The Instigator
diety
Con (against)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points

An omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god

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 18 votes the winner is...
diety
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,600 times Debate No: 8056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (60)
Votes (18)

 

diety

Con

Hello debate.org. 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 wjmelements said, you carry the burden of proof for this debate as the instigator, and must prove that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god cannot exist. Note that whenever in this debate that such a god DOES exist, rather than CAN exist, it is out of religion, as I know I can't prove God to non-believers.

Now, for my first, and seemingly only contention: About 1/3 of the world believes in the existence of an omni-omni-omni-omni God, especially developed countries in the West. http://en.wikipedia.org... The existence of God hasn't been disproved, and will never be disproved.

I await your counter to my contention, in addition to your own.
Debate Round No. 1
diety

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate

Before i go on to my arguments, I will first point out that i dont have the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative. It's not my responsibility to prove that something DOESN'T exist. For example, lets say I say among us there is an invisible pink unicorn. Are you saying that it's YOUR responsibility to PROVE to me how it DOESN'T exist?

It's the same with a god. Hey, I believe in Thor, the god of thunder! Under your mentality, it's not my responsibility to prove he exists, but your responsibility to prove that he doesn't! Oh wait, you can't prove he doesn't? Aha! I win by default and Thor exists.

O.o

If the burden of proof is NOT on the person that claims something exists, then everything I say exists exists.

Therefore I will accept the burden of proof if you can disprove the following things in which i say exists

The Invisible Leprechauns
The Silver Surfer
The Invisible Gene
The Invisible Pink Unicorn

Otherwise if you cannot then that means they all exist!!!!

:)

This is what i challenge my opponent to do. Accept the burden of proof or otherwise prove how my logic is faulty.

:)
I will first
mongeese

Pro

"This is what i challenge my opponent to do. Accept the burden of proof or otherwise prove how my logic is faulty."
I think the latter option is better.

Now, you are the instigator. Your job is to support your claim that the resolution is false. My goal, as the contender, is to contend the arguments that you instigate. Therefore, you must put forward proof, and I must disprove your proof.

It is possible to prove a negative. Scientists have proved negatives. Scientists have proven that energy canNOT be created or detroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org... Scientists have proven that one canNOT travel at the speed of light. http://en.wikipedia.org... Your goal now is to prove that an omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent god canNOT exist.

I also have the support of wjmelements, who is a very experienced debater in the 99th percentile, and myself, in the 97th percentile, while you have never completed a debate. What wjmelements says goes when it comes to debates, unless someone even more experienced disagrees with him.

This debate has mostly been about burden of proof, and not the resolution at hand. Support your argument, or else you will lose this debate.

I will now offer more proof for myself: the chance of life randomly existing with the ability to reproduce and evolve is right next to zero. God exists. Why wouldn't he be omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
diety

Con

Alright then. First of all I do have plenty of experience. I used to be Vorxxox.

;)

I didn't quite mean to post my arguments. I was so quick to do it I forgot to write my further arguments.

Anyway, on to my arguments.

Ok then you got me on that one, I'll accept the burden of proof. Let me go on to explain why a quadrupleomni god doesn't exist.

By logic it's all contradictory

Something being omnibenevolent means it's all loving and all caring so it cares about everything that goes on.

Ok, then something omniscent would know the past, present, and future.

An omnipotent god would have infinite power. An omnipresent god would be everywhere.

With the combination of these 4, how can evil exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or suffering?

:)

An omnibenevolent god would care about the existence of evil and suffering as well as it's ending. An omniscent god would know how to stop it. An omnipotent god could stop it instantly, or even prevent it. An omnipresent god with the combination of the other 3 wouldn't fail.

That's enough for now.

But since your pro, explain to me how a quadrupleomni god DOES exist.

Like I tried to say earlier I'll say again

By default, nothing is true until I prove it. If as the negative I can't prove that the invisible pink unicorn DOESN'T exist, you don't win by default. Actually if there are no arguments than I win by default. You have to prove how it DOES exist.

Instead of thinking of it as proving a negative, how about we think of it as proving non-existence. In what way would there be evidence to support proving how something DOESN'T exist UNTIL someone gives an argument for something's existence? As far as I'm concerned until then, it's impossible to prove non-existence.

As far as I know, your argument will likely be based off of an argument from ignorance, since as you said before:

"The existence of God hasn't been disproved, and will never be disproved."

So wait a second, that means you win by default?

O.o

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As far as the examples you gave they weren't based off of negative proof. Unlike of course *cough* your likely arguments.

:)
mongeese

Pro

"So wait a second, that means you win by default?"
I'm just saying, until you do manage to disprove quad-omni god, I can state that he might exist and win.

Now, onto your contentions.

Just because God is able to stop evil and suffering, doesn't mean He should. He knows that evil and suffering are necessary for the concept of free will. We are not robots; we have minds and choices of our own. This automatically leads to potential evil and suffering, but it is a "necessary evil".
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Again, I don't have to prove quad-omni god's existence; you have to disprove it.

"As far as I'm concerned until then, it's impossible to prove non-existence."
Well, why did you start this debate, then, if it was impossible to support.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
diety

Con

I was correct. Your arguments is based off of an argument from ignorance.

:)

Anyway, to rebut your arguments:

"Just because God is able to stop evil and suffering, doesn't mean He should."

Well, I would agree with you if this god wasn't omnibenevolent. But since this God is omnibenevolent, he would do everything in his power to bring an end to suffering.

Now, if this god lacked omnipotence then failure to bring an end to suffering would be perfectly acceptable. But if this god is omnibenevolent AND omnipotent, then the existence of evil would be unacceptable UNLESS he lacked omniscence and didn't know about the evil but...

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

That is pure logical contradiction. That should be enough to win this debate, but I'll continue

"He knows that evil and suffering are necessary for the concept of free will. We are not robots; we have minds and choices of our own."

^o^

Ha! How pathetic. Free will exists eh? So we have choices of our own eh? But this god is omniscent, meaning he knows the past, present, future, and therefore the result of every choice before it is even made. Therefore if this god is omniscent, free choice is an illusion, since the outcome is already known and suffering is therefore unnecesary. In a way, we sort of are robots.

:)

As far as I know, one simple way to put free will is "the ability to make a bad choice." Why is this "free will" so important? If anything like I said before an omniscent god would see past this "free will" and already know the outcome, and would also know that:

"This automatically leads to potential evil and suffering"

But this god is omnibenevolent so he wouldn't want that.

O.o

I could bump heads with this guy, spit logic at him until I'm blue in the face. But I have a feeling if I lose this debate it won't be because he had a better case than mine, it'tl be because he takes the side of this debate that the majority favors.

(-.-)

Well, my arguments stand unrefuted as I have proven that a god can't be a quadriomni one simply because that's logically contradictory given the way our reality is.

"Life's not fair."

Well.... then I guess there isn't a quadriomni god then

:)

Please put aside your biases and vote CON.

Thank you
mongeese

Pro

I was correct. Your arguments is based off of an argument from ignorance."
No, it is an argument for possibilities. Because as contender, possibilities are in my favor.

"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"
Again, free will. Just because God knows what our choices are going to be, doesn't mean we don't have them. You have complete control over your life; God just already knows how it is going to play out.
"You have choices, but your choices are predetermined." - Said by one of the characters in the Gatekeepers series.

"But this god is omnibenevolent so he wouldn't want that."
He had to choose between free will and suffering or no free will and peace. He chose free will and suffering, because He knew that without free will, we have no real life. Free will was necessary to be human. God had to make a choice, and He chose what was best, because He cared. He knew that free will was better than eternal happiness, and forcing everybody to have no choice would have been more cruel than to allow for pain and suffering. Simple.

Would you rather never suffer, or have the freedom of making actual choices in your life, giving your life an actual, personal purpose? Yeah, I though so. So did God.

"Well, my arguments stand unrefuted as I have proven that a god can't be a quadriomni one simply because that's logically contradictory given the way our reality is."
Your arguments are far from unrefuted. Except for during the brief period between when you finish your posting for the round and when I respond.

Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lemonlimetoast 5 years ago
lemonlimetoast
lol, that is a pretty wild assumption. think of how improbable it would have been five thousand years ago that you would be reading this right now. think of all the events that had to happen exactly the way they did and yet here you are. he's looking back and assuming that there was one end goal that NEEDED to happen. we shouldn't assume that it couldn't have happened any other way. it doesn't matter how improbable it is; only that it happened. stole this argument and re-worded it by the way.

lol, yeah, debates are pretty strange. i wish they were more concerned with getting to a logical conclusion though. love logical discussions.
Posted by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
It's a shame that he conceded it.

I've found that argument to be commonplace among the creationist demographic; I've dealt with it numerous times...that being said, hey, if that particular point worked for you, then that's fair enough.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Heh, my opponent actually conceded that argument, so for this debate, it was considered to be genius.

Debates work in strange ways, don't they?
Posted by patsox834 5 years ago
patsox834
<"I will now offer more proof for myself: the chance of life randomly existing with the ability to reproduce and evolve is right next to zero. God exists. Why wouldn't he be omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent?">

Worst. Argument. Ever.
Posted by lemonlimetoast 5 years ago
lemonlimetoast
he said: "Something being omnibenevolent means it's all loving and all caring so it cares about everything that goes on.

Ok, then something omniscent would know the past, present, and future.

An omnipotent god would have infinite power. An omnipresent god would be everywhere.

With the combination of these 4, how can evil exist?"

the argument i mentioned would have refuted this.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
"if you'd brought up that an omnipotent being can exist with logical contradictions, con wouldn't have an argument."
He never said that they couldn't. Thus, such an argument isn't necessary.
Posted by lemonlimetoast 5 years ago
lemonlimetoast
this debate has given my brain a much needed workout;)
Posted by lemonlimetoast 5 years ago
lemonlimetoast
lol, sorry i had to vote a tie on because neither argument was convincing. if you'd brought up that an omnipotent being can exist with logical contradictions, con wouldn't have an argument.
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
I just lost six points... :(
Posted by lemonlimetoast 5 years ago
lemonlimetoast
guess i'm still learning how this works. think i get it now, lol. i'll vote based on what was stated in the debate.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by lemonlimetoast 5 years ago
lemonlimetoast
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
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 JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
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 jzrozzn8706 5 years ago
jzrozzn8706
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:16 
Vote Placed by bel1ever 5 years ago
bel1ever
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 FemaleGamer 5 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 Justinisthecrazy 5 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
dietymongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
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 vorxxox 5 years ago
vorxxox
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 bored 5 years ago
bored
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02