The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
dcarvajal1990
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

An omni-god can avoid the problem of evil

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,515 times Debate No: 16979
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

izbo10

Con

First we must define an omni-god, he is all loving or good, all powerful, and all knowing. This god is also the creator of the universe.

Problem of evil basically If God is all-good, he would destroy evil.
If God is all-powerful, he could destroy evil.
But evil is not destroyed.
Therefore, such a God (all-good and all-powerful) does not exist.


My opponent wll have to come up with a solution that does not limit gods power, goodness,or knowledge. He/she can start in the 1st round but will not be able to add new in the 3rd round, my opponent should just respond with close or end.

dcarvajal1990

Pro

Premise 1: if god created the universe and he is all knowing then finite beings can not possibly be aware of all evils and all goods within their limited scope of knowledge. Since god has an unlimited scope of time through which he can observe his creation what we perceive as evil at the time may actually turn out to be good.

Premise 2: His plan involves what we perceive to be some evil although within the context of eternity this seems trivial especially since an eternity that is filled with bliss and god's love outweighs any finite amount of evil that a human being may endure within the limited scope of his or her life. So some evil is outweighed by infinite love.

Premise 3: If god is all powerful then this has to be the best of all possible universes

Thus, when looked at in this context god can be all loving, all knowing, and all powerful
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

Premise 1: if god created the universe and he is all knowing then finite beings can not possibly be aware of all evils and all goods within their limited scope of knowledge. Since god has an unlimited scope of time through which he can observe his creation what we perceive as evil at the time may actually turn out to be good.

If god is all powerful it was within his power to acheive this good by other means. Since god is all knowing he would know we percieve these means as evils and people would suffer. To make people suffer fo this, makes him less then all loving being he could have acheived it in a way that wouldn't have caused this.


Premise 2: His plan involves what we perceive to be some evil although within the context of eternity this seems trivial especially since an eternity that is filled with bliss and god's love outweighs any finite amount of evil that a human being may endure within the limited scope of his or her life. So some evil is outweighed by infinite love.

Again this limits gods power, it makes it as if god could not acheive this plan by any other means. He is all powerful so other means are possible. Any evil he does makes it impossible to reach all loving as evil is the opposite of good or loving. Therefore he can never reach the status of all. He would also be aware since he knows all of the perception of these evils, and to make someone feel the amount of suffering a child feels if they are raped, or a holocaust victim would have felt is not loving, being in gods knowledge he would have known that the humans experiencing this only had a limited perspective on this so it would make the suffering seem very bad to them.


Premise 3: If god is all powerful then this has to be the best of all possible universes


So in this premise we are suppose to limit gods power yet say he is all powerful. You know this isnt true, as long as you agree a world without child rape or the holocaust would be a better universe


so in known of these premises does god reach all 3 levels of all loving, all powerful, and all knowing.

dcarvajal1990

Pro

If god is all powerful it was within his power to acheive this good by other means. Since god is all knowing he would know we percieve these means as evils and people would suffer. To make people suffer fo this, makes him less then all loving being he could have acheived it in a way that wouldn't have caused this.

Again, I bring up his omniscience and omnipotence. I believe our universe being the best of all possible alternatives is inherent in my opponents argument since he postulated a god that created the universe and omniscience and omnipotence are two of three necessary conditions in order to call him god. Since the best of all possible universes is inherent in my opponents argument and we are here to discuss the universe we come up with:

P1. This is the best of all possible universes
P2. Our existence is evident since we are here to discuss these issues
C. Therefore we live in the best of all possible universes

I still maintain that his omniscience and his infinite love do not breakdown due to people's suffering for 2 reasons:

1. My opponent is giving his god a false alternative either "people suffer and he is not all loving" or "people do not suffer and he is all loving" the suffering of people can be brought about by many other things besides god. The freewill of men is a substantial part of human suffering. This may give off the illusion that god is either "sterile and benevolent" or "god is malevolent and all powerful" since freewill is responsible for such things as the holocaust and child rape. However, we know god's sterility not to be true if freewill is factored in because the power to do ultimate evil and ultimate good is a necessity of freewill. My opponent can come back and argue that the god of the bible ordered the mass genocide of opposing tribes but I remind him that he has not brought up the god of the bible only a hypothetical that he has postulated.

2. Freewill is a testament to god's infinite love since he lets us choose wether we want to love him or not. This does not limit his power since even we with a limited perspective we can see that this is overall a good thing because we are not at the mercy of a tyrant who abuses his power. So ultimately a being that has infinite power and does not abuse it can be defined as just which we define as good. Since it takes an infinite amount of justice not abuse and infinite amount of power and just is defined as being good then god is infinitely good.
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

Again, I bring up his omniscience and omnipotence. I believe our universe being the best of all possible alternatives is inherent in my opponents argument since he postulated a god that created the universe and omniscience and omnipotence are two of three necessary conditions in order to call him god. Since the best of all possible universes is inherent in my opponents argument and we are here to discuss the universe we come up with:

P1. This is the best of all possible universes
P2. Our existence is evident since we are here to discuss these issues
C. Therefore we live in the best of all possible universes


The problem here is premise 1, we do not live in the best possible universe. That is the point of the problem of evil is that there are better possible universes. Universes that do not include things like Child Rape and holocaust. In order to deny this, you must believe a universe without these 2 things would be worse. This is especially troubling with a all powerful god who could easily reconcile any problem that arose from the universe being this way.

The syllogism goes like this:

If a omni-god who fit this definition existed we would be in the best possible universe.

We can conceive of better possible universes

Conclusion the omni-god does not exist otherwise we would live in one of our conceived better universes.


My opponent then goes onto variations of freewill. Now with freewill we must remember that this god is the creator of the universe. He knows all, so he had forsight to what would happen with freewill and certain physical attributes. My opponent is limiting gods ability to design us with freewill but not the ability to rape children or pull off the holocaust. Afterall, if said god does exists, he created us in such a way that we can't punch clear through another mans chest, yet you don't hear freewill being challenged because of that. So, since if he did design us he made the design decisions that limit our ability to act on our will. We can list many things we cannot act upon such as:

Swimming to the bottom of the ocean without assistance
Flying without assistance
spinning fast enough to drill a hole in the ground.


With design decisions coming from the designer, freewill is not an excuse once it is demonstrated that design decisions would effect our ability to act on our freewill.

I would also say that the freewill excuse is special pleading for god. If a person watched a child get raped and didn't act on it when they could have stopped it, not one person would sit there and say freewill was a viable excuse for this. We know the moral thing to do is stop it. God must know about it he has all knowledge. He can stop it he is all powerful after all. Yet he doesn't act in the loving way and stop it. Considering this world has so many factors that limit our ability to act on free will, it would make no sense to say god could not be another. I think the part where he argues that its better because we don't live under a tyrant is self defeating. Exactly how could an all loving being making loving decisions to interfere in freewill be a tyrant?


So in conclusion is previous 2 arguments rely on 2 faulty premises the first one is that this is the best possible universe. Once we realize that we can imagine better universes, this makes it a cognitive dissonance in our heads to believe that is is the product of a omni-god. The 2nd one is that freewill is independent of all other forces and a unrestricted free will. Once you realize that many things act of our ability to act our will, including our physical attributes, that the designer would have made, you realize freewill is not an excuse.


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.
dcarvajal1990

Pro

My opponent still has not addressed the best of all possible universes being a necessary condition from an all knowing all powerful god. Although I do accept that the holocaust and child rape cannot be reconciled by an all powerful being if the being could not do so but in the definition of freewill this god may choose not to stop these things (and if god chooses to not stop something instead of not being able to stop something still makes him all powerful the definition of omnipotence does not breakdown) since the creations that are subjected to his laws of physics are free to choose whether or not they want to perform such terrible acts to there fellow subjects. Since giving his subjects freewill is a necessary condition of his infinite love things like the holocaust and child rape are necessary conditions of his creation since some of the individuals that have freewill will act in accordance with evil instead of in accordance with goodness.

Again my opponent gives his god a false alternative by creating a case where humans are omnipotent by bending the laws of physics "either he renders his subjects omnipotent and they have free will" or "god renders his subjects sterile with human like attributes and they do not have freewill." However we know this not to be true since god in his infinite wisdom and infinite power (which is presupposed by my opponent) created the laws of gravity. If a human were able to bend the laws of gravity this would be a violation of his omniscience and omnipotence and thus the definition of god would breakdown. We would not expect an infinitely rational being to contradict himself in this way and thus we have the laws of gravity which a human can not violate as a necessary condition. So what is a human left with?

P1. Humans can operate with freewill so long as they do not violate the laws of physics
P2. Freewill within the laws of physics consist partly of performing deeds that are good or terribly evil
P3. Some will choose to do deeds that are terribly evil because of probability
C. Things like holocaust and child rape can and will occur as a necessary condition

My opponent postulates that a god that can design us with freewill can design us not to rape children or perform horrible acts such as the ones in the holocaust. However, as we see this does not in anyway violate the laws of physics thus it is within man's freewill to perform such acts. What it is in violation of however, is god's definition of freewill since this would be restricting man to be good thus rendering god a tyrant. Rendering god a tyrant makes him not just and thus not good making the definition of god breakdown since 1 of the 3 necessary premises that make god a god are missing. Since god in his infinite rationality cannot contradict himself his scenario is not possible.

My opponent also has an objection to the fact that interfering in man's freewill makes god a tyrant. I would come back and argue how is this not the definition of a tyrant? Let us define god as x and let us define man as y. If x imposes his will on y without the knowledge of y what does this render y as? It renders y as powerless. If x imposes his will on y without the knowledge of y what does this render x as? It renders x as all powerful. In this definition that god is exercising his power. Let us leave this example for now and look up the definition of tyrant:

a person exercising power in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way.

My opponent would want god to interfere in some cases (such as in the case of child rape or the holocaust) that he sees fit and he would want god to stay out of others (rendering man as omnipotent by bending the rules of physics.) Since he wants to see god interfere in some cases but not in others he wants god to exercise his power arbitrarily. So then my opponent's view of god falls into the definition of a tyrant.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dcarvajal1990 5 years ago
dcarvajal1990
I apologize for that. I was a little drunk when I wrote this and now I do see that you did address it.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
by the way the last section should not have been commented in, but I did address the best possible universe, you have merely asserted that,I addressed it by saying that we can perceive of better universes therefore it is not the best possible universe.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
fine with me, if you think you can bring actual arguments to the table go for it.
Posted by dcarvajal1990 5 years ago
dcarvajal1990
Although I completely agree with you I'll debate you for fun... sounds good?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
Gondun
izbo10dcarvajal1990Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con won this debate mainly because pro dropped his important arguments about how our version of evil is not God's version of evil. There was some faulty logic on both sides, but overall Con won.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
izbo10dcarvajal1990Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: This is one of the few debates that could have used more rounds. Argument is clear to Con as he forced Pro to drop, concede and add new lines of argument. Pro's best of all words by definition is also begging the question. Though Pro did bring up the standard objections, they were handled well. Both sides could also have benefited from some format and presentation cleanup. 2:1 Con.