The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 859 times Debate No: 76853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This is a problem that I have spent a long time considering. I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible to say that there is a God who is all loving, all knowing and all able because of the existence of evil. This is often referred to as the rock of atheism and it has founded my entire attitude toward religion, mainly that attitude is that it is not something I can believe. I look forward to someone who can challenge this statement, and who will debate it openly with me without taking offence in my beliefs. I have limited the word count (2,000) because I want a brief and focused but conceptual debate.


If I see a child suffering, I don't conclude that his father doesn't exist, or that he isn't loving, or that he isn't able to provide. It could be, that this father has a very valid reason why he has not stepped in to end the child's suffering. One would have to get those reasons first before drawing any conclusions about the character of the father towards the child. God may very well have justifiable reasons for allowing suffering; and if we are not privy to those reasons, this is still no reason to think he doesn't exist.

Fact is, I have experienced God in my life (his audible voice, visions, dreams, and miracles). Many others can testify to what they have experienced with God. We believe in him because he is a very real presence in our lives.

As for evil, if there is no God, evil and good, right and wrong, do not really exist. What Pro calls evil is merely socially unfashionable, but that does nothing to show that its wrong. When its just one man's opinion versus another, morality becomes just a subjective feeling. But right and wrong, good and bad, do exist. If you KNOW for sure that raping a two year old baby is WRONG, not just your opinion, but its WRONG even outside of your opinion, then there must be some universal lawgiver who determines right from wrong. Even if you, or your neighbor don't think its wrong, its still wrong. Objective morality is that which remains right or wrong even when people don't agree with it. Its a truth that isn't decided by majority vote. So the fact that Pro speaks of evil in the world shows there must be a God.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm glad that this debate has attracted interest. I wish to first state my basic argument, then address the flaws in my opposition's.
Evil. There is no denying that it is in abundance. Thousands of innocent people being blown limb from limb in conflicts they didn't start; millions still starving in hot, poor countries; people from illness reduced to quivering wrecks of humanity, desperate for death; crimes. The scariest thing about atrocities that we've committed to each other is this: imagine the worst crime you can possibly think of. That crime has been done ten times over. Evil is so prominent in our lives that we naturally want to balance out its existence with the notion of an abundance of good. We do what humans are very good at doing, we make up. This is where "heaven", God and all divine ideas have come from. Human desperation.
But, if we are being honest with ourselves, can such a someone exist? How can a god see all of the blood freezing acts that go on under his watch and not do anything to stop them? If he were truly omni benevolent and truly omnipotent there would be no reason for him to not. Don"t tell me that there is an ulterior motive to having a six year old die of leukaemia before they've even had a chance at life- that would be truly senseless. Don"t tell me that without the concept of evil good could not exist. Why not? If god were really omnipotent he could do anything, he could have just happiness. He could make us aware that all we had was happiness.
This leads me on to my second point, a God cannot be truly omnipotent. Could God make a round square, or a circular diamond? Could God make a stick twice as long as itself? These logical contradictions make the nature of possibility always have impossible concepts.
What my opposition said about evil is wrong, all evil is subjective. Knowing not to rape a baby is our natural programming not wanting us to harm our children and become extinct. It is not some divine absolute.


Pro claims the idea of God comes from human desperation. This is a clear case of the genetic fallacy " the idea that you can prove a belief is false by invalidating how people came to believe it. This is like saying, "oh, you only believe atheism because you got hurt so you lost your faith," " Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice." There are numerous reasons for wearing a wedding ring and it would be wrong to assume doing was is an effort to promote sexism, similarly, people have numerous reasons for believing in God, and it would be wrong to assume we all believed it out of desperation. But even if we did that doesn"t prove God doesn"t exist, anymore the guy is wrong for believing Mars exists just because he heard hearsay about it.

Pro claims if God has reasons for allowing suffering, we would know them. So gravity didn"t exist until we knew about it? We didn"t always know what caused earthquakes but our ignorance of it didn"t prove earthquakes were without cause. Maybe we will one day know God"s reasons for suffering.

Omnipotent just means "all-powerful," having all power, but having power, does not prove one can literally do anything. No Christian believes God can sin. No matter how much power is in a battery, even limitless power, its still a battery, it can"t fly without wings. God can"t do the logically impossible such as FORCE a person to FREELY be good. You can"t have free will and force people to obey. But as for a round square etc, might not be impossible for God after all. I used to think it was impossible to be in two places at the same time, but science now shows particles can be in more than one place simultaneously Who knows what scientist will learn in a thousand years? More on morality next round.
Debate Round No. 2


The Con says that belief in God is not out of desperation as people have many reasons for believing in god. This is not true, and the best way to demonstrate this is by showing how belief in god has changed as our knowledge has changed. So first we gave Gods names and personalities and we used them as explanations for things that we don't know. How the world was created, how rain and thunder are made (eg Zues). As we discover more about the world and more logical explanations come into light we have to abandon these stories and change our idea of god. Believing in God is like saying that we don't know the answers, so we'll explain things entirely illogically instead. Truth is, it doesn't make sense.
The only decent argument the Con is using is that we don't know what God's reason is, therefore one exists and God does too. I find this an overwhelmingly feeble argument. It's basically giving in to the fact that there is no explanation. If there is no reason we could think of, then it logically follows that there is no reason at all.
I would invite con to familiarise himself with what 'omnipotent' means. I define it, as by the oxford english dictionary, as having unlimited power. So I'm glad that con has brought up yet another impossible contradiction with the idea of a omnibenevolent and, omnipotent. He is all able but also all loving. Surely if he is all loving, he is not all able as that would mean that he can commit awful crimes. So by the definition of a God within this argument, he can not exist.


Pro commits the genetic fallacy again, saying we only believe raping a baby is wrong because evolution programmed us this way. Maybe he only believes in atheism for similar reasons. Maybe it was his upbringing, or he was brainwashed by biased websites, or a woman left him so he abandoned God. What if turning to atheism is part of human evolution? Will that show it"s a false belief because we are wired to stop believing in God? Pro is saying that raping a baby isn"t really wrong, its just a matter of opinion. If you disagree with him, vote Con.

Pro claims out understanding of God has changed as we became more intelligent. He uses the example of Zeus, but that religion didn't change Zeus' name or concept, it simply died out. He uses the example of lightning, but the Jews and Christians have never believed in a nature God. Further, even today Christians still credit God with sending the rain so where is the change? So William Lane Craig isn't intelligent when he gives scientific evidence for God?

Pro didn't give any proof that God commits awful crimes, so I dismiss that as his opinion. And whose law would God be breaking anyway? Pro's? Pro could not show that his ignorance concerning God's reasons for allowing suffering proves there is no reason, so his argument from evil fails. And to call something evil presupposes a standard of right and wrong already exists by which to judge it, set by whom? Nature is blind. Without God there is no crime - a male white shark doesn't rape a female shark, it just forces itself on her for sex. A lion doesn't murder a zebra, it just kills it. No morality exists in the animal kingdom. So if we are evolved animals, no such morality would exist for us either. In nature, crap just happens. This is a world without God. If you believe that somethings really are wrong, regardless of who or how many say differently, there is a God who made this law. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Idiosyncratic 3 years ago
I have a question. Is pro referring to evil as just evil in a moral sense, or is he also referring to evil in a sense of "pain, suffering, physical sickness" kind of evil as well? Just wondering because I recently had a discussion with someone about that, and it would probably be beneficial for both sides to know exactly what they are discussing.
Posted by Debatasaurus 3 years ago
This is an interesting debate. Think of some kid before his exams: he is bored with homework and wants to do what he wants and not work. Everyone tells him to work so that after exams, he will eventually get a good job and make money for himself. So cruel, no! Yet his perseverance in work is solely on his belief that he is doing it for a cause after the exams. So people see evil in the world and wonders how the world can be as it is, and they are told by religion that life exists beyond this world, what we see. Religion is about believing in something outside of your ability to comprehend, and from the parable of exams, it does not seem like such a mad idea.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
its a common argument, it doesnt apply to mormonism conceptually, so i will not accept :\
A catholic should.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO wins because con only merely suggested that God MAY have alternative reason for letting people suffer, but con shows we have not confirmed it. Con also contradicts himself by saying being all-powerful doesn't mean you can't do something logically impossible. He also only bought up the morality argument within the last round, so it doesn't count. I'm tempted to also give conduct to pro but I'll go easy seeing how they both had very limited characters to support and refute arguments.