The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
tyler.schillim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Does God Exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 31188
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I will be arguing that that an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent God does not exist. I am not sure if I fully adhere to this position, but I would like to defend this argument, to, at the very least, sharpen my debating skills.

The burden of proof is on me to demonstrate my case. If my opponent sufficiently undermines/ negates my argument, then my opponent shall take the win.

First round for acceptance.
tyler.schillim

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

P1: If God exists, then when a child suffers/ dies, it is necessary for an amount of good, which would not be present if the prevention had not taken place.

P2: If it is necessary that when a child that suffers/ dies, it causes a greater good which would not be present if there was no said suffering/dying, then no one ought to prevent any child from suffering/ dying.

P3: Someone ought to prevent at least one child from suffering/ dying.

P4: Therefore, it's not necessary that when a child suffers/ dies, it causes a greater good which would not be present if there was no said suffering/ dying.

P5: Thus, God does not exist.

The argument is logically valid, and each premise logically follows from modus tollens.

1. G -> B
2. B -> ~P
3. P
4. ~B (MT, 2, 3)
5. ~G (MT, 1, 4)

Any attempt to claim the argument is not logically valid, is due to not understanding the intricacies of the logic. Thus, the only thing controversial about it, is the premises.

Defense of P1:

Lets say a lightning bolt strikes a tree, and this tree falls and traps a little boy who is being crushed. The boy suffocates, and then dies. If God exists then either:

a) He would have prevented that.
b) This suffering and death is necessary for some greater good.
c) This suffering and death is necessary for some greater evil.
d) The suffering and death is necessary for some morally indifferent purpose.
e) The suffering was for nothing, and was therefore gratuitous.

Obviously a) is not t true, because the situation in question would have happened. Meaning that if God would have prevented it, the situation would have been prevented instead. c) is out of the question, because this would go against God's character. d

PA: If God exists, Omnibenevolent (the most logically benevolent being).

PB: The most logically benevolent being would necessitate that when a child suffers/ dies, it causes a greater good which would not be present if there was no said suffering /dying (a being who would allow the existence of the exact same amount of suffering/ dying of children, without it necessarily causing a greater good, would be less benevolent, and thus, not God).

Conclusion: If God exists, then it's necessary that when a child suffers/ dies, this causes a greater good, which would not be present if there was no said suffering /dying.

Defense of P2:

If it's necessary that the suffering/ dying of a child directly or indirectly causes a greater good which would not be present if there was no said suffering/ dying, then preventing this suffering/ dying would equate to necessarily preventing a greater good from occurring. It is self-evident that we should not prevent something that will ensure a greater good. If this was the case, then we ought to do something which leads to less good (evil). We would only ought to do something that is evil, if God is evil. That cannot be the case, because God is defined as omnibenevolent. Thus, it must be true that that we should never prevent something that we know will ensure a greater good.

Defense of P3:

I do not think any theist would could try to combat that premise. If a child is about to get raped and killed and you have an opportunity to tackle the man and prevent it, this is something you ought to do. However, it wouldn't be if God exists, because you would be preventing a necessary good that would have come out of the suffering/ dying.

Defense of P4:

If it is true that someone ought to prevent a child from suffering/ dying, then this means that all the suffering/ dying of children in question does not necessarily lead to a greater good. This is because, if it did necessarily lead to a greater good, then it would be true that we ought not to prevent any child from suffering/ dying, not the other way around. However, it is the other way around.

Conclusion:

God can only exist if all suffering/ dying endured by children should not be prevented (we should not prevent that which we know leads to a greater good, that would be evil). Since there are cases where the suffering/ dying of children should be prevented, this means that God does not exist.
tyler.schillim

Pro

tyler.schillim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
tyler.schillim

Pro

tyler.schillim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
tyler.schillim

Pro

tyler.schillim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Xerge 3 years ago
Xerge
Rational_Thinker9119tyler.schillimTied
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: Con was the only one that provided a case.