with or without a belief in God.
You stated that Evil is only comprehensible if there is a God.
I asked you to prove that. You haven't.
If you want me to prove the existence of a spiritual realm with human apprehension, it's not possible.
But you just stated in absolutes that God does exist.
I can't necessarily prove that the moon isn't made of cheese, but I can somewhat assume it isn't because there aren't any mice trying to get there.
False analogy.
I can't draw you a picture of God, but I can assume He exists because the Big Bang (or whatever it was) didn't just accomplish itself.
I wouldn't presume to know.
If you disagree with the First Mover theory, then you need to present reasons why it's not tenable.
"The universe is closed" - I don't necessarily believe that but, that's the rebuttal.
Saying "it doesn't prove or disprove anything" is just cognitive dissonance, nothing more.
Look up "cognitive dissonance."
That's an easy position to take in order to escape a difficult reality. ("I can't prove or disprove this raging fire exists, therefore I need not throw any water on it.")
Again, a false comparison. But to use your analogy for my original statement: I don't need to know how the fire started to recognize it's there....and that I should put it out.
Evil is not a proper object. Evil is the privation of good. If you recognize evil, then you are recognizing a contrary good that should properly exist in its place. The ultimate evil is absence of the ultimate good. The ultimate good is God. The word we use to describe that absence from the ultimate good is called "hell".
I asked you to prove that. You haven't.
I can't prove the beauty of music to someone who's deaf, either.
But you just stated in absolutes that God does exist.
He does exist because there is nothing provable which is contrary to His existence. Because I cannot apprehend it perfectly in the corporeal realm does not make it less true. Do you reject gravity, too?
I wouldn't presume to know.
That's too bad. Are you saying the definition of an atheist is one who prefers ignorance?
"The universe is closed" - I don't necessarily believe that but, that's the rebuttal.
That's nice. Where's your evidence? I have thousands of years of theological history to draw from, philosophical thought, logic, and inexplicable, supernatural phenomenon in my holster to support the opposite. Between the two stances, which has a foundation in reason?
Look up "cognitive dissonance."
Ignorance of facts in evidence. I don't see a problem with applying that to your stance.
Again, a false comparison. But to use your analogy for my original statement: I don't need to know how the fire started to recognize it's there....and that I should put it out.
Exactly. I don't need to know how God started to recognize He's there. If I were one of only a relatively few people who couldn't recognize fire, I'd be worried. If I were one of only a relatively few people who couldn't recognize God, I'd be even more worried.