The Instigator
kwagga_la
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evil and Suffering fails

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 91932
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (0)

 

kwagga_la

Pro

The argument that evil and suffering exists therefore God cannot is not a valid argument because it cannot prove that no god exist.
vi_spex

Con

well apparently in the bible its written god created everything.. clearly he made evil as everything hasnt stopped following his perfect plan?
Debate Round No. 1
kwagga_la

Pro

When using the argument of evil and suffering to disprove the existence of God, it is usually directed against a good God. Arguing against a good God can only establish a 50% probability that a good God may not exist. That is the problem with the argument, because there is still a 50% likelihood that a bad God may exist who is causing it. This means that the existence of God was not disproved 100% but only a 50% likelihood established that a good God cannot exist. That a good God cannot exist while evil and suffering is present is also debatable. Most religions believe in the existence of good and bad gods. So in order to disprove these religions it must be established that a good AND a bad God cannot exist because of the presence of evil and suffering. As for your reference to the God of the Bible, it is said in the Bible that God created evil. The question is how is that possible? Evil is not something materialistic. There is no object that can be observed that represents evil. If I tell you that it is good not to kill someone is it then not obvious that it is bad to kill someone? If I give you a gun and tell you it's for hunting to provide food for your family and you decide to kill someone is it therefore impossible for me to exist because I gave you the choice and means to commit an evil act? Of course not, and the same is true about God. The moment God said what was good the possibility of evil was created. Think of something GOOD that cannot be perverted or does not have a negative opposite. God must have had the knowledge of what is evil before He created everything good like Genesis says. If He did not know it then how was it even possible to distinguish or lable something as good? The concept of good is meaningless if it is not contrasted or compared to something else. Is something good? Good as opposed to what? You can only answer that question by comparing it to something that is not good. The Bible states that God cannot lie. It is therefore obvious that the knowledge of evil was present before God created everything because He knew what a lie was. When God created everything this knowledge was imparted as a necessity for the sake of sanity. I say sanity because as I explained before, it will probably be impossible to understand or comprehend that which is good without knowing it's opposite i.e. that which is bad or evil.

I have wondered off the topic somewhat and will try to summarize the point I tried to make here. Proving a 50% likelihood that a good God cannot exist does not prove that NO God, good or bad, cannot exist. The argument therefore fails when used by an atheist because the atheist must show that NO God is able to exist.
vi_spex

Con

god has not been proven.. you dont need to disprove fairies.. obviusly they are just stories
Debate Round No. 2
kwagga_la

Pro

The evil/suffering argument is not used by believers to prove the existence of God. The evil/suffering argument is usually used by atheists to prove that God does not exist. In this argument I do not need to prove that God exist, only that this particular argument is insufficient to disprove God"s existence.

I want to also mention one other point here regarding suffering in particular. In order for suffering to be a valid reason to try and theorize that God cannot exist because of its presence, it must be proven that suffering is ALWAYS a bad thing. This is because atheists maintain a good or loving God would not want His creation to suffer. However, it is quite obvious that all suffering is not a bad thing. There is much suffering involved during childbirth but when the baby is born any loving parent will view the child as the greatest gift and joy possible to experience. The mother willingly endures the suffering. Should God make all women barren so that they do not have to endure the suffering? If He does, then would He not be a bad God instead of loving God? Taking away the suffering but also denying parents everywhere children? This is essentially an area the atheists usually avoid. How exactly is God to stop suffering? If God knows you will die today, must he take away your choice to get out of bed in the morning? Should God make you ill or forcibly prevent you from getting out of the house? Will this not make Him a type of Dictator instead of a loving God? The atheist alternative is not very logical reasoning from the premise that "if a loving God exists". I have heard many stories of people whose lives have been changed when they experienced suffering. Men who abused their children and spouses had a life changing experience when suffering was present that resulted in the man treating this family with the love and respect their families deserve instead of contempt. All suffering is not bad and it is therefore unreasonable to expect a good or loving God to deny the suffering and therefore prevent the good that could come about because of it. As a parent, how many times did you decide to leave your children to go in the direction they wanted to go so that they can learn a lesson because they did not want to heed your warnings or advise that there will be consequences to the path they are taking? How many times have you experienced suffering because you did not want to listen to a loving parent, friend or spouse? Either why way, you learned something. You either learned how to repeat your mistake or how to avoid it.

This subject touches on a comment that was made and I hope you won"t mind if I quickly address it. I spoke about a loving or good God. Some arguments refer to an ALL loving God. In the Christian religion and many others, God is never viewed or even called ALL loving. Reasoning against these religions trying to impose upon them a concept of an ALL loving God not claimed by them is unreasonable. I am also against an ALL Loving God. It is a logical contradiction. In order for God to establish order and sustain His creation He must be righteous. In fact, because He loves his creation He must of necessity be righteous. Love and righteousness goes hand in hand. Righteous in part means that order is upheld and those who go against this must be held accountable for the good of everyone else. This accountability may lead to various forms of suffering. When you teach your children, do you not reward them for the good and bad they do, or do you punish them for the bad they do? Why do you do this? Is it because you hate them? Of course not, you do it because you love them and want to teach them what is good and bad for them to avoid problems when they are older. If God is all loving then anyone can do whatever they want without any repercussions. For example: If someone raped your daughter and when caught commits suicide, how can we say justice was served? If the rapist goes to heaven, should God allow him in because He is ALL loving? Anyone with a hint of morality will say no, God should hold him accountable and not let him get away with it. Why? Because it is expected of God to be righteous and reward that person according to his works.
vi_spex

Con

you didnt prove god.. surely you have no clue if he is real, where are all these "facts" comming from?
Debate Round No. 3
kwagga_la

Pro

As mentioned earlier in the debate, the purpose of this debate is to show that the argument of evil/suffering is insufficient to disprove the existence of God. The default position is not, that since this particular argument fails to prove the non-existence of God, that God now automatically exists. It is also not required of me to prove the existence of God in order to show that the argument fails since this is a common ATHEISTIC objection to the existence of God. I will have to deviate from the current topic we are debating to answer your question how I know whether God is real or not. If you agree I can deviate and answer your question in the last round. But first I would like to know what proof you would find convincing in order to be persuaded that there is a God?
vi_spex

Con

okay i get it

but i think you havnt answred my question from round 1.
"well apparently in the bible its written god created everything.. clearly he made evil as everything hasnt stopped following his perfect plan?"
is evil not in gods plan? and if it is then god pretty much is the evil, and satan is god by fear..

if god was walking around mountain high and commanding us to do his bidding, i wouldnt disagree with you about gods existence.. i see god in that case
Debate Round No. 4
kwagga_la

Pro

I addressed your question in Round 2. I stated that God created evil so yes, it is therefore part of his "plan". The question I asked was how it is possible for God to have created evil and the explanation I gave dealt in part with your assertion that if God created evil then God must be evil. I stated evil is not materialistic and there is not an object or something observable that we can say, look here, this is evil. In this respect someone can be evil but not THE evil, God included. I will expand a bit on what I said before to try and answer your question again and try to prove that God is not necessarily evil just because he created or caused evil.

God is Holy and demands that those who want to be with Him must also be Holy. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask because from practical experience in this present world we can observe that people like to group together to form bonds or enjoy each other"s company etc. based on like-mindedness (although like-mindedness is not necessarily the only reason). If you want to join the group you must conform to the group"s requirements, if not, then the group will probably not allow you to join. God cannot demand of people to be Holy without telling them what is expected of them or what they must do to be Holy. Therefore God gave the law to serve as a School master to teach people what good and evil is so that they may know what to do, to be with God. When God said: "Thou shall not kill" the knowledge of evil was automatically imparted because now people had a choice to kill. When God said: "Thou shall not steal" the knowledge of evil was automatically imparted again.

I do not see the logic in asserting that if God created or caused evil that He must of necessity also be evil. Let me give you an example to first show that the arguments premise (God created evil) and conclusion (Therefore God is evil) is not very logical by using an analogy. Evil exists in this world at present. Let"s imagine for a moment there is no God. If God does not exist then evil must have been created or caused by something else because it is a present day reality. If you believe in evolution as the cause for everything then evolution caused evil. If evolution then caused evil then evolution must be evil. You might say that evolution is not a person or personal but that does not change anything. The premise is something caused evil (it can be God, evolution, or even a rock etc. depending on how far your imagination can stretch) and whatever caused evil must also be evil. Some say evolution is a science and not just a theory. If this is true should we therefore conclude that by association science is also evil? Of course not, and in the same way it is not logical to say God is evil because He created it. Scientific processes were used to create the Atom Bomb that was in turn used to kill many people. Depending on which side of the bombing you were, should we therefore conclude the scientists were all evil men who made the bomb? This particular atheistic argument has too many variable applications when applied to God and thus becomes contradictory in its conclusions. The contradictory conclusions question the validity of using this type of argument in order to prove something. For example: God created or caused evil, therefore God is evil contradicts God created or caused good, therefore God is good. Which one is correct? According to structure they are both supposedly valid arguments but according to logic they cannot both be true when used in the context of trying to label God.

Intention determines whether an action or some object will be regarded as good or evil. The action or object in itself is not necessarily good or evil. The same flower a Bee uses to make honey from is used by the Spider to make its poison. This is an important distinction to make in order to understand the nature of evil and to make sense of it all. For example, consider the following contrasts: Killing someone without any good reason is regarded as an evil act. Killing someone in self-defense is not regarded as an evil act. Using a gun to kill someone does not make the creator of the gun evil. Using the same gun for self-defense does not make the creator of the gun good either. Therefore God"s intent for creating evil will determine if He is evil or not. As stated in the Bible, the reason why God created evil was to warn and teach people and to give them the knowledge not only to live in peace with each other, but also to be able to have communion with God Himself. God is fair enough to promise rewards or punishment for those who choose one of the options thus warning them what the consequences of their decisions will be in advance. It is therefore not unreasonable of God to allow evil because it is a basic principle found in all societies all over the world that people get rewarded for doing good but punished for doing evil and people everywhere agree that it is fair. If someone raped your daughter and punishment is given, will you stand up in court and say: I do not agree that this man must be punished for raping my daughter? The knowledge of evil becomes a guide to enhance and complete our understanding in order to be properly informed when making decisions and to understand the consequences and implications of our decisions. God gives many admonitions in the Bible to warn us of the dangers evil presents to ourselves, society and future generations. How can it be said that God is evil if he created evil in order to inform and teach us so that we can know what is the best option to take when confronted by certain decisions? How can God be evil if He warns us about the danger of engaging in evil acts? He clearly has our best interest in mind. The examples mentioned should be enough to point out that to simply say God is evil due to an association with evil is unreasonable.

I also do not see the logic in your argument that if evil was a part of God"s plan that He then must be THE evil. As mentioned, evil is not confined to any ONE object or being. Evil is based on knowledge. Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness or understanding of someone or something " Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning - https://en.wikipedia.org.... God had a plan when He created the universe and when He was finished saw that everything was good. When he created Adam he warned Adam not to eat of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but Adam chose not to heed the warning. It does not make sense that an evil God, who created evil, will warn someone not to engage in evil. Therefore your conclusion that God must be evil contradicts the good intentions of God to provide man with the knowledge to overcome evil. Last but not the least, God can still exists even if he is evil and the creator of evil. I will state again that the evil/suffering argument is insufficient to disprove God"s existence because it cannot conclusively prove that an evil god is not responsible for evil and suffering in the world. Evil exists. Evil can therefore not be used to prove non-existence. By association god must exist because evil exists, if god is said to be evil.

Please see the comments section for my response about visible proof for God. I could not post everything here due to the character limitations.
vi_spex

Con

therfore god is evil.. bible disproved

evil is in gods plan, god sends people to hell for his sin.. his flawed plan or accurately evil plan..
Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
@Heirio again, it"s IRRELEVANT what you have to say. Address the premise of the argument; do not tell me what my argument should have been. My statement was a hypothesis to explain evil and suffering if God does not exist. This is now the second debate where you make comments not addressing the premise and thnow saying that I do not understand. I will say again to make sure my position is clear in this particular instance. My position in this particular instance was not an argument based on a hypothesis that if God exists but how to explain evil and suffering if He does not exist. Whether you will understand this is up to you.
Posted by Heirio 12 months ago
Heirio
"let me try again: One other question: if God does not exist, why blame Him for the suffering and evil in the world?"

If he created all, then he created tuberculosis, he created malaria, he created mosquitoes, and many other things that cause suffering to innocents.

"If God does not exist then there is obviously some other reason why suffering and evil exists and therefore God should not be blamed at all for it. A logical contradiction in atheistic reasoning."

But we're saying IF GOD DOES EXIST.
This is not a contradiction in atheistic reasoning. This is your failure to understand the argument.
Posted by vi_spex 12 months ago
vi_spex
most metals are solid.. like a bullet in my gun
Posted by vi_spex 12 months ago
vi_spex
obviusly god is not real, i dont blame the great black gold horned unicorn lord
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
let me try again: One other question: if God does not exist, why blame Him for the suffering and evil in the world? If God does not exist then there is obviously some other reason why suffering and evil exists and therefore God should not be blamed at all for it. A logical contradiction in atheistic reasoning.
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
One other question: if God does not exist, why blame Him for the suffering and evil in the world? If God does not exist then there is obviously some other reason why God exists and therefore God should not be blamed at all for it. A logical contradiction in atheistic reasoning.
Posted by vi_spex 12 months ago
vi_spex
logic is cause and effect

reality is now, only now is matter

the earth will stop rotating before the end of this day

truth is unchanging, truth can only be in the past

yesterday is truth unless you slept all the way through it, now is true
Posted by kwagga_la 12 months ago
kwagga_la
Transcendence is not an excuse. It's a reality. The laws of logic belong in the realm of transcendence. Truth is not dependent on the present like you try to claim. Truth will be true yesterday, today and tomorrow. The earth will still rotate tomorrow. The only thing that can prevent that is if there is some catastrophic event that changes all that. Nevertheless, if the catastrophic event do not take place then you are wrong about truth only being true now. In fact your today proves your whole argument wrong. Because today contain truth that you claim yesterday could not have been. The truth will be the same tomorrow as today if the earth survives.
Posted by vi_spex 12 months ago
vi_spex
truth can only be in the past, now is true
Posted by vi_spex 12 months ago
vi_spex
transendence is an easier excuse

lies are complicated by separation, and true is simple now as one
No votes have been placed for this debate.