Evil proves God does not exist [5]

4 Rounds
8,000 Character limit
72 Hours to respond
1 Month voting period

NO VIDEO LINKS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Round 4

Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFINITIONS

Definition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Statement & What this debate is about

The existence of evil has been used as a "proof" against Gods' non existence for a long time, by arguing the impossibility of God existing and evil existing.

According to wikipedia.... "In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism).[1][2] Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely"" [1]

It should be noted, that this debate is about the logical incompatibility of evil and God.

Is there an explicit contradiction between God existing and evil existing ?

What if I was to argue the following....

1) If rabbits exist then aliens from another world don't exist.
2) rabbits do exist.
3) Therefore aliens from another world don't exist.

Even if everyone agrees that rabbits exist, this argument doesn't work, because there is no explicit contradiction between rabbits existing and aliens from another world also existing.

Now consider this argument......

1) If evil exists then God does not exist.
2) evil does exist.
3) Therefore God does not exist.

Once again, this argument doesn't work, even if we all agree that evil exists, there is no explicit contradiction between evil existing and God existing.

As William Craig says when addressing the existence of evil and God.... "According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction.." [2]

Seeing Pro is the one arguing that evil proves God does not exist, I shall await their argument.

I look forward to Pros response.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Before we begin this debate, I think that it is important to clarify something up front. If i were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist.

Using God as the moral authority, we see that based on the 10 commandments, killing would be evil, and people kill. While i believe that this can be derived using a definition of evil that is not reliant on God, i do not feel that is necessary to this debate.

I do however have to say that the above can be a meaningless definition, so i will add the following restriction:
Evil is morally bad.

I thank Pro for their response.

"Pro says "Evil is morally bad." Granted.

Pro asks me "If i were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist."

So your going to grant me that God exists ?, don't I kinda win by default there ?

I will grant that evil and/or morally bad objectively exists if you grant that this means there is an objective moral standard.

Hopefully this sorts out any concerns.

Con has granted that if God exists, evil would exist.
I brought this point up only because of past experience with this debate.

By definition, god contains the following properties: Morally good, all powerful.
If any of his other properties were to contradict these he would be internally contradictory and not exist.
Therefore, if I can show how a being with those 2 properties was inconsistence with Evil existing, I would show that God is also.

I intend to argue by using a proof by contradiction.

1) Assume God does exist. | If this assumption leads to a contradiction, it is proven to be false
2) God is morally good.
3) Evil is morally bad.
4) It is morally good to remove evil, all other things being evil
5) Because God is omnipotent, he could remove evil without affecting anything else, even if it means micromanaging every particle in the universe.
6) Therefore all other things are equal.
7) It is morally good to remove evil.
8) As a morally good being, God would want to remove Evil
9) As a omnipotent being God would be able to remove evil.
10) God would remove Evil
11)There would be no evil
12) Evil exists | Because we are assuming God exists, con has granted that evil exists.
13) (11) and (12) are a contradiction
14) Therefore our initial assumption that God exists is false

As a side note, now that I have disproven God, I am no longer making a claim on the existence of evil.

I thank Pro for their reply.

Pro says "Con has granted that if God exists, evil would exist."

Let it be noted I did try to ward of Pro going down this "granting Gods existence" path, seeing he has still pursued it I shall accept his offer of granting Gods existence.

Definition of Granted = to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point. [1]

Pro says "If I were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist."

I grant that evil exists, as such Pro grants that God does exist.

Definition of Concede = to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit: He finally conceded that she was right. [2]

With Gods existence now conceded by Pro, The resolution that "Evil proves God does not exist" is negated.

Vote Con

Sources:

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

I think that my previous argument was less clear then it could have been. Con has granted the conditional that. If God exists, evil exists. I than proceeded to prove that if God exists, evil would not exist. This mean that if God were to exists than evil both would and would not exist. This means that my initial assumption that God exists must be false. I no longer need or care to have a stance on evil existing for this debate.

To clarify in the context of my argument. I grant that God does exist in point (1). I can than take the existence of evil as a given, which I stated in point (12). I than note that (11) and (12) are contradiction, and proceed to explain that our initial assumption must be false.

Consider this simpler proof by contradiction.
In order to better mirror the debate, I will include a hypothetical concession from 'Con' that, if 6=7, then the Pope and I are 2 different people. This is analogous to Con granting that: If God exists, then evil exists.
1) Assume 6=7
2) 6-5=7-5 | subtract 5 from both sides
3) 1=2 | simplify
4) The pope and I are 2 people. | Because we are assuming that 6=7, 'Con' has granted this to be true.
5) I am not the pope. | If I was the pope we would be the same person.
6) The pope and I are 1 person. | 1 and 2 are the same thing aren't they?
7) I am the pope | Otherwise we would be 2 people
8) We have a contradiction (5), (7)
9) Our initial assumption that 6=7 must be false.
At this point I no longer need or care to have a position on my being the pope.

My concession that God exists began at point (1), and ended at point (14)

Pro conceded that God exists.

Now Pro wants to take it back. Trouble is there was no condition stated that says Pro can take it back.

Remember Pro made an offer to me. I accepted that offer.

Pro says "If I were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist."

I grant that evil exists, as such Pro grants that God does exist.

Definition of Concede = to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit: He finally conceded that she was right.

With Gods existence now conceded by Pro, The resolution that "Evil proves God does not exist" is negated.

I suggest next time Pro just say they are assuming God exists to make an argument rather than making offers to their opponent.

Vote Con

Con has not refuted my arguments. Instead he argues that I actually forfeited the debate. This is not so. My exact wording is "If i were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist." You say that you grant evil exists, excelent, but I am not required to grant that God exists. That would be the case it it read "If you grant that evil exists, I will grant that God exists"

Having said that, even if I did concede that God exists, my argument still holds to prove that he does not exist, and we than have an internally contradicting universe. This would mean that I would have been incorrect in granting his existence in the first place. This is the same logic I used in my argument. I granted Gods existence in the scope of my argument. Based on pro's concession, within the argument I could then take evil as a given. I then showed showed how, within the scope of that argument, God does not exist. From outside of the sandbox I am able to say that my granting God's existence caused a contradiction, and was therefore incorrect.

Even if I did grant that God exists within the scope of the whole, my argument still works in using evil to show he does not exist. The only problem is that two contradictory things are true.

Consider the following situation:
Premise: Using math, I can prove 1+1=2 (Assuming the validity of algebra)
I grant that 1+1=3
1)1+1=3
2)0=0 (multiply both sides)
3)4=4
4) 2*2=4
5) 2+2=4 (definition of multiplication)
6) 1+1=2.
I have now proven 1+1=2, even though it contradicts something that is granted as being fact. In the sandbox 2=1+1=3, simmilary, in the actual sandbox, God exists, and God does not exist.

I than made the mistake of going further and explained that because this is impossible, I must have made a mistake, and the only questionable act was the assumption that God exists, therefore that was false. Basic proof by contradiction.

If anyone has a problem of me assuming algebra, I can prove 1+1=2, without. (However, if I am granting that 1+1=3, the proof would switch the order of the natural numbers to start 1,3..... so not the best example)