The Instigator
diety
Con (against)
Losing
51 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
62 Points

An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent god exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 18 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,227 times Debate No: 8059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (18)

 

diety

Con

I am in negation of an omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god. I'm declaring hereby that such a god does not exist. I humbly await my opponent's arguments.
mongeese

Pro

Thank you for starting this debate.

As you haven't said anything that would negate the resolution, my first contention is:
Why not?
Debate Round No. 1
diety

Con

Alright then. Instead of burden of proof BSing like I did last time, I'll cut right to the chase. The idea of such a god is by logic contradictory for these simple reasons:

1) This god is perfectly aware of suffering
2) Suffering cannot be hidden from this god (hence omnipresence)
3) This god loves everyone and doesn't want everyone to suffer
4) This god has the power to stop suffering
5) But suffering exists

It's that simple. Given the current world there is, a god can't be ALL four of these things. Maybe two or even three, but as the resolution implies, it must be ALL four, which is by logic contradictory.

Thank you.
mongeese

Pro

I'm back!

There are many possible explanations to the "problem of evil":
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Possibility 1: Free Will
God wanted everyone to have free will. With free will comes the will to make others suffer. Thus, God had to choose between free will and freedom from suffering, and knew that the lack of an ability to make choices was a greater pain than suffering, so free will is the explanation. Just because God already knows what you will do with your free will, doesn't mean that you don't have it. You can still jump up and down twice right now, or three times, or four, but God will have already known what you wanted to do (which I am guessing to be jumping up and down zero times).

Possibility 2: Punishment
When Eve committed the first sin, God had to come up with a punishment. Thus, he came up with suffering. He doesn't want everyone to suffer, but a punishment was necessary for breaking His rules. Why does a mother put her child in a time-out, or spank him, when he does wrong, when she does not wish for her child to suffer? It is because the child needs to be taught a lesson, and in the end, the time-out will have improved his character.

Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft came up with six solutions:
"a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods.
b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin.
c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil.
d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans.
e) Suffering can bring people closer to God.
f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need."

So, yes, there are many solutions to the problem of evil. I only need one of them to survive by the end of the debate.

Thank you for waiting.
Debate Round No. 2
diety

Con

^o^

I've been having some bad days, but this argument cheers me up! Ha!

Let me rebut your arguments before introducing new ones.

"Possibility 1: Free Will
God wanted everyone to have free will. With free will comes the will to make others suffer. Thus, God had to choose between free will and freedom from suffering, and knew that the lack of an ability to make choices was a greater pain than suffering, so free will is the explanation. Just because God already knows what you will do with your free will, doesn't mean that you don't have it. You can still jump up and down twice right now, or three times, or four, but God will have already known what you wanted to do (which I am guessing to be jumping up and down zero times)."

Wait a minute.... your argument basically implies that free will is the ability to choose wrongfully. It has to if free will MUST come with the will to make others suffer. I would find it odd for an omnibenevolent being to even CREATE something will the ability to make other creations suffer. Why can't we just have only the ability to make RIGHT choices

And you're 100% correct, this god chose between "free will" over freedom from suffering. You know what that's like? That's like giving a child a gun and then justify it by saying "not giving my child the option of doing something bad is a greater pain than preventing him/her from making bad decisions by keeping them AWAY from those things."

What I challenge you to do is answer this question, which is more responsible parenting, to expose your kids to explicit and mature content OR to keep them away from those things to prevent possible suffering?

"Possibility 2: Punishment
When Eve committed the first sin, God had to come up with a punishment. Thus, he came up with suffering. He doesn't want everyone to suffer, but a punishment was necessary for breaking His rules. Why does a mother put her child in a time-out, or spank him, when he does wrong, when she does not wish for her child to suffer? It is because the child needs to be taught a lesson, and in the end, the time-out will have improved his character."

God had to come up with a punishment?

O.o

Well, here's the problem with that argument. Since this god is omniscient, before he created this person he would have already knew what she would have done with her "free will," in this case meaning she would've sinned. And the fact that he created her with that knowledge instead of preventing it would make him responsible and therefore guilty. That's like me winding up a toy, telling it that it's a sin to fall over the table although I already knew it would when I was winding it, and then when it falls over the table breaking it. It's my fault because the whole thing was set up from the beginning, and if anything that's clearly is not omnibenevolence.

Now, as far as your parent child analogy, parent's are neither omniscient NOR omnipotent. So that argument doesn't quite pertain to this debate.

Now the next argument you present is obviously from a biased source, but I'll still take it on.

"Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft came up with six solutions:
"a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods.
b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin.
c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil.
d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans.
e) Suffering can bring people closer to God.
f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need.""

OK, let me take these down one by one:

"a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods."

An omniscient god would know how to obtain long range goals.... WITHOUT ANY EVIL!

"b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin."

That's just straight up contradictory. If I'm omniscient and create beings capable of being evil, then if they do evil, the evil is my doing! Like I said before, I knew they would do evil from the beginning! Therefore their suffering would be my fault as well and therefore I'm not omnibenevolent.

And while I'm still at it, yes omnipotence itself means being able to do what is logically contradictory and therefore is a logical contradiction in itself. Can I make a being that nothing including me can destroy? But wait, if I'm omnipotent I should be able to destroy this thing! Is there something I can't do? No? Then I can't do anything I will, and I am not omnipotent.

"c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil"

o.o

What does this have to do with the debate? And worse, how can an omnipresent being die on a cross?

"d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans."

Well, that's proof that he lacks omnibenevolence, otherwise he would make beings already moral. But he'd rather punish his creations for his own doing? Yet another O.o

"e) Suffering can bring people closer to God"

So is that why this god manipulates the events in his creation's lives? So they will be closer to him? To me that's not omnibenevolence, but all-selfishness.

"f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need."

O.o

What in the world does this have to do with this debate? And don't even think about pulling the Jesus card to get sympathy votes.

"So, yes, there are many solutions to the problem of evil. I only need one of them to survive by the end of the debate."

You need A LOT more than that.

Here are the challenges that I have for my opponent that his failure to meet would otherwise prove the resolved negated:

1) PROVE god's existence. Otherwise it will be a mere argument of ignorance or argument from lack of imagination. And I didn't say give me a testimony or what you BELIEVE, I want EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

2) Explain to me how lack of free will means lack of suffering. Do computer's suffer? Do rocks suffer?

3) Explain to me how creating something with omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't imply responsibility. And with that, how is that omnibenevolence to punish something for your doing. Otherwise, this being is responsible and guilty for every evil his creations have committed to.

4) Explain to me how omniscience wouldn't come with the wisdom to prevent suffering. Just because you can't think of a way to end suffering doesn't mean this god can't

5) Explain to me how the argument of omnipotence is logically sound?

Like I said before I'll say again, if this god was omniscient he would have known how to end suffering, and with omnipotence he would've prevented it. An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god would void the existence of any suffering. Yet there is suffering.

The resolution is negated

I urge a CON ballot

Thank you

:)
mongeese

Pro

"Wait a minute.... your argument basically implies that free will is the ability to choose wrongfully. It has to if free will MUST come with the will to make others suffer. I would find it odd for an omnibenevolent being to even CREATE something will the ability to make other creations suffer. Why can't we just have only the ability to make RIGHT choices"
Free will is the ability to choose the right thing to do, so yes, it gives the option of choosing the wrong option. However, you're saying that something should never be created that could harm other creations, and yet that would mean that he should create nothing.
'Tis better to have lived and suffered than to have never lived at all.

"And you're 100% correct, this god chose between 'free will' over freedom from suffering. You know what that's like? That's like giving a child a gun and then justify it by saying 'not giving my child the option of doing something bad is a greater pain than preventing him/her from making bad decisions by keeping them AWAY from those things.'

What I challenge you to do is answer this question, which is more responsible parenting, to expose your kids to explicit and mature content OR to keep them away from those things to prevent possible suffering?"
Well, handing the child a gun is obviously stupid. However, I'll extend your question: Is it justified for a mother to lock her child up in her house, never let outside, with the justification of, "It's dangerous out there! My poor baby could get hurt!"?

"God had to come up with a punishment?"
Yep.

"O.o"
o.O

"Well, here's the problem with that argument. Since this god is omniscient, before he created this person he would have already knew what she would have done with her 'free will,' in this case meaning she would've sinned. And the fact that he created her with that knowledge instead of preventing it would make him responsible and therefore guilty. That's like me winding up a toy, telling it that it's a sin to fall over the table although I already knew it would when I was winding it, and then when it falls over the table breaking it. It's my fault because the whole thing was set up from the beginning, and if anything that's clearly is not omnibenevolence."
Well, he either had to create Eve with the knowledge of the fact that she would sin, or never create Eve. It was also Eve's fault for being tempted by the Devil, who could be said to also have some powers that limited God's omniscientness.
Furthermore, it is kind of like dumping shoes on the ground, then locking up your dog in his carrier when he starts to chew on the shoes. When repeated enough times, the dog finally gets the message, "Don't chew the shoes!"

"Now, as far as your parent child analogy, parent's are neither omniscient NOR omnipotent. So that argument doesn't quite pertain to this debate."
Yes, but parents do know that an undisciplined child is more likely to fail and go to jail than a disciplined child. Also, the parents have a large amount of control over the child's life, such as food, entertainment, and suffering & pain.

"An omniscient god would know how to obtain long range goals.... WITHOUT ANY EVIL!"
Not really. What if he looked into the future, and realized that evil was NECESSARY for his long-range goals?

"That's just straight up contradictory. If I'm omniscient and create beings capable of being evil, then if they do evil, the evil is my doing! Like I said before, I knew they would do evil from the beginning! Therefore their suffering would be my fault as well and therefore I'm not omnibenevolent."
Their creation and free will would also be God's fault, and he decided that they'd be better off suffering and living than not living at all.

"And while I'm still at it, yes omnipotence itself means being able to do what is logically contradictory and therefore is a logical contradiction in itself. Can I make a being that nothing including me can destroy? But wait, if I'm omnipotent I should be able to destroy this thing! Is there something I can't do? No? Then I can't do anything I will, and I am not omnipotent."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do."

"What does this have to do with the debate? And worse, how can an omnipresent being die on a cross?"
Suffering for the people was necessary for them to understand God's suffering on the cross, and thus be saved.
God can compress himself onto the cross.

"Well, that's proof that he lacks omnibenevolence, otherwise he would make beings already moral. But he'd rather punish his creations for his own doing? Yet another O.o"
He cares about us enough to know that morals have to be gained.

"So is that why this god manipulates the events in his creation's lives? So they will be closer to him? To me that's not omnibenevolence, but all-selfishness."
Unless, of course, being closer to God is what saves people from Satan, in which case, it's in our best interests to have the ability to suffer.

"1) PROVE god's existence. Otherwise it will be a mere argument of ignorance or argument from lack of imagination. And I didn't say give me a testimony or what you BELIEVE, I want EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE."
We already established that the Instigator, which is you, bears the burden of proof. Therefore, your lack of proof against God is my proof for God.

"2) Explain to me how lack of free will means lack of suffering. Do computer's suffer? Do rocks suffer?"
Computers and rocks have no free will. To suffer requires a nervous system. To have free will also requires a nervous system. This is probably not a coincidence. To answer your question, your two inanimate objects suffer from the lack of a free will.

"3) Explain to me how creating something with omniscience and omnipotence wouldn't imply responsibility. And with that, how is that omnibenevolence to punish something for your doing. Otherwise, this being is responsible and guilty for every evil his creations have committed to."
God's responsible for us, and thus, he protects us and teaches us. Go back to the dog chewing shoes example.

"4) Explain to me how omniscience wouldn't come with the wisdom to prevent suffering. Just because you can't think of a way to end suffering doesn't mean this god can't"
Ah, but if he could come up with a way to end suffering that coincides with his plan, He would have done it by now, or perhaps it is one of the later steps in His plan.

"5) Explain to me how the argument of omnipotence is logically sound?"
By definition, omnipotence can ignore logical contradictions.

"Like I said before I'll say again, if this god was omniscient he would have known how to end suffering, and with omnipotence he would've prevented it. An omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god would void the existence of any suffering. Yet there is suffering."
There is suffering because you must suffer to live, and 'tis better to have lived and suffered to have never lived at all.

"The resolution is negated"
The resolution is not negated.

"I urge a CON ballot"
I urge a PRO ballot.

"Thank you"
Thank you, too.

":)"
(:
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
"is source better than no source?"
Definitely.
Posted by lemonlimetoast 8 years ago
lemonlimetoast
would've liked to see a 4th round; pro didn't have a convincing argument 'tll the 3rd. voting pro on arguments, conduct, and sources. although con didn't provide any sources. is source better than no source?
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Well, it also gave a definition that fit my needs. I chose the definition because no definition had been chosed before. There were 7; I chose #1.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Your wiki source presented in R3.

I quote: "A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible. "
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
What source was it that said that omnipotence defeated logic?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
1) You provided a source which claimed that an omnipotent being contradicted logic

2)You said "By definition, omnipotence can ignore logical contradictions."

Here, you are acknowledging an omnipotent God is working within logical contradictions. If makes no difference that you claim He is ignoring them. Merely through acknowledging that God's actions contradict logic in the first place, you lose your standing.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Actaully, I explained how the definition of omnipotence already limited itself to everything within logic, so there was no need to make God go against logic.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
And that's about all I feel like saying. The other arguments got kind of merky to me, but if there is really need for me to comment, please ask.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CONVINCING ARGUMENTS: In order to vote CON, I only had to buy that one of the qualities listed in the resolution prove this this 'god" to not exist.

I ended buying his omnipotence argument. PRO, you misunderstand the nature of logic. It is used to declare what is and what isn't reasonable/possible. The moment you agreed that an omnipotent god worked under logical contradictions, there was no way for me to accept your argument (well actually, I could have if you had perhaps provided a more in depth explanation, although that's merely a maybe). If you wanted to go this route, you should have offered an argument on the vast limitations of logic itself (which is not hard to do).
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CONDUCT: CON, in the future, please utilize you first rounds if you create the debate. Don't give yourself the advantage by insisting that your opponent go first. Granted, PRO got around this in this debate. If you merely wish for your first round to be the "greeting round" of some sort, then make a declaration insisting that you shall begin the debate in the 2nd round and that your opponent is more than free to follow suite (of course, this may require that you make your debates 3-4 rounds). Since this problem seemed to work itself out during the debate, I'm be voting a tie on conduct.

Spelling and Grammar: I don't feel like checking right now, thus shall leave this as a tie.

Convincing arguments:

Will come back to this one later. Still deciding.

Reliable Sources: PRO cited two wiki links and I have nothing against wiki, so I'll give this to him.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lemonlimetoast 8 years ago
lemonlimetoast
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Slurve 8 years ago
Slurve
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
dietymongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 8 years ago
tBoonePickens
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Geek.Rachel 8 years ago
Geek.Rachel
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07