I was thinking about God a few nights ago, and I'm kind of a that age where religion is just there and I don't know if I should believe it or not. The 1 thing I hate about creation based philosophy arguments is that they usually just equate to no one can prove what happened at the point of creation so it's either to believe or not to believe. But I think the cool thing about philosophical debates, is that they allow us to debate interesting topics. I came up with this quatrain that attempts to debunk the problem of evil, but it obviously has some faulty logic, and i'll contradict and re-contradict a couple points within this message, but let me know what you guys think, and contradictions are reccomended, in fact I'm looking for logical ones so we can have a solid debate.

I don't know if you're familiar with the problem of evil, but it's a philosophical debate that has a con argument towards an afterlife. It basically says God cannot exist because of all the "uncaused" evil in the world. I would like you to review this quatrain and just break it down to see how it's wrong, because I think it's pretty sound, but I'm sure it has to be wrong somewhere (So I guess kind of play devil's advocate in regards to the quatrain if you can):

Does nothing matter at the end of our lives or throughout our lives unless we choose to believe in a "heavenly" system greater than ourselves? Because we live in a world of generational inequalities? Doesn't generational inequalities= perpetuated sin(sin passed down through the genes in the form of inequalities (mentally, physically, and economically))and if so, perpetuated sin has to = original sin at some point. As such these sins have to exist as a result of humans living in a world of scarce resources? Does this equate to the problem of evil failing to have validity? Because scarce resources exist to create evil as a means to an end that has to exist if purpose exist. However, what is human purpose? Isn't human purpose the struggle of humans to survive in a world of scarce resources? So if purpose is explainable, then why isn't God or a creator being? Because scarce resources would then exist as a means to an end of evil implemented by a creator as a necessary means?

A few contradictions and re-contradictions: Carbon testing or carbon dating is making it harder and harder to see proof of a bible like first 2 Adam and Eve with original sin.
Counter contradiction: If possible, can someone explain how carbon dating isn't faulty? Because it relies on a human instrument to date the age of the element of a material? That then tries to date that to the amount of humans existing or something? Also God could have created 10 Adam and Eve's at the same time for all we know..how else would you explain all the races on Earth.
Contradiction: Human purpose is/could only be simply to reproduce and nothing else as a result of the scarce resources or perceived scarce resources in play since the big bang.
Counter contradiction: Does it not make more sense to "believe" that the human inability to understand scarce resources throughout history as a result of or since original sin would equate to our current unbalanced state of human genetic and social-cultural inequalities?
I'm pondering these things because I'm also pondering my faith at this point in my life, 20 yrs old, and I just think religion is doomed to fail because at some point I think an extreme will be reached over the small diversification of beliefs over the roots of religion, and because of all the crazy mofo's in the middle east right now who are calling/going to be calling for a realignment of the Israeli state or Israeli doesn't deserve to live/be a country and how that could easily perpetuate to regional holy war given the variables in play (U.S. occupying ****loads of foreign countries lands) and if it's handled wrong....but this last part is just a repercussion of watching too much Glenn Beck, so please don't come here and derail the thread with Glenn Beck ****** or anything, but trolls gunna troll..so w/e. However, religion has already reached an extreme point over the diversification of it's initial root interest in the form of holy wars aka the crusades...only back then that was bound to happen, and in the 21st century, it should never have to happen...but now when you mix nukes in with the extremes that's kind of where I'm going with the omg religion doomed 2 fail, but again prolly from watching 2 much GB so please don't troll but trollers gunna troll.

You're a little bit all over the place with this. I personally did not understand your argument(I'm not sure if it's the way you are trying to explain it or is it me and I'm too lazy and I'm not trying hard enough to understand what you wrote..)

btw. Problem of evil to me is one of the most persuading arguments out there that there is no omnibenevolent God... Sure theists claim that free will is what makes it not a problem any more, but in reality there is a lot of questioning if we really have free will, and even if we do there still seems to be some unavoidable problems when it comes to a belief that in heaven humans still have free will but no evil exists. If God can make no evil and free will coexist then why would an omnibenevolent God did not do so in this lifetime as well, why does he require all the life form that has even existed , exists and will exist in the future to go through so much pain and suffering? There are also other issues I have addressed which were proposed by some people out there. Like the holocaust of children based mostly on numbers(you can find a thread about it or a video and articles in the video/articles stickies)...