The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
M.Torres
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Evil proves God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
M.Torres
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 12,620 times Debate No: 13807
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

First time debating on this site, so thought I would start with a classic "the problem of evil"

My opponent will argue that "Evil proves God does not exist"

I will be arguing that the existence of evil does not prove Gods non existence

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

Pro

Thank you for providing a topic! I wish you luck in the debate.

Before I begin, I would wish to further define the definition of "God". This "God" being an Abrahamic God who has created our universe (prime mover); controls it absolutely (omnipotent); knows all that was, is, and will be (omniscient); cares for us (loving and personal); is a perfect, good God (absolutely moral); has created a heaven for those who are deserving and a hell for those who are not; and has given his creation, Man, absolute free will.

Now, right off the bat, we see contradictions with this God. They are as follows:

C1) God is all-powerful and is certainly capable of altering everything in the universe except man's own choices. However, suffering, death, and destruction still prevail outside man's choices despite the fact that God need not allow it to happen. Earthquakes kill millions, tornadoes destroy lives, floods drown countless victims. Why would God allow people to fall victim to these occurrences if he was all-powerful and good?

C2) God is perfect yet his universe is not. Why would he allow mankind to live in a world so conducive to destruction? Resources are scarce, and we are forced to compete for them to survive. Why are we forced to struggle for food and water IF our God is supposed to be "good"? If he cared for us, why not provide all that anyone needs for every being?

C3) Heaven is a creation of God that is perfect and without evil. Why not simply allow mankind to live in heaven from birth, than force him to suffer in order to find out if we're "worthy"? He does not. Therefore, God cannot be "all-good" if he would allow us to need to endure the pains of life. ALSO, if God is "all-knowing" why bother making humans deem themselves worthy of heaven if the outcome is known to him? Why not simply send those who are worthy to heaven, and those who aren't to hell? Oh right. Because if he sent them simply to hell, he'd be evil. Presents a problem doesn't it?

C4) If people go to hell based on their life choices, what if I began to kill children so they can be sure to go to Heaven? I call this the Infanticide problem. I oppose killing babies, mind you, because it is MORALLY wrong. Religiously, would it be wrong? In doing the act, the babies would be sent to heaven because they have not done any wrong. But would my act send me to hell or heaven? I have murdered, which is evil, so would I go to hell? I have sent people to heaven, to eternal happiness, so is that really an evil act? If God condemns me for sending people to heaven, there must be a significant flaw to his "rules".

In the end, these contradictions prove either: God is not all-powerful, therefore the described God does not exist; God is not caring, he could care less and allows people to suffer, therefore the described God does not exist; God cannot be good, he is evil and is sadistic by forcing us to suffer to determine "worthiness", therefore the described God does not exist; God does not know who will be worthy for heaven, and is not omniscient, therefore the described God does not exist; or all the above, and God does not exist.

Unless Con can show why each of these contradictions is not such, we can see this God we are analyzing cannot exist because contradictions do not exist. "A" is "A". "A" cannot be both "A" and "B" since "A" is not "B". God cannot be good and bad, because God is good. This extends for all his other criteria.

I now await for Con's response!
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

Thanks for accepting this debate, I just realized after you posted, I should of put something in their about if some one has a problems with the rules/definitions they should post in the comment section first so we can both agree, my fault I guess but what can I say I am new here

Obviously most of your further definitions are just re stating what I had laid out so I don't have a problem with those, but there are a few things I don't get in your definitions

This "God" being an Abrahamic God - ?????

controls it absolutely (omnipotent) - I reject that, on grounds you have mixed omnipotent (Gods ability/power) with Gods control or lack of control of something

has created a heaven for those who are deserving and a hell for those who are not - I might accept this, if you accept that heaven is also attainable for those who do not deserve it (eg grace, forgiveness etc)

Man, absolute free will - Sorry i have to reject that, I define free will as the capacity to choose good or evil

So unto the arguments, thanks for numbering them makes it easier to reference them

C1) "Why would God allow people to fall victim to these occurrences if he was all-powerful and good?" This isn't an argument for Gods non existence, at best this is an argument that we don't know why God allows something to happen

You ask why , well so do I, but the topic isn't why does God allow certain things to happen, the topic is evil proves Gods non existence.

What exactly is the argument for proving Gods non existence from C1) ? Please show a direct argument that proves Gods non existence, I am sure you have an idea in your mind what the direct argument is, but I am not going to speculate what that is, id rather let you make it.

C2) Is a bunch of questions, again there is no argument that evil proves Gods non existence here.

Why are we forced to struggle for food and water IF our God is supposed to be "good"? If he cared for us, why not provide all that anyone needs for every being?

This argument seems to be

1) We struggle to survive (which I agree)
2) God could make it so we don't struggle (which I might agree)
3) There fore God does not exist (I dont agree)

Is struggling evil ? if so, why do you say that, ? if struggling isn't evil then what is the objection ?

Again C2 ends with a question " If he cared for us, why not provide all that anyone needs for every being?"

Again, please make an argument for Gods non existence based on "evil" existing.

C3) Heaven is a creation of God that is perfect and without evil. Why not simply allow mankind to live in heaven from birth, than force him to suffer in order to find out if we're "worthy"?

More questions from C3, I might come back to this later.........

C4) If God condemns me for sending people to heaven, there must be a significant flaw to his "rules" you pretty much laid out the condemnation yourself, your not getting condemned for sending people to heaven its that baby killing in your example that is getting you condemned

In the next round I would ask my opponent to make a DIRECT argument of evil proving Gods not existence.......

I mean are asking questions after question really an argument ?

I remind my opponent the topic is Evil proves God does not exist and they are the PRO

Give me just 1 direct argument please thats all im asking

Whats a direct argument ill give you an example

1) My opponent presents questions of why doesn't God xyz as proof of Gods non existence
2) Asking questions of why God doesn't do something is not proof of Gods non existence
3) Therefore I am winning the debate in the evil does not prove Gods non existence debate
M.Torres

Pro

I congratulate my opponent on his response. I will now go over the claims from the debate:

On definitions - you state God is "all-powerful" but reject "omnipotence"? You have stated he is all powerful, thus he is omnipotent.

I reference heaven in that we both recognized God created a paradise to live in after this life. My opponent states heaven is attainable for those who do not deserve, so does that mean people unworthy of heaven don't go to hell, they go to heaven?

I agree with the definition that free will is the capacity of man to choose good or evil.

My opponent has referenced my questions, and my intent of my questioning was to draw further elaboration from my opponent. I will now directly address how my contentions point to the conclusion that the presence of evil proves God's non-existence:

1) God has created a universe that causes suffering independent of our free will. We do not will earthquakes to occur. Thus, they are results of God's creation. If God created a universe that causes death independent of our choice to inflict death, this means God is choosing death. Therefore, this either means God has chosen evil (which proves the God he have defined does not exist, i.e., God must be all good, not good and evil) or this universe was not created by any God.

2) The "best" possible universe would be one where all people have all the food they'll ever need, all the water they ever need, all the shelter they ever need, yet we live in a universe of scarce resources. We have defined God as "all-powerful" yet either it is out of his power to provide all we need (thus, the "all-powerful" God we defined does not exist) or he purposely chooses not to give us all we need because he is not "caring" or "good". This is because if he is "all-powerful" he is purposely choosing not to give mankind the "best" possible universe.

Now for my last argument, I will combine my original last contentions since they essentially deal with the same issue.

3) The "perfect" universe God denies however actually does exist. It is called "heaven". Yet we are forced to suffer in a life before we can go to heaven. Why? Well, if it certainly is within God's "all-power" to grant us the paradise from birth, then why doesn't he? Either because he is not the "good" God we have defined, or that God does not exist, period. If a child is murdered shortly after birth, without exercising any free will (choosing good or evil), then he must go to heaven. But what about the murderer? He gave that child paradise, which is good, but he will be condemned by God's command to not commit murder. What I'm trying to say is either God should just hand us all paradise right away since it would be the most "caring" thing he could do, or he is not caring and only gives heaven to those "who deserve it" as deemed by himself.

In conclusion, man may choose good or evil. But the presence of evil is apparent outside of our own choices. Therefore, either God does not exist because he is not consistent with our definition of him, or God does not exist, period. My opponent wants direct arguments, so I will review them as following:

C1:
A -> God is good.
B -> God has created a universe that destroys people's lives and causes pain for no reason.
C -> Pain and death without reason is evil.
Therefore, God is evil because he has caused "C" through "B". "A" cannot be true. If "A" is not true, God does not exist.

C2:
A -> God is all-powerful.
B -> Not all people have all the food, water, or shelter they need.
C -> It is within God's power to provide these to all people due to "A".
Therefore, God should provide these because he can. He doesn't. Therefore, "A" is not true. If "A" is not true, God does not exist. ALSO, if God should provide all people with these goods then he is creating the most good, for the most people. He does not. Therefore, once again, C1 is true and God does not exist.

C3+C4:
A -> Heaven is paradise.
B -> God would be providing everyone perfect happiness by giving us heaven before life.
C -> God does not give us heaven before life.
Therefore, "B" shows us that God does not provide maximum happiness to all people because of "C". If he does not, it is not the "good" choice, and therefore God is not absolutely good. If he is not, as I showed in C1 he does not exist.

I hope this straightens up my claims. "Evil" is "morally objectionable behavior". God does not exhibit the highest moral actions, and because he does not, his actions are morally objectionable. Thus, due to "evil", God cannot exist because God IS the highest moral entity.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

I am not going to respond to every single claim my opponent has made, but I try to address the fundamental issues

My opponents arguments pretty much can all be summarized and interchanged into the following arguments

1) God and evil existing are mutually exclusive
2) Evil exists
3) Therefore God does not exist

1) God and an imperfect world are mutually exclusive
2) An imperfect world exists
3) Therefore God does not exist

1) If God existed God would commit action X
2) God has not committed action X
3) Therefore God does not exist

Pro Says "A -> God is good.
B -> God has created a universe that destroys people's lives and causes pain for no reason.
C -> Pain and death without reason is evil.
Therefore, God is evil because he has caused "C" through "B". "A" cannot be true. If "A" is not true, God does not exist.

I accept premise A and C, but reject premise B and the conclusion of this argument and I will explain why

1) God is good
2) God creates the universe/a world
3) God creates a universe/world where evil can exist (Notice I didn't say God creates the evil, God creates the possibility for evil existing)
4) Therefore evil exists

Pro says "God has created a universe that causes suffering independent of our free will. We do not will earthquakes to occur. Thus, they are results of God's creation. If God created a universe that causes death independent of our choice to inflict death"

I find this interesting, Pro is arguing that "evil" should only exist in the context of "chosen" evil. But you see Pro that isn't evil at all, that's justice, which is good. What makes evil so evil, is that it doesn't weight the scales of justice properly, it rewards the guilty, punishes the innocent, what makes evil so evil is just as you said.....

"C -> Pain and death without reason is evil."

In a world where evil is allowed to exist, pain and death without reason will exist, since that's the nature and description of evil.

Therefore

1) God is good
2) God creates the universe/a world
3) God creates a universe/world where evil can exist
4) Therefore evil exists

I would also make the point, that your arguments of Gods non existence is based on evil, both evil existing in the world and God committing acts of evil.

Pro says C2:
A -> God is all-powerful.
B -> Not all people have all the food, water, or shelter they need.
C -> It is within God's power to provide these to all people due to "A".
Therefore, God should provide these because he can. He doesn't. Therefore, "A" is not true. If "A" is not true, God does not exist. ALSO, if God should provide all people with these goods then he is creating the most good, for the most people. He does not. Therefore, once again, C1 is true and God does not exist."

In this case, he claims that God has not fulfilled some moral duty "Not all people have all the food, water, or shelter they need." therefore if he has the power is not the good God described

But notice without the "moral duty" this argument falls apart, on what basis does Pro claim God has a moral duty ?

Clearly Pro must assume that morality exists, and not only that, it must be an objective morality, an objective morality that is alleged that God has not met, and is there fore evil.

It must be an objective morality, cause if Pro argues that the existence of evil either in the world or by God is subjective (that is to say what ever you think is morally right or wrong, is morally right or wrong) then all Pro has to do is believe everything is morally right, then evil ceases to exist, and without evils' existence the whole arguments for evil existence and Gods existence being mutual exclusive fall apart.

Therefore as I said, Pro must be arguing that evil exists from an objective morality view. But what is the basis of this objective morality that Pro assumes ?

I would argue that the basis of this objective morality would have to be found in something uncaused and morally good. These descriptions/properties are the same as found in God

My argument is as follows

1) Objective morals can only exist if God exists
2) Objective morals do exist
3) Therefore God exists

Both the free will defense, the explanation and nature of evil, and the proving of objective morality refute my opponents claim that "evil proves God does not exist"

I look forward to Pros' reply
M.Torres

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, but his accusations of my own claims are false. He has completely distorted my arguments. He says:

1) God and evil existing are mutually exclusive
2) Evil exists
3) Therefore God does not exist

My line of logic is that God created this universe. He has created a universe that can result in evil. If he chooses the capacity of evil, he is choosing evil JUST as creating the capacity of good is creating good. God is infinitely good, so he should not create any course that results in evil. If he creates a course that results in good, he is creating a chain of acts that is good; if he creates a course that results in evil, he is creating a chain of acts that is evil. My opponent states he does both simultaneously by allowing the capacity of both. But an infinitely good God, by nature, could not do both; he would only create a good course.

Thus:
A -> In order for God to exist, he must be consistent with his nature.
B1 -> God's nature is infinitely good. (My opponent ignored this.)
B2 -> An infinitely good agent can only commit good because he is infinitely good.
C -> God allows evil to happen. (My opponent concedes this.)
C refutes B1 because B2.
If B1 is false, God cannot exist due to A.

Next:

1) God and an imperfect world are mutually exclusive
2) An imperfect world exists
3) Therefore God does not exist

I never drew "3" from these conclusions. I stated God created a world that causes earthquakes, floods, disease, INDEPENDENT OF OUR FREE WILL TO CHOOSE WHETHER THESE EVENTS WILL HAPPEN. Therefore, the death caused by these events is not of our free will. Death caused by these natural events, therefore, are for no moral reason, and are therefore evil. Thus, God has created a universe that causes death for no compelling moral reason. Therefore, he has committed an evil act by creating a universe with evil results. He cannot be "evil" because he is God, therefore, God does not exist. (I showed this above.)

Just a reminder:

My opponent also states that "evil" is not evil if its chosen; then its justice. So God creating a universe that can flood an entire city and kill thousands is "justice"? No. My opponent agrees "pain and death without reason is evil". I have shown God has CHOSEN to create the capacity for the world to kill thousands through natural disasters. Thus God has chosen to allow death without reason to exist. This is God CHOOSING to allow "pain and death without reason." My opponent tried to disprove point B of my previous Contention 2, but he failed because Con acknowledges that God HAS created a universe that does so. One of the results of this universe is B. B is true. And if B is true, A is true because of C, both points my opponent agreed with.

Contention 2 (which I will reword so my opponent is not mistaken on my intentions):
A -> God's nature is infinite good.
B -> God has created a universe that destroys people's lives and causes pain for no reason. (Again, if it's possible, it has been committed. My opponent states, "God creates a universe/world where evil can exist". Evil has happened through God's allowance. Thus B is self-evident.)
C -> Pain and death without reason is evil.
Therefore, God is evil because he has caused "C" through "B". "A" cannot be true. If "A" is not true, God does not exist. (Because God must be consistent with his nature.)

Now:

1) If God existed God would commit action X
2) God has not committed action X
3) Therefore God does not exist

Action "X" being the ideal perfect life. Certainly everyone can say how their life can be better. It is assumed that "heaven" is better than life, so that means our current lives are not perfect. If God is all-powerful, he can give us the perfect life without cost. He has not given us the perfect life, without cost. Therefore, he is not all-powerful. So this all-powerful God doesn't exist. OR God purposely chooses not to give us perfect life without cost. My question to my opponent is why would he do this? I simply request an answer.

ALSO I agree there are objective morals. There are good acts and evil acts. My opponent asks if God has a moral duty, and I state yes. God, being infinitely good, must be the highest moral agent in existence. Therefore, ANY evil act committed by God compromises his nature. He would not exist. I have shown, more than once above, why allowing evil is evil WHEN you have the power to abolish all evil. The perfect, infinitely good moral agent would abolish evil since his NATURE must oppose evil. God has not; Con agrees he creates the capacity for evil independent of individual choice. Therefore, his act of creating has created a world where all evil acts that occur outside of human choice have been allowed. He is allowing evil. He cannot do this IF he is God.

Finally:

1) Objective morals can only exist if God exists
2) Objective morals do exist
3) Therefore God exists

I reject this point. I believe God has free will himself. He must, since he has the capacity to choose courses of action. He CHOSE to create the universe. He CHOSE to allow evil. Thus, God has to choose between good or evil. If he must choose good or evil, then morals exist independent of God. As my opponent stated: "Notice I didn't say God creates the evil, God creates the possibility for evil existing." Therefore, my opponent is hesitant to concede God created evil. This is because if he created evil, he has committed an evil act (I'm sure my opponent knows this).Thus, God would not be consistent with his nature and would not exist. In fact, because Con won't say God creates evil, Con refutes point 1 above because how else would evil exist? It would have to exist independent of God. Thus, his logic fails. Keep in mind also that even when we agree that evil exists independent of God, then my points are proven undoubtedly and God is not consistent with his nature. Thus he does not exist.

And with that, I wait for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro says "My line of logic is that God created this universe. He has created a universe that can result in evil. If he chooses the capacity of evil, he is choosing evil JUST as creating the capacity of good is creating good. God is infinitely good, so he should not create any course that results in evil."

This is clearly unfair, this morality states that if God does something good, but that good then results in evil, then that means God is morally accountable.

To illustrate this point, and my refutation of Pros' argument, If person X, was to build a car, then sell car to person Y. then person Y sells car to Person Z. Then person z drives car and runs people over. According to my opponents reasoning person X would be responsible for the people getting run over. This type of moral reasoning should be rejected.

Pro again says "I stated God created a world that causes earthquakes, floods, disease, INDEPENDENT OF OUR FREE WILL TO CHOOSE WHETHER THESE EVENTS WILL HAPPEN"

I don't object to this. And as I said before, your arguing that "evil" should operate more nicely and fairly. I refuted this before as evil by nature and description doesn't act fair.

PRO says "Thus God has chosen to allow death without reason to exist.", I refuted this that free will (capacity to choose good and evil) given to moral agents allows for evils existence.

Pro says "If God is all-powerful, he can give us the perfect life without cost." and I will demonstrate why this claim is false

I'am assuming that Pro is arguing a perfect world is one where there is no "evil". Trouble is it comes at a cost, the cost being that their is no free will (the capacity to choose and do evil) given to any anything or anyone, that restriction is a "cost". This refutes Pro argument about there being no cost.

Pro says "ALSO I agree there are objective morals. There are good acts and evil acts. My opponent asks if God has a moral duty, and I state yes. God, being infinitely good, must be the highest moral agent in existence"

I would claim that God is the objective standard. In order to be the standard of good, the standard its self has to be good. If you object to this, since you agree that objectivity morality exists, then what is the source/standard of objective morality?

My argument was

1) Objective morals only exist if God exists
2) Objective morals do exist (pro concedes this point)
3) Therefore God exists

Evil existing is the cost of free will existing.
Evil existing by nature and description doesn't restrict its self to existing only with the confines of human choice.

The exercise of free will by moral agents is a sufficient moral reason for the allowance of "evil"

Thus the existence of evil does not prove Gods non existence.
M.Torres

Pro

I appreciate Cons's response to my proofs. However, my points still stand.

First, Con argues that it's "unfair" to say God commits evil by committing the chain of events that result in evil. He asserts this by stating if someone did something evil, unknowingly (like the car example), that they can't be blamed for that moral wrong. However, God, as defined, is "all-knowing". Therefore, to be consistent with his nature he would KNOW that the events will end up in evil. If the person who made and sold the car KNEW that it would result in death, then yes. That action is evil. Therefore, either Con agrees God does in fact commit chains of actions that result in evil,(making him non-existent because he must be infinitely good) or God does not know the evil will occur (meaning he is not "all-knowing" and thus cannot exist). Because once again, God must be consistent with his given nature in order to exist.

My opponent claims he refutes natural evil by stating that "evil by nature and description doesn't act fair". Certainly it doesn't. But if there is a "God" that controls "nature" then all evil that "is not fair" should not exist. Because if God knew that his creation would result in deaths, (see above), then he is committing evil because he is all-powerful and could prevent the deaths. Once again, all parameters of God must be present for him to exist. But although I will agree free will includes our ability to choose good or evil, my opponent agrees nature is evil. Human free will does not control nature; God would control nature and if nature is evil, then God is committing evil. Therefore, he cannot exist.

My opponent states he refutes my claim, "God has chosen to allow death without reason to exist" and by asserting free will. Again, I am talking about natural evil like earthquakes, tornadoes, floods and the like. NONE of these are a result of our free will. My claim stands (see above) that God does not exist because he allows natural evil to happen.

My opponent also states that a world without evil cannot exist because there is not free will. I ask my opponent to answer the following:
Does that mean there is no free will in heaven, where evil does not exist? Do we suddenly lose our "inherent right" for being awarded paradise, or do free will and evil have to come hand-in-hand?
Also, if we stop a man from murder, is that wrong because we stopped his free will? Does free will automatically mean moral? Going back to my first argument, does that mean if God's earthquakes kill thousands, it's justified because God exercised his free will?

The cost would not be our free will; an all-powerful God is capable of giving us free will and infinite good; or is heaven just a paradise that we become enslaved in? I am under the impression heaven DOES contain no evil AND free will, therefore such a world without evil that still has free will CAN exist. Or does my opponent believe heaven is not this way? In the end, God SHOULD give us Heaven, rather than force us to suffer in life. Or does it (and God) simply not exist? I go with the latter, because there is sufficient evidence to show they do not (again, see ALL the above).

Lastly, my opponent claims God must exist if objective morals exist, because without him there is no moral standard for morality. However if the God we have learned of WAS the objective standard, he would be an incorrect one. He is simply "not the moral standard" and since God SHOULD be, he doesn't exist.

Objective morals CAN exist without God. Plenty of philosophers have many objective goals in life; hedonists believe pleasure to be our moral standard; utilitarians believe societal good to be the moral standard; objectivists believe life to be the moral standard. All moral standards that exist without a "God". We do not need to determine which IS the moral standard, I am just presenting ample evidence that God does not have to be the moral standard. Because once again, an "all-knowing", "all-powerful", "infinitely good" God would not kill through natural events like I have shown. Either Con agrees he is not one of the aforementioned traits (making him not exist), or simply, he does NOT exist.

My other huge problem with Con's argument is that he still has not made it clear whether good and evil is made by God, or if good and evil exists independent of God. If good and evil is created by God, then God is the reason for all good, but ALSO all evil (making God not infinitely good). If good and evil exists independent of God, then automatically, morals are objective without the need for God's existence (which I assert). Can you state your stance on this question?

In conclusion, I have shown the following:

God allows evil that is not our choice to happen, making him not infinitely good. He does not exist.
God also knows that what he does (making an earth that results in natural disasters) will result in death (because he is all-knowing) but allows it to happen anyway. Because he would not be restricting our free will by removing natural disasters, he is committing evil for allowing this to happen. This cannot be since God must be infinitely good. Therefore, God does not exist.

Either heaven doesn't exist , or heaven is a paradise in which we become enslaved (because a world with free will can only exist with evil, according to Con). If heaven doesn't exist, it's creator could not exist because Heaven has to be created by God. Or, God removes our will after death, making him inconsistent with his nature (which includes giving man free will). Either way, God is shown not to exist.

Objective morals CAN exist independent of God. If a man never knew of "God", does that mean he cannot commit a single good act? My opponent can agree with this, meaning objective morals exist without God, or disagree, which is false (I'll explain if he dissents).

These points refute my opponent's arguments. Therefore, I have shown why evil proves God does not exist.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Con

Well here is the final round, I got alot to get through, once again I am not going to try and address every single point Pro raises but try and address the fundamental issues.

Firstly that car example and the God free will argument, doesn't state that God commits the entire chain of events.

Pro argues "Therefore, to be consistent with his nature he would KNOW that the events will end up in evil. If the person who made and sold the car KNEW that it would result in death, then yes. That action is evil"

I don't object to the claim of Gods knowledge, but your objection seems to be, oh God allowed some sort of free will decision, knowing that this would start a chain of events resulting in evil therefore God act is evil. The simple question is, what exactly did God do wrong ?, God gave capacity of free will, evil results and runs a muck.

Pro claims "NONE of these are a result of our free will. My claim stands (see above) that God does not exist because he allows natural evil to happen"

In case it wasn't obvious I was arguing that once evil exists by free moral choice, evil doesn't restrict its self to human moral choice, since its evil, that what evil does, and thus natural evil occurs. That's my defense of natural evil existing.

Pro says "My opponent also states that a world without evil cannot exist because there is not free will. I ask my opponent to answer the following:"

I did not, I was refuting your claim that heaven can be given straight away without cost.

Pro goes on to ask a series of questions, I am not required to answer those, the resolution is "evil proves God does not exist" not ask your opponent 101 questions and if they can't answer them that must prove you right by default.

Pro says "Objective morals CAN exist without God. Plenty of philosophers have many objective goals in life;". This is a misunderstanding of what objectivity morality means. Objective morality does NOT equate to people coming up with their own goals in life. Objective morality means things are morally right or morally wrong cause there is an objective standard that exists independently.

Pro says "All moral standards that exist without a "God". We do not need to determine which IS the moral standard, I am just presenting ample evidence that God does not have to be the moral standard"

This is a straw man, I never said there can't be morality without Gods existence, I only argued that objective morals don't exist unless God exists, and without an objective standard all morality is relative and thus no behavior is objectively wrong or right.

Pro says "Therefore, I have shown why evil proves God does not exist"

Seeing my opponent can't concede that God is the objective standard, I asked Pro before what is the objective standard that Pro uses that shows that God has committed objective evil acts, and therefore does not exist as defined.

If there is no objective standard of morality, then its impossible for anything even God to commit an objective evil, and if God can't commit an objective evil, then what exactly is the argument.

Previously Pro had said " My opponent asks if God has a moral duty, and I state yes. God, being infinitely good, must be the highest moral agent in existence"

But the question wasn't if God is the highest moral agent in existence, the question was if God has a moral duty. And I add further to this, what is the thing that gives God this moral duty that you claim that God has transgressed ?

My opponent has not showed an objective morality existing outside of God, therefore their case against God on objective moral grounds fails.

1) Objective morals only exist if God
2) Objective morals do exist
3) Therefore God exists

Without an objective standard to charge God with committing objective evils, the case against God comes down to a form of emotivism.

1) Things happen that I really really don't like, things that even horrify me
2) If God existed, things that I really really don't like, things that even horrify me would not happen
3) Therefore God does not exist

I don't want to down play the emotional impact of the various horrors that exist in this world, and acknowledge their is only so much the human psyche can take, but an emotional argument is just that, emotional. An emotional argument is not a logical proof.

Pro has not proved that Evil existing proves that God does not exist.

Vote Con

I thank my opponent for participating in this debate.
M.Torres

Pro

I thank my opponent for providing an excellent debate. It's been only my second debate on DDO, and I am grateful for the discussion.

In conclusion, I will show how once again my opponent has distorted arguments and logic present, and that his claims are false.

This has come to a matter of one thing: to exist, God must be consistent with his nature; evil shows inconsistencies in God's supposed nature; therefore, God cannot exist.

Con brings up the metaphorical car situation once again. My opponent relates this as follows: "your objection seems to be, oh God allowed some sort of free will decision, knowing that this would start a chain of events resulting in evil therefore God act is evil," and asks what did God do wrong? Con is mistaken. God didn't allow a free will decision:

> God created an Earth, and all its attributes.
> God is aware of all end results of his actions (above) because he is all-knowing (his nature).
> An attribute of Earth is natural disasters.
> Natural disasters result in death.
> God knows death will occur from creating an Earth with natural disasters, therefore he is allowing death to happen.

Now, to tie this together... My opponent justifies evil as necessary to free will. I fail to see how creating natural disasters relates to our free will. We do not will them to happen. Therefore, God created evil (by his actions resulting in natural disasters) that causes death. God is committing murder (intentional killing of human beings) because he knows death is the end result, and this is evil. This means God is not "infinitely good". He's not consistent with his nature, thus he does not exist due to his actions of evil.

Next, Con says: "In case it wasn't obvious I was arguing that once evil exists by free moral choice, evil doesn't restrict its self to human moral choice, since its evil, that what evil does, and thus natural evil occurs. That's my defense of natural evil existing." Why does evil not restrict itself to human choice? God could allow evil to exist as SOLELY the immoral actions of humans (and if my opponent would have it, immoral being actions God would not commit). But God DOES commit evil. Independent of our will. Did my opponent miss that God does not NEED to allow death by natural disasters? God could stop this act of evil, without affecting our free will, but he does not. My opponent is incorrect in assessment and conclusion. God handing us free will does not necessitate murder through natural disasters on the part of God. It still stands that God is not "infinitely good" if he allows natural evils, because stopping them do not interfere with free will, therefore, God cannot exist. He is not consistent with his nature.

Moving on, my opponent states he refuted my claim that heaven can be handed straight away without cost with the following logic: if there is no evil, we have no free will. But he does not stand against my claim that there is no free will in heaven (he failed to answer my questions, more on that following). So, if we got heaven straight away before life, we would not lose free will. In heaven, free will exists without evil, thus my opponent is incorrect in his refutation. My point stands that God is forcing us to suffer pain through life when heaven could be given first. This is not "infinitely good". God is inconsistent and cannot exist.

My opponent skips my questions: "I am not required to answer those, the resolution is "evil proves God does not exist" not ask your opponent 101 questions and if they can't answer them that must prove you right by default."

But why skip them? By not opposing my claims (not answering them) or showing they are false, the following stands:
Free will is available without evil in Heaven. I asked if we lose free will in heaven, my opponent did not disagree with this. Thus, my opponent is wrong about "free will's cost being evil" (as shown above).
Free will does not equal moral; and if God kills thousands because of the natural disasters he causes, it is NOT justified. I asked if it was justified, and opponent offered no answer; thus I assert it is not (as shown above).

Con continues that objective morals without God cannot exist. This is wrong. I believe my opponent is mistaken on objective morality. Francois Tremblay, an Objectivist atheist, states: "The basis of ethics (morals) is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly." Much like we "discover" scientific truths, we "discover" right and wrong through reason (Tremblay says reason is our tool to rule obj. morals). [1]

This also serves to show that objective morals do not need God. Reason is our guiding principle to morality, not an entity only prophets can hear. My opponent says: I never said there can't be morality without Gods existence, I only argued that objective morals don't exist unless God exists..." Con, our capacity to reason allows us to examine actions in context, and decide if the consequences are consistent with the actions. Values are derived from our reality, and our values determine actions. Thus, the basis of obj. morality is reality. [1] This is the standard. Not God. If God DID exist, he SHOULD act according to reality. His reality being God is "infinitely good"; but his evil acts show God doesn't act according to reality. Thus, he cannot exist.

God is not needed because obj. morals come from reason. God commits acts that cause evils we do not choose, thus disregarding "evil only existing as a cost of free will"; God keeps Heaven, a "perfect world without evil", from us by making us suffer through pain and his acts of evil in life; God should be consistent with his own reality, his own nature of "infinite good" but the evil he causes compromises this; so, God cannot exist.

God's inconsistencies stand; God's necessity fails; so vote Con.

1. http://www.strongatheism.net...
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
Sorry, after re-reading my post i realize i did a horrible job writing it. What i meant to say was along the lines of:
If God is defined as all good and all powerful.
Then God's existence is mutually exclusive of anything not good existing, because he would have the power and desire to remove from existence anything that is not good.
If however God does not exist,
Then the above statement says nothing about the presence of good and/or evil.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Evil is possible, you just need to watch the news to find that evil exists. You cannot blame God for your own actions. I can physically kill someone if I wanted. Where does the Christian God come in to that? God never tells people to kill others, and God never says not to either in most cases. Evil exists because God exists. That is not saying God is evil, it is saying we are evil and God is not."

What about earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and landslides? Or a bridge collapse?
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
I haven't read the debate, but I'm going by the title of the debate.
Posted by M.Torres 6 years ago
M.Torres
GodSands - Did you read the debate? Your question is answered there in my case.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Evil is possible, you just need to watch the news to find that evil exists. You cannot blame God for your own actions. I can physically kill someone if I wanted. Where does the Christian God come in to that? God never tells people to kill others, and God never says not to either in most cases. Evil exists because God exists. That is not saying God is evil, it is saying we are evil and God is not.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
What? Do you mind explaining that again?
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
No, the idea is that God is mutually exclusive of evil, ie if God exists evil will be possible. There is no reason to believe good is mutually exclusive of no God.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
And good proves God does exist!!?
Posted by RDRitchey14 6 years ago
RDRitchey14
This con needs to be a real christian who knows the bible! all evil is allowed to make you need god. and ts about love.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
~Epicurus

Evil doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
But it does help prove that humans created God.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
IllegalcombatantM.TorresTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
IllegalcombatantM.TorresTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
IllegalcombatantM.TorresTied
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 cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
IllegalcombatantM.TorresTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 6 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
IllegalcombatantM.TorresTied
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 adamhami19 6 years ago
adamhami19
IllegalcombatantM.TorresTied
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 Cunit0814 6 years ago
Cunit0814
IllegalcombatantM.TorresTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11