The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Grape
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

Evil proves God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 9 votes the winner is...
Grape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,872 times Debate No: 14204
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

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

Opening Statement..........

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.

This argument can be summarized as...........

1) Evil can only exist if God does not exist
2) Evil does exist
3) Therefore God does not exist

But why accept the mutual exclusivity of the first premise ?

In the absence of proving this mutually exclusivity, at the very least God existing and evil existing is shown to be possible.

My counter argument for now is......

1) God existing and evil existing has not be shown to be mutually exclusive.
2) Therefore its possible that God exists even if evil exists.
3) Therefore the claim that "Evil proves Gods' non existence" is false.

Seeing my opponent is the one arguing for Gods non existence based on evil existing I will leave it to them to make this argument in the affirmative.
Grape

Pro

Introduction: Thanks to my opponent and I wish him the best of luck in this debate. The argument that he has presented is known as the problem of evil, one of the most widely used arguments against the existence of the God of Theism. It is my goal to demonstrate in this debate that based on the problem of evil, we should reasonably conclude that the God of Theism does not exist. I think my opponent's proposed resolution, "Evil proves God does not exist" is a bit of an oversimplification when taken at face value, but I think that we all understand what is meant.

Grape's Presentation of the Problem of Evil:
1. Evil exists.
2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist.
3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist.

For the purpose of this debate, I will define evil as an act or situation that causes the excessive and unnecessary suffering of conscious beings. My opponent has claimed not to dispute the existence of evil, and the examples of its existence are incredibly numerous in any case.

My justification of the second point is based off my opponent's definition of God. God is morally good, all powerful, and all knowing. He therefore is aware of every instance of evil, has the power the stop it, and has the desire to stop it. In that case, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any evil or suffering in the world.

I think this reasoning is sufficient to disprove the first claim of my opponent's argument "God existing and evil existing [sic] has not been shown to be mutually exclusive." The existence of God and the existence of evil are mutually exclusive.

Conclusion: I am going to end my argument here for now because I am not sure how to proceed. I have given an adequate reason to accept the first premise of my argument and my opponent has already conceded the second premise, so my conclusion stands. Unfortunately I have no sources now because I have said virtually nothing worthy of citation.

Also, I think it would have been better to start this debate as Con because I am the one trying to uphold the resolution. I would prefer not to confuse voters.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.

"My justification of the second point is based off my opponent's definition of God. God is morally good, all powerful, and all knowing. He therefore is aware of every instance of evil, has the power the stop it, and has the desire to stop it. In that case, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any evil or suffering in the world"

My opponent ASSUMES that God has the desire to stop evil. I question this assumption.

If it is possible for God to have a reason/s for allowing evils existence, then this argument is shown false.

This raises the question, is there any reason that evil could exist ? I shall give some possible justifications for Gods allowing evil.

Justification 1)

A world where evil exists is necessary for the exercise of free will

In a world where no evil exists, due to Gods enforcement, it would be argued that Gods way is done, cause its the ONLY way. The allowance of evil allows an alternative choice to Gods way, and thus this accusation of Gods way being done out of non choice can not be made against God.

To reinforce my point lets look at 2 worlds.....

World 1) No capacity to do evil is given, thus evil does not exist

World 2) Capacity to do evil is given, thus evil exists

Pro claim is that God has no reason what so ever to create/allow world 2 over world 1. I claim that free will is a reason for world 2.

If there is even 1 possible reason for God allowing evil, this shows Pro claims of "In that case, there is absolutely no reason why there should be any evil or suffering in the world." false, and thus the claim that evil proves that God does not exist as false.

Unto my 2nd argument.........

Pro says "For the purpose of this debate, I will define evil as an act or situation that causes the excessive and unnecessary suffering of conscious beings"

Pro regards unnecessary suffering as evil. But no what basis does he make this claim ? Is unnecessary suffering evil just because you don't like it, or is their an independent moral standard that says unnecessary suffering is evil ?

I look forward to Pro reply.
Grape

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his quick reply. I think all of his objections to my argument can easily be answered.

I do not believe that I am wrong in assuming that God has the desire to prevent evil from occurring. A morally good being should, by definition, desire to prevent evil. If he chooses to prioritize some other goal over the prevention of evil, then he is not morally good.

Answer to my Opponent's First Counterargument:
My opponent has contended that the existence of evil is necessary for the existence of free will. However, I see no reason why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God has any need for the existence of free will. If he desires the well being of conscious beings (and if he is morally good, he does) why should he allow them to make choices that compromise this interest? If God is all powerful, all knowing, and has our best interests in mind, then why should he allow anyone to go against His way, as my opponent puts it? There is no justification for this. There is no reason why the God described by my opponent in Round 1 should see free will as an end unto itself.

If I may directly answer my opponent's question of the two worlds: God would unequivocally choose World 1 because he does not wish for evil to exist. Why is creating the capacity for evil at all in his interest if he is morally good? It is counterintuitive to create a world with the potential for evil if you do not desire for evil to exist. I suspect that an omniscient God would be a little more rational than that. There is indeed no reason whatsoever why God would choose to create World 2, yet World 2 is clearly the one we live in. If Con believes that there is such a reason, he should propose it.

Answer to My Opponent's Second Counterargument:
I am not sure whether my opponent is disputing my definition of evil or simply my reason for positing it. Unless he would like to offer an alternative definition, I see no reason why to go into a lengthy philosophical exposition that no one will want to read. If excessive and unnecessary suffering is not evil then I do not understand what evil is. Since we have both agreed that evil exists, my opponent must pose his own definition of evil if he does not accept mine.

Indeed, it seems irrelevant what the definition of evil is because we are certain that it exists and we are only discussing whether or not God would allow it.

Simply pointing out that my claims make some assumptions does not constitute an argument unless there is some suggestion of why those assumptions are wrong or some counterexamples based on better assumptions is provided.

Conclusion: A morally perfect being does not prioritize any other interests over the well being of conscious beings. To do so would be directly contradictory to the definition of morality. Arguing that God would allow evil because it is necessary for free will does not make sense based on Con's own definition of God. There is nothing in it that suggests that free will is important to Him, so to suggest this reason seems rather random. Therefore, there is still no reason to assume that God would allow for evil to exist, and the argument from evil succeeds.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I gave a clear reason why evil was allowed, Pro was not able to refute that.

Pro says "A morally good being should, by definition, desire to prevent evil. If he chooses to prioritize some other goal over the prevention of evil, then he is not morally good."

There is no argument here only an assertion that about what should and shouldn't be a priority.

"If God is all powerful, all knowing, and has our best interests in mind, then why should he allow anyone to go against His way, as my opponent puts it There is no justification for this?"

I clearly gave a reason in my previous argument, which you have not refuted.

Pro says "It is counterintuitive to create a world with the potential for evil if you do not desire for evil to exist."

Its counterintuitive to create a world where evil can't be chosen and exist if you want free will to exist.

Pro says "There is indeed no reason whatsoever why God would choose to create World 2, yet World 2 is clearly the one we live in. If Con believes that there is such a reason, he should propose it."

Your kidding right, I gave a free will defense, and you say I didn't provide a reason for world 2 ?

Lets go back to the 2 worlds.........

World 1) No capacity to do evil is given, thus evil does not exist

World 2) Capacity to do evil is given, thus evil exists

Is it possible that God would want free will to exist ?, I would say yes.

Has my opponent shown that it would be impossible for God to not want free will to exist ? (Unless you count assertions about how God would never want free will to exist, then no Pro has not shown this as impossible)

Pro says "Simply pointing out that my claims make some assumptions does not constitute an argument unless there is some suggestion of why those assumptions are wrong or some counterexamples based on better assumptions is provided."

I gave the counter example of evil existing out of free will existing.

Pro says "A morally perfect being does not prioritize any other interests over the well being of conscious beings. To do so would be directly contradictory to the definition of morality"

And what definition of morality are you referring too ?

Pro says "I am not sure whether my opponent is disputing my definition of evil or simply my reason for positing it"

I am not disputing your definition of evil. I asked........

"Pro regards unnecessary suffering as evil. But no what basis does he make this claim ? Is unnecessary suffering evil just because you don't like it, or is their an independent moral standard that says unnecessary suffering is evil ?"

Pro says "If excessive and unnecessary suffering is not evil then I do not understand what evil is"

Yeah but why is it evil ? without any reason, this is just an appeal to emotion. What is the intellectual/moral/rational justification for this moral claim.

Now if their is no objective morality, then God or anything else, can't be morally objectivity wrong, but if God can't be objectively morally wrong, then their is no moral objection to Gods existence based on evil existing.

Lets go back to Pros original argument..........

1. Evil exists.
2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist.
3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist.

Premise 2 states, that God would not allow evil to exist, is that because God would be under a moral duty not to allow evil to exist ?. And if so what is the basis of this moral duty ?

My argument is as follows

1) God exists
2) Free will exists
3) There fore evil can exist
4) Therefore God and evil existing are not mutually exclusive

I look forward to Pros' reply.
Grape

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his continued prompt responses. While he has made some good points, I think he may have misunderstood my argument. I will try to clarify my point to him and voters since he did not seem to understand how my comments constitute a counterargument and thus inadvertently failed to address them.

If God is morally perfect, then preventing evil should be his top priority. This is not a random assertion; the desire to prevent evil is by definition inextricable from moral goodness. If a morally good being is not defined as a being that wishes to promote good and prevent evil, then what is a morally good being? My opponent gave a definition of what God is, and I am simply arguing that he should behave according to that definition. If God has the ability to prevent evil and he chooses not to do so, he is not morally good and thus fails to meet the standards of the definition that was laid out in Round 1.

The fact that evil is a necessary consequence of free will is not a justification for why evil exists. I explained why this is so in the previous round, but my opponent either did not read it or (more likely) did not understand what I meant. I will try to be as clear as possible: There is no reason why the God described in Round 1 would choose to allow evil to exist for the sake of allowing free will. Nothing about Him, as my opponent described Him, suggests that he should have any reason to favor free will over the prevention of evil. Indeed, a morally good being should not choose anything over the prevention of evil because preventing evil and promoting good should, by definition, be the primary goals of a morally good being. I asked my opponent why God would value free will over the prevention of evil if he is morally perfect, but this question has gone unanswered. Simple asserting that God wants free will is not enough, because based on the definition of Him there is no reason to suggest He does, and even if He did He would have other priorities (preventing evil). I feel that I have repeated myself enough, and I don't see how I could be any more clear about what I mean to say here.

My opponent goes on to challenge my standards of morality, by I think almost all of his objections are beside the point. We have both already agreed that evil exists. I can just throw out my definition of evil entirely for all it matters, because my opponent has already conceded that there is some evil. The question of whether there is moral objectivity is a complete red herring; my opponent is asking me to prove one of his own assumptions as though this is detrimental to my argument. We both agree that evil exists, so unless the exact nature of evil is relevant to the debate it doesn't matter what our respective definitions are.

If there is no objective morality, than what form of morality is my opponent proposing? It does not particularly matter to me, because even if evil is subjective it still exists. My opponent seems to be implying some form of moral nihilism, but this is incompatible with both the assumption that if He exists God is morally good and that evil exists (both of which are premises that were proposed by my opponent and which I agreed to in Round 1). There need be no exact standards of morality or moral duty of any kind for the purpose of this debate. Evil exists and if He exist then God is good, so if God exists he should want to prevent evil (whether he is obligated to or not) and anything he wants to do is done (since he is omnipotent). Thus, evil (whatever it is) should not exist. However, it does exist (something we have explicitly agreed). This should be sufficient to prove that God does not exist.

There is very little for me to assert in this debate, really. My opponent's premises are enough to prove the point I am making. His "counterarguments" are not much more than simple misunderstandings of what I have said or obvious failures of logic. Contrary to what he has said, my arguments are fully justified because they are based off of his own assumptions. I have made the same argument three times now, and I worry that he will again ignore or not understand what I have said and restate the same point again. I am aware that there is a free will counterargument, but under the premises outlined in this debate it is doomed to fail unless it can be explained why a morally perfect God would consider free will more important than preventing evil. My opponent cannot simply say that it is possible that this is true, because under his definition of God it is not.

There are numerous other problems, such as whether free will does in fact exist and whether it is compatible with an omniscient God, but I see no reason to even begin to assess these problems until my opponent has explained why a morally perfect God would allow free will to exist if that would result in evil. I doubt that there is any defense for this problem at all.

A morally perfect being would not allow evil to exist if it could prevent it. The justification for this claim is contained entirely in the definitions of what moral perfection and evil mean. My opponent's attempts at watering down the definitions of good and evil to meaninglessness through moral skepticism are useless because he has already conceded that some form of good and evil exist.

I would also like to address my opponent's new syllogism. The exact consequences of his assertion that God exists as a premise of his argument are boggling my mind a bit. I am making an argument from evil against God's existence. How can he presuppose that God exists as an essential part of his argument against my argument against the existence of God? To do this seems to be begging the question, in an extremely roundabout way.

All in all, my opponent's arguments seem to be comprised of thinly veiled attempts to presuppose his conclusion and ignore the ramifications of his own statements through excessive and irrelevant skepticism. I have enough trouble comprehending his writing to begin with without having to work through all the distractions that have been embedded in his arguments. What my opponent wrote in the previous round can best be described as something that closely resembles an argument on the outside but is in fact hollow and empty. The main challenge to me in this debate has been understanding his garbled writing and attempting to get him to understand and address my statements. This has been an extremely frustrating exercise, and one that I hope is not completely futile.

Virtually nothing was said in the previous round that compromises my case at all. I look forward to not having to write another twelve hundred words of the same thing again in order to get my point across.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro says "My opponent gave a definition of what God is, and I am simply arguing that he should behave according to that definition."

Pro says "Arguing that God would allow evil because it is necessary for free will does not make sense based on Con's own definition of God"

Pro objects to the free will defense by stating that free will is not justified. Pro then makes the claim that this claim is justified on MY definition of God. This is false, I never defined God as something that can't justify something at the expense of suffering, you did.

Pros argument was.......

1. Evil exists.
2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist.
3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist.

There is a hidden premise in their I want to flesh out "It is impossible for God to have any reason to allow evil to exist"

Pros argument fleshed out in more detail is..........

1. Evil exists.
2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist.
2b It is impossible for God to have any reason to allow evil to exist
3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist.

Premise 2b and therefore premise 2 has not be proven. I refuted Pros claims about my definition some how not allowing God a reason for allowing evil.

In the absence of any proof that God allowing evil to exist is a logically impossible, it must be conceded that God allowing evil to exist is possible, thus the claim that "evil proves God does not exist as false"

I look forward to pros reply.
Grape

Pro

What I have stated twice before, I will state again:

It is impossible for God to have any reason to allow evil to exist because God is morally perfect. Morally perfect beings do not allow evil to exist simply because they have some other priorities. This is a necessary part of what it means to be morally perfect. I can think of no rational excuse for why a morally perfect, all powerful being would allow evil to exist.

Simply saying that God would allow evil to exist because He wants people to have free will does not work. There has to be a reason why a morally perfect being could consider the existence of free will more important than preventing evil. I can think of no such reason, and my opponent has not offered one.

This free will argument is no different than saying, "God allows evil because evil is a necessary result of wars, and God wants wars to exist." Just substitute anything that results in suffering or evil for free will and it becomes very obvious what the problem is. However innocuous it may sound, God would not allow free will because he would not allow anything that causes evil.

The proof of 2b is entirely within the definition of God in Round 1. It is logically impossible that a perfectly good, all powerful being would allow evil to exist. If God allowed evil to exist, there would be a conflict between his behavior and his desires.

I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this. There are numerous counterarguments against my case that I have thought of over the course of this debate (and many more that I haven't thought of), but my opponent has not made a single legitimate objection because he continues to harp on this one point, which I have addressed over and over again. I have been practically giving suggestions about what claims to object to and where it would be constructive to provide examples, and I have been ignored completely. I have had to assume nothing beyond what my opponent wrote in Round 1 (hence my failure to bring in any sources) and yet I have constantly been accused of making claims without justification. Repeated crying that statements have no been proven when they clearly logically follow from the premises is not an argument.

I am sick of rambling on and on, saying the same thing over and over again in different ways, in order to try to get my opponent to understand my objection so we can advance the discussion.

Con: In the next round, you must provide some reason why the God of Theism would allow evil to exist and justify it with some reason based on your statements in Round 1. Simply providing a possibility will not be enough, you must explain why that possibility is relevant and justified. You must demonstrate some flaw in my thinking or some exception that I have not thought of. Saying again that it does not logically follow will not work, because I promise you that it does logically follow based on the simple premises we have outlined. The way for theists to win this debate it to show that it is not as simple as I and other atheists have made it out to be.

I am trying my best not to be rude or condescending, but I would like to advance this discussion and I am getting frustrated with my inability to get my point across. Even if you still don't think my argument logically follows from your assumptions, present some other arguments anyway. My case is really not very strong, but I assure you that voters are not going to agree with your objection that I have not explained why God would not allow evil. I gave the same argument three times (counting this round) and rather than attacking it your have denied its existence. If you still don't see what I am referring to, please carefully read my arguments in Rounds 2, 3, and 4 (especially 3) and see where I have stated the contradictions.

Best of luck in the next round. I hope that the fifth and final round will be the most challenging for me.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro repeats ad nauseam that God can't have any reason to allow evil to exist. Repeating this assertion many times over makes it no more true than the person that repeats Jesus is lord ad nauseam on the street corner.

Pro says "I can think of no rational excuse for why a morally perfect, all powerful being would allow evil to exist"

What exactly is the argument here ?

1) I can't think of a rational excuse why God would allow evil
2) If there was a rational excuse I would of thought of it
3) Therefore there must be no rational reason for God allowing evil

This is a non sequitur the conclusion doesn't follow the premise.

Pros inability to fathom how God could allow evil to exist, no more proves Gods non existence than the flat earther who couldn't fathom how the world is a sphere, cause after all the people on the other side would just drop off !!!!

Pro says "I can think of no such reason, and my opponent has not offered one."

I did offer one, you just didn't like it, your not liking it , is not a logical refutation.

Pro says "I really don't see what's so hard to understand about this..............................:

Gives a long speech on his perceived grievances in this debate, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Pro says "Con: In the next round, you must provide some reason why the God of Theism would allow evil to exist and justify it"

Do I, what if I don't ? what is Pros argument ?

1) Con did not give a reason why God would allow suffering
2) Therefore there is no reason why God would allow suffering
3) Therefore evil proves God does not exist

This is a non sequitur, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. My absent of argument would not prove that God does not exist due to evil. This is clearly fallacious.

But just to show I am a good sport, I will expand on my free will defense.

World 1) No capacity to do evil is given, thus evil does not exist

World 2) Capacity to do evil is given, thus evil exists

World 2 allows a choice to do good, where this could not happen in world 1. A good that is done out of choice is of higher value and more good than doing a good out of non choice. This is a possible justification for God allowing free will and evil to exist.

1. Evil exists.
2. If the God of Theism existed, he would not allow evil to exist.
2b It is impossible for God to have any reason to allow evil to exist
3. Therefore, the God of Theism does not exist.

The question you have to ask is, has my opponent actually proved the impossibility of evil and God existing, or have they merely made the assertion that God can't exist if evil exists ? over and over and over and over.

At the start of this debate the two sides were.....

"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."

My opponent has not proven the impossibility of God and evil existing, as such it is indeed possible that God could exist even if evil exists.

Therefore........

1) God existing and evil existing has not be shown to be mutually exclusive.
2) Therefore its possible that God exists even if evil exists.
3) Therefore the claim that "Evil proves Gods' non existence" is false.

I once again remind everyone Pro repeats ad nauseam that God can't have any reason to allow evil to exist. Repeating this assertion many times over makes it no more true than the person that repeats Jesus is lord ad nauseam on the street corner.

Vote Con
Grape

Pro

The reason that I have repeated the same point over and over again is that despite what Con seems to believe, he as not actually offered a counterargument against it. Instead, what he seems to do is attempt to hold me to an extreme burden of proof, arguing over and over again that I have not "proven" anything.

Am I expected to prove by exhaustion within 8000 characters that there is no reason that God would allow evil? It wouldn't matter what any suggestions were, because the answer would always be: no, he would not allow evil because he is morally good. There is a contradiction between allowing evil to occur and being morally good. A logical contradiction is proof that one of the premises is false. We already agreed that evil exists, so the premise that God exists must be false. This does prove that the existence of evil indicates that God does not exist. Either my opponent is asking for a level of metaphysical certainty that is impossible or he does not accept a logical proof as proof.

I did not reject the free will argument because I "did not like it," I rejected it because it did nothing to solve the problem. My opponent gave no explanation as to why a morally perfect God would consider free will more important that well being and happiness, and I find this to be a logical contradiction in any case. A morally perfect God does not place amoral goals (allowing free will) over moral goals (preventing evil). My opponent did not understand this argument at all because he seems to have some cognitive dissonance that does not allow him to distinguish between well reasoned logic and things I am just making up. Everything I have said, regardless of how I have defended it from the implications of his own statements, has just been my "opinion."

The reason I say that I cannot think of reasons for things is because I believe there are none. This was an indication that Con should provide us with such reasons so that we could understand his argument, but he chose to write this off as ignorance on my part and neglected to explain anything. Are we to assume that there is a logical explanation for every conflict and apparent contradiction that I have pointed out simply because I have failed to exhaust all possible counterarguments?

Indeed, Con seems to think he is under no obligation to debate at all, claiming this to be my argument:

"1) Con did not give a reason why God would allow suffering
2) Therefore there is no reason why God would allow suffering
3) Therefore evil proves God does not exist"

Effectively, he is claiming that he doesn't have to debate anything because his lack a counterargument doesn't necessarily mean my claims are true. That is correct, but it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a debate works. I could have argued that the existence of cake is proof that God does not exist, and if my opponent did not provide a counterargument then I would win the debate. If Con does not provide a reason why God would allow suffering, then there is no reason /to assume God would allow suffer, within the context of this debate./ Therefore, as far as this debate is concerned, there is adequate reason to believe that God does not exist. Voters decide who won the debate based on the context of what is discussed in the debate and not on possibilities that did not come up in discussion. Otherwise, everyone would always just vote according to who they agreed with and the debate wouldn't matter.

My opponent even directly admits that he doesn't have an argument: "My absent of argument would not prove that God does not exist due to evil." This is technically correct, but it is not how you win a debate.

My opponent does go on to make an actual argument. He suggests that a good that is done out of free will is more significant than a good that is done without free will. It would have been a good idea to bring an argument like this up long ago so he would have time to actually defend it. However, he doesn't seem to care about defending it because he doesn't think it's necessary for him to argue during a debate. The sheer remote possibility that this is true is not enough to convince anyone that it solves the problem of evil. Indeed, this proposition is riddled with problems:

1. The extra amount of good that results from conscious, undetermined acts of good rather than forced acts of good would have to be enough to outweigh all the evil in the world, as well as the good lost by opportunity. It is impossible to quantify this or predict how the world might be different if there were no evil or free will, so we have no way of knowing if there is a "net" moral gain for either option. It seems extremely presumptuous to say that the moral significance of a conscious good is so much greater than that of an unconscious good that it outweighs all the suffering in the world.

2. Why does it even matter if a good act is performed as a result of free will or predetermination? If God is morally good He wants conscious beings to be well off and not suffer. Why would it be of such importance to Him that good acts be performed as a result of free will? There is no reason that this should matter.

3. God could create a universe in which everyone has free will, yet always chooses to be good anyway. He is omniscient, so He has a perfect vision of the future, and He is omnipotent, so He can alter anything. Why not alter the present so that it exists in such a way that only good choices will be made in the future? He certainly has the power to do this. Everyone would have the ability to choose to be good or evil, but everyone would choose to be good anyway. God certainly has the power to do this if He exists, but He has not done it.

This argument is full of holes. Of course, that's be to expected because only two lines were spent outlining it and absolutely no effort went into defending it or elaborating on it. It's unfortunate that my opponent waited until the last round to bring it up, but I don't think he would have actually defended it anyway.

In conclusion, my opponent has not actually debated me. He has just repeatedly stated that my points do not prove anything and then offered us the explanation that he does not have to debate because the debate does not prove anything. Well, that's true, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to prove anything within the context of the debate. I used logic and our agreed upon standards to demonstrate that my argument was correct. Within a debate, that is what proving something is. I apologize for my lack of metaphysical certainty.

If I say that God doesn't have a reason to allow evil (based on my opponent's definitions!) and my opponent doesn't give an adequate reason to suggest otherwise, then we are to assume for the purpose of the debate that I am right. I showed that any contradiction to that assumption was logically impossible, a point which was dismissed and ignored. Within the context of this debate, my argument has been completely proven.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 3 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I congratulate Grape on their win, I think they deserve it.
Posted by wiseovvl 3 years ago
wiseovvl
the con argument is total BS.
Posted by Grape 3 years ago
Grape
The definition of God in this debate does not match the God of the Bible so this quotation is not very relevant.
Posted by thisoneguy 3 years ago
thisoneguy
Isa. 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil, I the Lord do all these things.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by SethComposerGuy 3 years ago
SethComposerGuy
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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 wiseovvl 3 years ago
wiseovvl
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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 forever2b 3 years ago
forever2b
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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 jamie8sora 3 years ago
jamie8sora
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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 Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 3 years ago
BlackVoid
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by brokenboy 3 years ago
brokenboy
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 3 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 belle 3 years ago
belle
IllegalcombatantGrapeTied
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:03