The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Gileandos
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

It is impossible for there to exist a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Gileandos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,733 times Debate No: 15167
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (9)

 

socialpinko

Pro

I will be taking the pro position so con will take the position that a being can exist with the above attributes.

Round 1- acceptance of debate, definitions
Rounds 2 and 3- Arguments and rebuttals

Definitions:

Omniscient: One having total Natural knowledge within this universe [1]

Omnipotent: almighty or Maximally supreme in Natural power within this universe [2]

Omnibenevolent: All-loving, or infinitely good within this universes context[3]

Impossible: not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc. [4]

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.wordnik.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gileandos

Con

I am excited for this debate and grateful for my opponent's desire to debate the topic at hand.

My opponent has adjusted to a more common theological framework of definitions, which I am again grateful for.

I realize that some of the semantics of those definitions will bring contention throughout this debate but I look forward to the challenge.

I also want to wish my opponent a great deal of fun as we tackle a several thousand year old debate on semantics!
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

Most people who look at my resolution will recognize it as the famous problem of evil. The problem of there existing a being(god) who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving allowing evil to flourish and people to suffer. This being knows when and where all evil, past and present, has and will occur(omniscience). It also has the ability to stop at any time any evil that has ever ocurred(omnipotence). This being as being "all loving" would want to do anything to stop evil from happening(omnibenevolence). As evil continues to flourish in the world(rape, cold blooded murder) one must concludes that an all powerful, omniscient, all loving being either does not exist, is not all loving, or is not all powerful.

I wish my opponent the best of luck on this debate.
Gileandos

Con

I was expecting with so few rounds an explosion of intellectual prowess of irrefutable statements!
I got a blurb man!

Just stating the "Problem of Evil" as you did is not a good approach, as you will see below.

<< 1) An All-loving, or infinitely good God cannot overrule freewill without committing evil. It is all-loving and infinitely good to allow "beings" to have a freewill. His divine Will within His Divine "Good" attribute would restrict His further action.

2) The first being that had freewill from God did the first act of evil. He convinced others to do evil. He convinced humans to do evil.

2) The evil in the world is perpetuated upon people who reject the guidance and transcendent moral value system of the all-loving and infinitely good God. He tries to instruct all beings about what is good. This is done by showing both Evil and Good. The measuring stick and the concept of the measurement. They reject this by using their freewill.

3) God will right all of the wrongs by judging those people who chose to perpetuate evil in the world. He will punish the evildoers for their deeds.

4) God has enemies who perpetuate evil outside of the Free Will of Man by utilizing their own free Will. God also does not overrule his enemies' use of their free will even though they overrule man's use of freewill... compounding evil.

5) These enemies will also be judged and punished according to their deeds.

Once the above scenario is taken into account the logical possibility of an Infinitely Good / All Loving God coexisting with the presence of evil becomes quite possible.

As a "preemptive rebuttal"… to prove that overruling freewill would indeed be a greater good, my opponent would have to prove that wiping humans of all brain function and utilizing them as cattle or devices is "good and loving" above whatever harm they may do.
Additionally he would have to prove that "in the end" all wrongs would indeed NOT be righted and allowing free will would NOT play out a greater good in a future existence.

<<
The coherence of my opponents claims of what God "would do/should do" breaks down in the following:
If Hitler was killed by God as a baby by a "not so random disease" to avoid the tragedy of the Third Reich, God is called an unjust evil baby killer or powerless to cure Hitler.
If Hitler is allowed to live…. God is called either powerless to stop Hitler's slaugher machine or He is evil to not stop Hitler's slaughter machine.

You can see the problem with my opponents claims is that neither He (nor I) are in a good position to know what God should do and when. This directly poses the possibility that an all-knowing God knows exactly what needs to be done and when to do it.

This is all guided by a Maximally supreme, All Loving , infinitely Good, all knowing God.

Conclusion:
Strictly speaking I have shown that the resolution is entirely possible, and logically coherent and my opponent stands refuted.
He would have to completely and without a shadow of a doubt disprove all of my claims above and he himself would have to assert an amount of knowledge about all possible events/all possible scenarios/all possible persons etc… that would be "akin" to a God claim himself…..

This is something he is unable to ever do.
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

there is not much to expand upon. I am simply stating why a being who is all powerful, all loving, and all knowing cannot exist. It is you who are trying to prove that such a being can exist.

"An All-loving, or infinitely good God cannot overrule freewill without committing evil."

Free will is actually impossible with a being who is completely omniscient. This being knows everything that everyone will ever do. It knew that we would have this debate, therefore it is impossible for us to not have this debate. Free will disproves omniscience. So, to use the free will defense is to disprove the existence of the all powerful, all loving, and all knowing being.

"The first being that had freewill from God did the first act of evil. He convinced others to do evil. He convinced humans to do evil."

You have not proven that this being ever existed. I am assuming you are reffering to Adam from the Bible. You must prove he ever existed before using him to make a point. And wasn't it a she(Eve) who allegedly did the first act of evil? And also please show how even if this person did the first act of evil, how does that cause everyone else to commit evil?

"The evil in the world is perpetuated upon people who reject the guidance and transcendent moral value system of the all-loving and infinitely good God."

Are you saying that Christians can never do bad?

"They reject this by using their freewill."

First, I already showed how the existence of free will disproves the existence of your all powerful being. And so you are saying that the only way to be good is to be a slave and a robot?

"God will right all of the wrongs by judging those people who chose to perpetuate evil in the world. He will punish the evildoers for their deeds."

You cannot appeal to divine judgement without actually proving that the Christian god and an afterlife exists.

"God has enemies who perpetuate evil outside of the Free Will of Man by utilizing their own free Will. God also does not overrule his enemies' use of their free will even though they overrule man's use of freewill... compounding evil.These enemies will also be judged and punished according to their deeds

None of this shows that the being I described can logically exist.

"As a "preemptive rebuttal"… to prove that overruling freewill would indeed be a greater good, my opponent would have to prove that wiping humans of all brain function and utilizing them as cattle or devices is "good and loving" above whatever harm they may do."

Why cannot this all powerful god give humans the need to do good? He supposedly does not allow humans to breathe underwater or teleport at will even if we wished we could. This however in no way inhibits our free will.

"If Hitler was killed by God as a baby by a "not so random disease" to avoid the tragedy of the Third Reich, God is called an unjust evil baby killer or powerless to cure Hitler.
If Hitler is allowed to live…. God is called either powerless to stop Hitler's slaugher machine or He is evil to not stop Hitler's slaughter machine."

I made neither of these claims.

"You can see the problem with my opponents claims is that neither He (nor I) are in a good position to know what God should do and when. "

This is simply an appeal to ignorance.

I wish my opponent luck in the voting period but urge voters pro as con has not provided any logically valid arguments.
Gileandos

Con

I want to thank my opponent for his response.

I do want to also scold my opponent for trying to replace the burden of proof. My opponent affirms the resolution:

"It is impossible for there to exist a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent"

I need only point to a scenario whereby that a possibility is logically consistent. If my scenario is even possible then the resolution is false.

I do not need to even prove my assertions are true, only that a scenario possibly exists.

My opponent would need to completely prove that my possibility is indeed not possible. I do not think my opponent succeeded…

The problem of evil has been resolved for many generations. You will not see many professional atheist debaters ever put forward the problem of evil as a valid concept against the "logical" existence of a Being with those attributes. They may indeed assert they do not like such a being but do not point to the logical invalidity of such a being.

<< 1) My opponent States;
"Free will is actually impossible with a being who is completely omniscient. This being knows everything that everyone will ever do. It knew that we would have this debate, therefore it is impossible for us to not have this debate. Free will disproves omniscience. So, to use the free will defense is to disprove the existence of the all powerful, all loving, and all knowing being."

I believe my opponent confuses "Predestination" and other such concepts of irresistible Destiny with free will?
An omniscient being in no way overrules someones freewill just by "knowing everything".
It is that beings willfull act of Predestination that overrules such things as freewill.

Clearly in my possible scenario, freewill is the assertion and not predestination.

2)My opponent states:
"They reject this by using their freewill."

First, I already showed how the existence of free will disproves the existence of your all powerful being. And so you are saying that the only way to be good is to be a slave and a robot?"

I do not believe anywhere you made a case where freewill disproves the existence of "said Being".
You just made that claim and did nothing to back up that assertion. I did point out that you may have been attempting to discuss predestination, however you would have to prove that predestination existed by said God for your viewpoint to be valid. Also you would first have to prove that "said Being" did indeed overrule a persons freewill thus proving "said Being" does indeed exist.

As to the robot comment… if "said Being" were to create slaves and robots of the "Bad" people he would being doing evil against His stated All Loving and Infinitely Good nature. Instead His plan is to punish them "after" they commit the evil. He allows the freewill choice then asserts corrective measures.

3)My opponent states:
"God will right all of the wrongs by judging those people who chose to perpetuate evil in the world. He will punish the evildoers for their deeds."

You cannot appeal to divine judgement without actually proving that the Christian god and an afterlife exists."

Again, I need only point to a completely logical system whereby Evil and an All Loving and Infinitely Good good can coexist. I do not need to prove said system to win this debate.

3)My Opponent states:
"God has enemies who perpetuate evil outside of the Free Will of Man by utilizing their own free Will. God also does not overrule his enemies' use of their free will even though they overrule man's use of freewill... compounding evil.These enemies will also be judged and punished according to their deeds

None of this shows that the being I described can logically exist."

It stands resolved above that indeed if my scenario is even possible then the resolution is false.

4)My opponent states:"
"As a "preemptive rebuttal"… to prove that overruling freewill would indeed be a greater good, my opponent would have to prove that wiping humans of all brain function and utilizing them as cattle or devices is "good and loving" above whatever harm they may do."

Why cannot this all powerful god give humans the need to do good? He supposedly does not allow humans to breathe underwater or teleport at will even if we wished we could. This however in no way inhibits our free will."

Your examples are restrictive physical actions and not Willful Actions. After All God does indeed restrict us with gravity etc… What you are saying is you have a better plan… Take it up with my possible God…

The second point is the need to do good. Christianity asserts that we are indeed given a "desire" and a knowledge innately to do good. This is a need/driving desire that in no way overrules our freewill. It is called the natural law. After all how do you determine Good vs. Evil?

You have hit upon a Great Plan and the positive assertion of Christianity!

5)
"If Hitler was killed by God as a baby by a "not so random disease" to avoid the tragedy of the Third Reich, God is called an unjust evil baby killer or powerless to cure Hitler.
If Hitler is allowed to live…. God is called either powerless to stop Hitler's slaugher machine or He is evil to not stop Hitler's slaughter machine."

I made neither of these claims."

In fact you did. I will quote you below. I just put all of those statements into a real scenario:

My opponents objection;
"The problem of there existing a being(god) who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving allowing evil to flourish and people to suffer. This being knows when and where all evil, past and present, has and will occur(omniscience). It also has the ability to stop at any time any evil that has ever ocurred(omnipotence). This being as being "all loving" would want to do anything to stop evil from happening(omnibenevolence). As evil continues to flourish in the world(rape, cold blooded murder) one must concludes that an all powerful, omniscient, all loving being either does not exist, is not all loving, or is not all powerful."

You claimed that with his knowledge and power he failed to act against evil. I showed you how to even assert this viewpoint is faulty in a real world example.

6)
My opponent states;
"You can see the problem with my opponents claims is that neither He (nor I) are in a good position to know what God should do and when. "

This is simply an appeal to ignorance."

Not at all. An appeal to ignorance would be "It could have been the drugs or the alcohol that killed aunt nancy in the car wreck! We will never know!"

I pointed out a problem with limited knowledge and limited perspective. For an individual to claim there is a better way, that person would have to have a superior intellect, knowledge and ability to resolve such things.

Is my opponent claiming to have those God like attributes? Additionally anyone of us that tried to resolve the "Hitler Problem" would not have been put in jail if we killed baby Hitler. We would have been executed. No amount of explaining would have gotten us out of a murder charge.

If we had a superior perspective like knowing the future, we would still be dealing with people that had a limited perspective claiming they know better than we did and what we did was clearly murder.

<< I want to thank my opponent for the attempt at this rigorous debate and encourage him to further study the historic uses of the problem of Evil.

Again the fact that a possible scenario does allow for the coexistence between these qualities of God and Evil the resolution is proven to be false.

My opponent was unable to show a fault in the scenario that was illogical.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
"The counter-argument is then that perhaps the reasons are not comprehensible to humans. Drange rebuts that even if the reasons are not comprehensible, a God that is good must nonetheless assert that there are such reasons, and that is not done. "
-I do not know this specific counter argument to the previous paragraph and appears to be a irrelevant to the Christian claim as God does indeed reveal information and His reasons in many ways.
Additionally, the Bible makes the claim that God's enemy blinds the "Truths" of God from many individuals. When you have a relationship with God you are protected from that blindness and you are able to see "Truth" in its fullness.
I personally affirm this claim as I "once was blind, but now I see."

"Being omnipotent, God could assert the existence of a rationale unmistakably to every person. I would go further, and say that since the reason must be a logical one, it must be within the realm of human understanding. The things that humans cannot understand are factual matters, not logical ones. Logic is a universal subject, accessible to humans, while human knowledge of facts is limited."

-The Bible is the vehicle of the rationale, additionally when you become a Christian you have God inside of you ever guiding you to full understanding as succinctly stated above.
Everything is revealed in fullness when you seek a relationship with God.

<<<
I see that you have never heard of the Fact that Christians (that have a relationship with God) have God living inside of them and have all mysteries revealed to them through petition.
I see also you may have been unaware of the fact that God has enemies that blind people that do not have God living inside of them to protect them from the enemies.

These issues appear to stand resolved.

As to the blindness
http://www.biblegateway.com...
and
http://www.biblegateway.com...
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Roy,
I believe what you are pointing out appears to be already addressed from a theological viewpoint and Christian claim. It may explain why Christians find such a line of argumentation irrelevant.

"Since God is omnipotent, the reason that constrains God from, say, curing some innocent child of cancer must be a logical reason. "
Presumptive but ok… To state that a higher dimensional being is constrained within a three dimensional system of logic is quite speculative but for the sake of argument I will go with you.

"God cannot do the illogical, like make a stone so large He cannot lift it. But a God who is good would not keep His reason a secret, especially not on so fundamentally important an issue. This leads to the Argument from Non-Belief. If it is important to believe in God, then God should explain evil in order encourage belief."
- Appears to again be presumptive. To state that "it is a greater good to reveal His (God's) reasons" is presumptive.
- However, the Christian claim is indeed when you have a relationship with God you will understand His reasons for events when He chooses to reveal them at the perfect time for the greatest good.
He does indeed reveal the general information of his reasoning through the Bible, then reveals more relative time related information through His ordained Church and then reveals personal information through direct relationship with His prophets and finally reveals specific personal information through a direct relationship with God Himself.
This appears to stand resolved under a Christian claim at least.

<<<
A supposed "practical impossibility" appears to be resolved with just a little bit more information.

One such support for the claim
Daniel 2:47
The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery."
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
G, You are making a variation of the standard argument that evil exists for reasons that only God can know. You are saying that we only think that the world might be incrementally a tiny bit better, but since we cannot understand the consequences perhaps God has a purpose in it we cannot perceive. This is the "Unknown-Purpose Defense Applied to AE" (UDE) in Drange, Chapter 10.

Since God is omnipotent, the reason that constrains God from, say, curing some innocent child of cancer must be a logical reason. God cannot do the illogical, like make a stone so large He cannot lift it. But a God who is good would not keep His reason a secret, especially not on so fundamentally important an issue. This leads to the Argument from Non-Belief. If it is important to believe in God, then God should explain evil in order encourage belief.

The counter-argument is then that perhaps the reasons are not comprehensible to humans. Drange rebuts that even if the reasons are not comprehensible, a God that is good must nonetheless assert that there are such reasons, and that is not done. Being omnipotent, God could assert the existence of a rationale unmistakably to every person. I would go further, and say that since the reason must be a logical one, it must be within the realm of human understanding. The things that humans cannot understand are factual matters, not logical ones. Logic is a universal subject, accessible to humans, while human knowledge of facts is limited.

The UDE is a claim of existence --that there is a reason which we do not know-- and therefore bears the burden of proof, like all other claims of existence. However, that only makes the argument unpersuasive and not definitely false. There are still other avenues of refuting UDE, which I leave to Drange.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Roy,
I must admit your replies are wholly self limiting.
To say a practical impossibility exists within this scenario is placing a limited framework of knowledge on what is shown as a single possibility.

As Kiko also suggested that He was in a good place "to concieve" of a better scenario, by that statement one is suggesting that somehow they are "in the know". Even if you are accurate about the world you currently live in... you have zero informational input about the next existence.

Simply put you are unable to ascertain any long term ramification of a single heartbeat event within this world, much less anything more complex as the next world or alternate dimensions.

Second as stated in the debate (the hitler analogy) you are unable to verify what indeed is a better event for an alternate outcome.

To make any claim to the contrary to this freewill model is quite feckless.

To compound your limited knowledge a claim about 4th dimensional beings existence, interaction and "realm of living" is in no way a circular claim. If these things are indeed true even in possibility (and i have experienced them) then your knowledge is further limited.

In essence your model of complaint is quite practically impossible due to having zero input from alternate dimensions, future possible existences.... etc.

You do not know all that is knowable. It is missing the forests overall health by analyzing how a tree grew crooked.

Does this help in clarifying?
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
G, It is impossible to flip a fair coin endlessly and get heads forever. It is logically possible, but the probability is zero. Similarly, God could create an infinity of possible worlds. It is impossible in the sense that the probability is zero that none would have greater altruism than the one we have.

Postulating Satan begs the question. An O3 god would not allow Satan to prosper so much.

The resolution is true if even a tiny amount of suffering in the world could be reduced by an O3 god. Do so would not interfere with free will. Clearly that's true, so therefore the O3 god cannot possibly exist. However, a change in the properties of the God resolves the contradiction.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Kiko,

"2) The first being that had freewill from God did the first act of evil. He convinced others to do evil. He convinced humans to do evil
4) God has enemies who perpetuate evil outside of the Free Will of Man by utilizing their own free Will. God also does not overrule his enemies' use of their free will even though they overrule man's use of freewill... compounding evil.
5) These enemies will also be judged and punished according to their deeds."

The other beings were discussed within the debate. I am sorry you missed that subtly in the address and formulation.

Also Quote Kiko "Such as why god did not make all animals omnivores."

29God also told them, "Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant that grows throughout the earth, along with every tree that grows seed-bearing fruit. They will produce your food. 30 I have given all green plants as food for every wild animal of the earth, every bird that flies, and to every living thing that crawls on the earth." And so it was.

In addition to all animals being herbivores prior to the flood, humans were entirely herbivores prior to Noah's family events and the flood.
The changes were due to the flood and the evil that came into the world due to the enemies of God.
The flood changed the scenario.

So you see you "lacked" that knowledge of even your current scenario. I would suggest you hear the entirety of God's case before drawing conclusions.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Roy,
You would have to help me understand what you view to be the different "impossibilities" that were in scope.

Plantinga did not deal with "Auxiliary/Natural evils" but I did within the debate.

<<<
2) The first being that had freewill from God did the first act of evil. He convinced others to do evil. He convinced humans to do evil.
4) God has enemies who perpetuate evil outside of the Free Will of Man by utilizing their own free Will. God also does not overrule his enemies' use of their free will even though they overrule man's use of freewill... compounding evil.
5) These enemies will also be judged and punished according to their deeds.
>>>

Satan would be the enemy now in control and responsible for the evil within the world.
All the auxilary "evils" including natural are perpetuated and under his responsibility.

This scenario is all encompassing. Literally - "Jesus' Butler did it" (Point of note Satan was created as a quasi first chamberlain servant before he revolted and took a third of heaven under this scenario.

Everything was dealt with under the scenario within the debate.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"God can create worlds with altruists. Since the altruists have free will, God cannot guarantee that each altruistic person will behave correctly all the time. Hence it is logically possible that no better world than the one we have would actually occur, no matter how altruistic people are made in general. If even one person were made slightly more altruistic we would have a better world. Drange points out that there is no conflict between free will and being more altruistic, because we see people in the world who are more altruistic than average, and they still possess free will."

Roy, if that is his refutation of Plantinga then he does not understand it, that is the old refutation which Mackie used, which he admitted does not handle the many worlds argument of Plantinga.
Posted by KikoSanchez182 5 years ago
KikoSanchez182
Woah, I'm not sure where these other supernatural beings came from. We are talking about a being that is all-powerful in the world, now you are saying that there are other being that cause tornadoes, storms, diseases, etc. That is going in an entirely different direction and is really stretching.

I claim that god creating a world whereby humans were unable to do evil would indeed be better. Also, a world where natural disasters and diseases did not exist would be a better world. Obviously I don't have what you call total knowledge of total worlds, but we humans can certainly conceive of better situations. One whereby evil does not exist seems reasonable and without equal shortcoming, seeing as to how evils are the largest shortcoming that we can conceive of.

Why not create it ourself? We can not rid human evils nor natural evils, that is just silly.

Of course, as to the proposition, such a being could exist, but not with evils and absolute free will also in the universe.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
G, Nope, "impossible" includes "practically impossible" as well as "logically impossible." You also failed to note that Plantinga does not deal with AE nor with non-human-caused suffering.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm antitheist, but Con PWNed Pro.
Vote Placed by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't agree with Con, but Pro was lacking a crucial piece which would have sealed the deal for him: God created the first being (Stan) which did the first evil, but that first being had no way of knowing/doing evil unless gave it the ability to do so (in which case God created evil).
Vote Placed by KikoSanchez182 5 years ago
KikoSanchez182
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The definition of evil should have been made clear. If god is omnipotent and natural disaster occur, that is clearly willful evil by god with out any human free will involved. Overall, the debate was too narrow though. Con failed to show a logically coherent god is possible in our reality whereby natural disasters occur. Pro wins because of this.
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: No real debate here. Pro didn't actually do anything until R3, by which time it was already too late.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP as does anyone whenever they say something is not possible. He also changed his definitions from those that he provided in the opening round. Free will only goes against onmiscience pending on the definition of onmiscience that is used, and the omniscience definition that was used did not go against free will.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Gil argued a solid case. Good job.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the BoP, it was not satisfied, `You must prove he ever existed before using him to make a point.` - that is false. Pro also makes very trivial statements which refer to very non-tivial positions such as free will contradicts omniscience.
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 5 years ago
MrCarroll
socialpinkoGileandosTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have done better, but pro never had a chance. His argument is nonsense.