The Instigator
Magicr
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Take 2: The existence of unnecessary suffering makes a perfect God impossibole

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 8 votes the winner is...
Magicr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,748 times Debate No: 29407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

Magicr

Pro

Due to his unfortunate forfeiture in our previous debate on this resolution, Marauder has asked that a new debate be startd as an extension of the previous one.

So, here is the link to the prevous debate:

http://www.debate.org...

All definitions and rules still apply.

In this debate, Con will begin R1 with his rebuttals to my R2 arguments from the other debate.
Marauder

Con


To Begin I would just like to say some of Con’s points are very good and will deserve equally good responses from me.


I did challenge it:


You must be misreading the intentions of my own opening statements if you think I have not challenged the validity of either of your Round 1 premises your going to argue from. That was the only thing I did in round 1 besides accept the debate.


I challenged your P1 that if unnecessary suffering exist God cannot be. I may agree God would not create it himself, but I did agree with the leap of logic taken with the ‘Then” that was shoved between the “If a” then “b”. “a” being ‘if suffering’ and “b” being ‘God cant be’.


And I challenged P2 in my challenge that the suffering that exist might not be of a kind you can truly say is ‘unnecessary’. That the suffering is a kind of suffering that we could have not done without.


Anyway one with meat of the debate…


The Definition of Good:


While I suppose in some applications that dictionary definition of good might work, But for all purposes of this debate, a debate where for my opponent has to show the existence of “bad” proves that a “good” god does not exist to stop, Con’s offered definition will not be good enough and I am going to have to challenge it.


If you use that dictionary definition for ‘good’ then slavery for all purposes was not ‘bad’ but rather ‘good’ for a very long time because it had wide approval. Good must be objective enough to be indifferent to the swaying views of public approval.


While what is ‘good’ has been a much debated controversy throughout history, I find C.S. Lewis’s description of what he calls ‘the Tao’ to be a reasonably good objective attempt calling what is ‘good’ good as it takes from the appealed to ideas of what is ‘good’ in all cultures and religions, not just his own. It is also possibly the only grounds my opponent can with any effect appeal to when charging a hypothetical god as not being ‘good’ if he were to fail to act in a certain way at certain times because to do this you must demand what is right and wrong be a code, a standard, a force that is greater than God and existed before God, a concept where the original term ‘Tao’ before Lewis used it came from.


Your Argument from Time:


You argue that God must exist outside of the universe and space and time itself if he created it. This is true. You argue because he would be outside of time he would see the future and know how exactly what has and can only happen in the future because of this. This is a false assumption and its false because it rest on creating a pitcher of what insight to the future must be like for such a being that you cannot know is there. Tomorrow I might go swimming at an indoor pool to exercise or I might go ride my bike on the New River Trail to exercise instead. I have not quite made up my mind. I might even just decide I don’t have time to do either tomorrow and end up not doing either. If you had the gift of sight into the future for my day tomarrow what exactly do you expect you would see? That you would see my going to the indoor pool and not the others if that’s what I ultimately end up choosing tomarrow? Or would you see all outcomes of my day tomarrow, as if multiple possibilities remain possible futures for me. I would say it would have to be the second one. Your guess of what future sight would be like is based on a philosophical view that the way things will happen is the only way things can ever end up happening. My view though is of one that says that the way things are going to happen can happen a number of ways, and it is not until they happen that the events are written in stone as happening only one way.


You claimed you are the one with the burdon of proof this debate, live up to your claims and prove this baseless philosophy about the future that the way they will happen is the only way they will ever happen.


Non-Man originated suffering:


My argument has been that in the beginning what God created was completely devoid of suffering, and it was not until man began to go against the will of god that suffering entered the world as a direct consequence of this. Any kind of suffering wether it be a sore back after plowing a garden or labor pains or tornadoes destroying things….all are a result of the fallen creation that fell from the way it was perfectly made because of mans actions.


You are all free not to agree with this theological and philosophical take on the origins of suffering if you wish, I probably could not offer solid proof to you this was the way in happened in the form of anything other than the Bibles word, but the point is while I’m not going to be able prove the philosophical view true to your, your not going to be able to prove it false. And someone with the Burdon of Proof trying to prove a particular argument PROVES one particular thing false is going to have to prove such possibilities are not only not provable, but philosophically or theologically not even possible. Something you have not even attempted yet.


In any case you repeatedly say your argument stands considering all the supposed ‘non-man made’ suffering, if this is your key case your going to rest your argument on your going to have to prove it with some examples of what suffering is not mans fault. Because so far you seem to be relying on my mutual uncontested agreement that such non-man originated suffering exist, and I am definitely not offering that kind of agreement. I assert it does not exist, so you going to have to attempt to prove my assertion false with examples, and any you give I will explain away as to how they originate from man and not god is some way.


“you have to prove free will exist!”:


I find it ironic how you can claim to accept the Burdon of Proof and even state I only have to show you have not met it to win, and you spend most of time asking me to prove things. You prove to me free will does not exist. You prove to me that the way I will do things is the only way I will ever do things. That the only way I will be in the future has always been the only way I could ever become. Prove that George Bush could have never stoped himself from sending the nation to war in Iraq and Bill Clinton could never have stopped himself from having sex with that woman. Prove O.J. Simpson could never have not killed his wife and prove that Adam Lanza could never have not killed 20 five year old children. Your denial of the humans ability to choose is the radical positive claim, so offer your proof.


Is it not possible that God made us for the same reason as the flies?:


This has actually been your best point I think, and I need to give it a good answer. I guess it would be possible to create humans for the same reason as the bugs, but only under the circumstance that besides createing us he created another being that is to us the way we are to the flies.


In other words animals and all other life and aspects of nature have been put here for us to see God’s creative artistic expression, or for our enjoyment or use in one way or another. To postulate our purpose could be the same as the creation of the flies comes with postulating God did create some other creature for a different purpose, the true purpose to love him and we are to just be food and pack mules to this higher beings.


A creating all good God’s only purpose for bothering with creating at all I maintain is for us to love him and have a relationship with him. He might create more beings in addition not for that explicit purpose but at least one being God creates would be of a sort that would come with free will. God needs nothing to be complete, nothing to sustain himself, so personal joy and love are the only motives left on the table for such a God. Had God not created us, he would not have bothered creating the flies either. Creating at all means creating us and creating us with free will.


Debate Round No. 1
Magicr

Pro


Thank you to Marauder for his response.


To begin, I would like to address a misunderstanding made by my opponent concerning the difference between validity and soundness. He wrote: “You must be misreading the intentions of my own opening statements if you think I have not challenged the validity of either of your Round 1 premises your going to argue from. That was the only thing I did in round 1 besides accept the debate.”


The validity of a logical argument has nothing to do with the truth of the premises. The sole object in asking if an argument is valid is whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Con offered no challenge to the validity of my argument which, as I previously pointed out, follows the valid form of:


P1. If p, then q.


P2. p.


C. Therefore, q.

The soundness of an argument, however, is what deals with the truth of the premises. For an argument to be sound, it must be both valid and have true premises. So while he did challenge the soundness of the argument, no opposition was offered to the validity.


I will now offer rebuttals to the points Con raised and in doing so continue to offer affirmation of the resolution. At the end of the round I will explain how these arguments relate to the two premises and by extension their conclusion.


The Definition of Good


Con challenged my definition of good by saying: “If you use that dictionary definition for ‘good’ then slavery for all purposes was not ‘bad’ but rather ‘good’ for a very long time because it had wide approval. Good must be objective enough to be indifferent to the swaying views of public approval.”


The problem here is one of perspective. Indeed from the slave owners perspective slavery may have been good. But from the slaves perspective it would not have been good. It appears that this definition is subjective, but it does not have to be as I shall explain.


What is understood to be good may be quite different from what is actually good. Even if there exists a God, people may interpret what this God says is good in a way different from what is actually good. So in determining what is actually good, we must look at the situation objectively. We do this by looking not just at what is good for us, but by looking at what is good for every living being.


Any definition can be twisted to suit one’s own personal taste for what is good, but a comprehensive view allows for a definition to be useful in a debate about what really is and is not.


The way in which Con presented Lewis’ definition of good was rather confusing, but in some ways it seemed to agree with what I have said. It argues that it is important to look at all cultures and religions and not just one’s own to determine good. I also argued that a broad and objective viewpoint is necessary in determining what is good.


I therefore ask Con to further explain the standard his chosen definition uses to determine good.


I also challenge him to explain why this definition would include suffering within it. If this definition rejects suffering as well, then we are in agreement that suffering is not good, regardless of which definition we use.


God and Time


Con’s argument here is somewhat contradictory. He agrees that God exists outside of time, but denies that God would then know events that would happen in the future. Even though humans operating within time did not know what would transpire in the future, a being outside of time would not be bound by time and would then have the ability to know what would occur in the future.


Additionally, Con’s denial that God has all future knowledge is directly in contrast with the definition of a perfect God. Such a God was defined as being omniscient, having all knowledge, therefore a God that does not have this knowledge is not the perfect God that is the subject of the debate.


Non-Man originated suffering


Con wrote: “My argument has been that in the beginning what God created was completely devoid of suffering, and it was not until man began to go against the will of god that suffering entered the world as a direct consequence of this. Any kind of suffering wether it be a sore back after plowing a garden or labor pains or tornadoes destroying things….all are a result of the fallen creation that fell from the way it was perfectly made because of mans actions.”


As I have previously explained, because of His/Her/Its his omniscience and existence outside of time, God would know when the universe was created exactly what would transpire. Additionally, it seems that going against the will of God is not a just reason to institute suffering on all of humanity and all living creatures.


Therefore, I ask you:


Is a newborn baby that has made no significant choices or moral transgressions in his or her life responsible and deserving of suffering inflicted upon it by some non-human cause such as disease?


And what about animals? Like the baby I just described and perhaps even to a greater extent, they cannot be held responsible for disobeying some divine command of which they are not aware nor able to understand. So, why then is it morally acceptable for them to suffer from sickness, earthquakes, tornados, etc.?


These two examples demonstrate unnecessary suffering.


From an objective and perfect standpoint, these scenarios are hardly the result of human actions. Even if, as my opponent argues, they are provoked by human transgression, what transgression could possibly result in this massive punishment that has been inflicted upon so many living things in the form of suffering? Any God that would levy such a punishment for a human action such as, for example, eating a forbidden fruit, can hardly be considered moral.


More importantly, Con said that even though human decisions may have provoked suffering occurring, it is through God’s will that sustained suffering has occurred. This is because human actions do not directly cause the creation of all diseases or natural disasters. No, if there was no suffering before this transgression, then some third party, God, would have had to cause the massive amount of suffering that cannot be directly caused by humans like earthquakes to begin.


Free Will


I will concede for the remainder of the debate that human free will does indeed exist, however this does not affect the points I have previously made.


Summary


To summarize the arguments so far:


P1. If there exists unnecessary suffering in the world, a perfect God is incapable of being.


The arguments that Con made no arguments explicitly addressing this premise, but the two arguments he made that are related to it are his “Definition of Good” argument and the “Argument from Time.” In this round I explained why the definition of good I provided is applicable and why unnecessary suffering is not part of good pretty much anyway that one looks at it. I also explained why God’s omniscience and existence outside of time means that he can does know the future.


This premise stands.


P2. Unnecessary suffering exists.


Con’s challenge to this premise was that all suffering is the result of human decisions and is therefore necessary. I explained that not all suffering can be the direct result of human action if the world began with no suffering. I also explained that babies and animals have no reason to suffer because they are not morally responsible, therefore, their suffering is unnecessary. There is clearly unnecessary suffering int he world.


C. Therefore, a perfect God is incapable of being.


Because the premises have been shown to be true, the conclusion stands as well.



The resolution is affirmed.


Marauder

Con


I thank my opponent for giving me a good debate


C.S. Lewis’s the ‘Tao’


You sound as though your almost asking me to make your arguments for you. I’m not going to make any case from any source that suffering ‘is bad’. I argued reference to C.S. Lewis’s ‘Tao’ found in the appendix of one of his books ‘The Abolition of Man’ http://www.columbia.edu... to make a point against defining good as ‘what is approved of or desired’. And on that point you seem to have conceded my case. That if Merriam Webster’s definition for ‘good’ is what gave your grounds to say suffering is ‘bad’ then you have no adequate grounds to say suffering is bad.


All I will personally offer on suffering myself is that Paul would say through the New Testament when you go through suffering to count it all a blessing, and that when he would suffer with a thorn in his side and prayed for God to relive that suffering from him God would let him know his grace is sufficient for thee and that in our weakness he works the strongest through us in our lives. Suffering makes us stronger, suffering makes us grow, suffering makes us better.


Of course I don’t have prove that this debate. It’s only been my job to show you haven’t proved your own case that suffering is bad. I suggest something like an appeal C.S. Lewis makes in the Tao is your only chance at doing such. If you explore the link I gave above that contains the appendix of ‘the abolition of man’ where every claim about what is ‘good’ is defended by a variety of belief structures from across the world, including things like Ancient Egyptian writings, Stoic philosophers from Rome, Ancient Chinese, Hebrew Law, Noirs religious writings, and more. Defend that suffering is not only ‘bad’ but bad for a God to allow by quoting various cultural writings and sources in a similar fashion Lewis has to defend ‘the Law of Special Beneficence’.


God and Time


You did not respond to even one aspect of my argument. I made a distinct case about the state of the future before it occurs, perhaps you would understand better if I spoke about the omniscience by comparing to a common omnipotent’s argument. It does not make God not Omnipotent if he cannot make a square circle or a rock so big he cant movie it. you presuppose square circles can exist by asking him to make one, and you presuppose the events of the future are completely pre-established by asking him to know them in the way you ask. Knowing everything does not mean knowing what isn’t there to be known. You cant know what goes on outside of the universe and heaven and hell if there is no such place beyond the any of these.


If your going to prove your time argument, you have to offer a case that proves what the future is like before it happens. I argue if you were outside of time and could see the future you would see the future does not have much definition yet. That if you built a time machine car, drove to the future observed it, changed nothing, came back, then drove to the future again, you could quite possibly be in a very deferent future. That basically if you saw the future you would see multiple futures, and they remain all possible futures until the moment in time that is the present reaches the points were we make the choices that bring us into only certain kinds of those futures. That when God created Man he saw a future where Adam ate from the tree side by side a future where Adam did not eat from it.


Perhaps I cant prove that’s the way the future is, but you cannot prove that future is only one way either. And if you cant prove that than you cant prove God would know Man would cause suffering if created, rather than that God would know Man could cause suffering or Man might have trusted God and not brought suffering into the world. And a just God would not condemn us by not creating us for the bad future we would bring in until the moment passes that we actually do bring it in.


The Baby argument:


I suppose I’m going to have to clarify my case when I say from tornadoes to sore backs are a result of man’s sin. When I say all the suffering in the world today is a cause of that, do not think I mean all at once. I mean it can all be traced back to the original sin, and that had that original sin not occurred surely none of today’s suffering would be here, we would still be the perfect Eden like creation God made.


I do not mean you can add together the combined effects of all suffering that ever happens in the world and for all time as the resulting punishment for Adam and Eves sins. That’s an absurd claim to make for anyone on either side of this issue. The immediate and sole effects that would occur to the ‘children’ that they would leave the Garden and have work for themselves for there food and child birth would be painful. There were no droughts that plagued the earth, the air was still pure, they suffered no skin damage from ultraviolet radiation, and oh yeah they understood they needed to were clothes.


Speaking of the clothing, another point to keep in mind there ‘moral choices’ they were faced with was smaller and different from ours. It was just the fundamental choice of whether or not they would trust and obey there maker. Everything else was okay, they could even walk around naked. That was not bad until after they chose to be the deciders of good and evil for themselves. And its this fundamental trend, to choose for ourselves what’s right and wrong, that is behind all suffering, the trend that began with the first man and woman.


Anyway the future specific suffering like floods, UV rays, life under 200 years, murder, etc… would all be the result of more continued sin from mankind.


Baby argument interpretation #2:


Unless of course your baby argument is actually not a reference to the hypothesized relative growth of Adam and Eve at the time of the fall, but rather a baby born today. What an infant deserves is irrelevant to this debate resolution as I have said the world they were born in was forged that way by there parents and ancestors, all the bad in it anyway.


It occurred to me you might have meant that when I started reading the case about the animals. You would be taking a great stretch to claim animals even deserve anything good to happen to them, much less if they deserve to not suffer, you certainly could not prove it.


Free Will:


Your concession that it exist does affect your points you have made. All of them. It affects how you look at the character of the creations of the maker. It affects how you can look at there purposes and function, the reason for there creation. If affects how you look at what we would be like without free will. Had we no Free Will from the beginning, life would still be like Eden, but we could not enjoy if for we would have no real souls to love the fruits of the garden. Trainer Red is not happy when when I make him beat the Elite Four or capture a Mewtwo, he is just a program of pixels in a game I completely control. Sure his feelings cant be hurt when people like his Rival say mean things to him, he understand Trainer Blue has no choice in any of this either. Do you think Trainer Red is glad when Professor Oak tells him he is proud of him? Of course not! They are all soulless computer programs incapable of Free Will and true choice. Had God made us without Free Will and so we would love him it would be as if Captain Picard on Star Trek TNG went to the holodeck and programmed a woman to say ‘I love you’ to him. It’s just not the same, and its just not worth creating. The All Good, and All Powerfull God would of course choose to create something with much more potential than a Holodeck creation, and he succeeded at this because he did. And to this day we still have the potential to be everything he created us for. But we have to stop the trend that began with the first Man and quite trying to decide for ourselves just what is right and just what is wrong against what God says it is.


Summary:


(Do to space the summary had to cut out)
Debate Round No. 2
Magicr

Pro

As I will not be able to respond to my opponents final statement, please keep these arguments in mind.

Definition of Good and its Application to Suffering

I defined good as “To be desired or approved of.” Suffering was defined as “the state or experience of one that endures pain, death, etc.” Humans and just about every other living thing that is able to experience suffering spend there existence trying to avoid pain, death, and other forms of suffering.

Additionally, to further clarify this point: It is clear that what is not beneficial is not desired or approved of. Unnecessary is not beneficial. Therefore, unnecessary suffering is not good.

Con didn’t like my definition of “good,” though my refutation of his reasoning for objection went unchallenged.

In the most recent round Con wrote:

“If Merriam Webster’s definition for ‘good’ is what gave your grounds to say suffering is ‘bad’ then you have no adequate grounds to say suffering is bad.”

I have just explained why the dictionary definition of “good” is in opposition to the agreed upon definition of “suffering.”

I am also rather perplexed by the statement I just quoted given the following statement that was made not long after it:

“Of course I don’t have prove that this debate. It’s only been my job to show you haven’t proved your own case that suffering is bad. I suggest something like an appeal C.S. Lewis makes in the Tao is your only chance at doing such. If you explore the link I gave above that contains the appendix of ‘the abolition of man’ where every claim about what is ‘good’ is defended by a variety of belief structures from across the world, including things like Ancient Egyptian writings, Stoic philosophers from Rome, Ancient Chinese, Hebrew Law, Noirs religious writings, and more.”

Con argues that the standard for determining whether suffering is good or bad should be something like his source that includes a variety of belief structure’s opinions.

The thing is, however, that my dictionary definition is simply a much simpler way of expressing what he expresses in that paragraph. Obviously if multiple belief systems reject something as good, then it is not desired and not approved of: it is not good.

So, Con’s challenge to my definition is really a non-challenge.

God and Time

This section of Con’s argument is rather flawed. The main idea he expressed was that the future was not fixed and can therefore not be known. While this is true, the idea he failed to acknowledge is that once an event occurs within a singular universe, that event cannot be undone.

Con wrote: “I argue if you were outside of time and could see the future you would see the future does not have much definition yet. That if you built a time machine car, drove to the future observed it, changed nothing, came back, then drove to the future again, you could quite possibly be in a very deferent future. That basically if you saw the future you would see multiple futures, and they remain all possible futures until the moment in time that is the present reaches the points were we make the choices that bring us into only certain kinds of those futures.”

The time machine thing different futures thing is flawed. As long as you are traveling back and forth within the same universe and your time travel does not affect the events you are observing, you should see a repeat of the same event. Why? Because, like I stated, once something happens within a universe, that thing has happened and will remain having happened within that universe.

God would therefore be able to know what event happened before it happened.

Con also argued that knowledge of future events for which the outcome had not been determined is logically impossible in the same way that creating a triangle with four sides is. Con wrote: “Knowing everything does not mean knowing what isn’t there to be known.” This is true, I suppose, but knowing the future is something that is there to be known for a being that exists outside of time.

The Baby argument

In the previous round I asked why a baby that has committed no sin should be subject to suffering such as disease. Con’s answer was: “What an infant deserves is irrelevant to this debate resolution as I have said the world they were born in was forged that way by there parents and ancestors, all the bad in it anyway.”

What he is saying is that a baby can deserve to suffer because of the actions of its parents and ancestors. That’s basically saying is that it’s alright to murder torture and do anything else you want to a baby because you don’t like that his or her parents’ or grandparents’ or ancestor’s a thousand years ago’s actions.

I have already established that unnecessary suffering is undesired and therefore not good. Causing suffering upon an innocent baby is unnecessary as that baby bears no responsibility for the actions of its parents.

The Animal Argument

This argument is pretty similar to the baby argument. I have already demonstrated that unnecessary suffering is bad. Suffering of animals such as diseases and natural disasters, i.e. things that are uncaused by other living organisms choices, is undeserved and therefore unnecessary.

Free Will

I agree that if we do not have free will, then this debate would definitely by different. The reason I conceded this point is that I am not aware of sufficient evidence to conclusively claim one way or the other on this issue.

But regardlessly, the arguments I have made in this round and the preceding rounds do not depend on us not having free will, therefore the point is irrelevant.

Summary and Conclusion

P1. If there exists unnecessary suffering in the world, a perfect God is incapable of existing.

I have demonstrated that unnecessary suffering is undesired and and not beneficial, and is therefore not good. I have also demonstrated in this debate that a perfect God would be able to prevent unnecessary suffering if it existed. A perfect God would also know what suffering would occur in the future. Therefore, if suffering exists that is not necessary for some greater good, then an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God cannot.

P2. There exists unnecessary suffering in the world.

The baby argument is probably the most basic example of this. However, numerous examples of such suffering exist. Also of note here is my point that the “sins” of humans do not directly cause events such as natural disasters and disease, that God must have decided that these things should begin to occur.

C. Therefore, a perfect God is incapable of being.

I demonstrated that the conclusion follows logically from the premises, an argument that Con did not challenge. Therefore, if the premises are true, which I have shown them to be, the conclusion must also be true.

I’d like to thank Marauder for participating in this debate. I’d also like to thank those who have taken the time to read this debate and the unfinished one preceding it.

I have successfully fulfilled my burden of proof and the resolution is affirmed.

Vote Pro!!

Marauder

Con


Definition of Good:


No I have given no ‘non-challenge’; I have only given a legit full challenge to your definition of good. I have challenged that you have not met the requirements to satisfactory prove suffering is Bad. I even went a little out of my way to suggest a route you might try to adequately prove suffering is bad and you chose not too. I have left a philosophical challenge that if something is bad on no more grounds than ‘it is not desired or approved of’ than it is groundless because it’s ‘badness’ is not objectively independent of a persons opinions.


I have also even defended and promoted the idea that suffering is Good. My reasoning for such was not directly contested but rather ignored, while the Merriem Webster definition was stubbornly still being used without any rebuttal offered by Pro to my arguments that negated it, meaning my philosophical logic based rejection of it because it by definition is not objective, and the absence of an appeal to other sources like the way is done by the Tao. Pro seems to think he has addressed the Tao argument by claiming it’s a more complicated way of expressing the Merriem Webster definition. If this was true than Pro should have proved this by quoting things like the writings of the Ancient Egyptians ‘confessions of a righteous soul’ and many other belief structures writings beside it. He did not so the BOP is not met for this particular debate.


God and Time:


To start with this point I’d like to address the concession made at the second half of Pro’s rebuttal first, that Pro ‘supposes this is true” when I say knowing everything does not mean knowing what isn’t there to be known for the same reasons omnipotence does not mean ‘can make square triangles. With this concession it means you accept my arguments validity though not its soundness yet. The only thing contended is the premise of how the state of the future would be perceived.


Your rebuttal of my time machine example only would go as far to prove if I’m right then Time Travel to the future would be impossible. Remember we are still only talking about a hypothetical scenario made to convey a point. If my time machine example is flawed it can only be for the same reasons your rebuttal of it is flawed. My argument is ultimately not about if people could travel to the future, its about what would you see in the future if you existed outside of time. You propose the future would only look one way, fixed, that the way things will happen is the only way they can happen. I proposed that my choice today is what determines what happens tomorrow. That the way this will happen will only be one of the ways things could end up happening. You say the future is written in stone, I say its subject to change. Neither of us can prove this either way, So the argument about God and Time fails to meet the BOP. As long as the way I suggest the future could be remains a possible viewing of it unrefuted by evidence from real time travel machines, then my argument remains sound and negates the God and Time point


Baby Argument:


No that was not what my argument was saying. My argument was saying the cause of the suffering to the baby can not be tied back to the All Good God who would not bring suffering on to a baby. The suffering it goes through the parents are responsible for causing. My rebuttal had nothing to do with ‘the deserved’ but rather ‘the cause’. Because your rebuttal was against ‘the deserved’ and not my actual argument ‘the cause’ my rebuttal stands unrefuted, and the baby argument must be considered not to stand


Animals:


Its not similar because this one rest on a premise that animals ‘deserve’ anything, be it good or bad. A premise I challenged and Pro has not done anything to prove or support the radical idea. Even if your from PETA and think Whaling is a sin, you would have to concede my opponent did not actually give arguments to uphold your ideals, only left them assumed. And that would be fine had I not challenged them but I did challenge them.


Free Will:


Free Will was conceded to exist for the purposes of this debate by Pro


Summary & Conclusion:


I have either caused my opponent to concede, or I have totally rebutted, or at the least showed the BOP was not met in every single argument brought up this debate.


At the end of this debate I think all the readers should see that the famous ‘Problem of Evil’ argument is not an actual argument that can disprove the existence of God as it does not rest on provable premises. It may be a set of reasoning to lead you to the conclusion there is no God if you come from a mindset of these un-provable premises, but that makes it a philosophical difference, a kind of difference that means your beliefs there cant be a god because of the Problem of evil rest on as much ‘Faith’ as a Christians belief there is a God rest on.


That said Pro has been a wonderful opponent and I’d like to thank him one last time for letting us restart the debate in a part 2 after forfeited because of Power Outages in my area.


Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
You can blame food manufacturers for that. They add all kinds of junk to your food, such as partially hydrogenated oil. They made a lot of people allergic to natural foods because they want you to be addicted to their food.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
BestFriend 5:6--You cannot make fun of gods gifts, you dont even know how to make over 6,000 different birth defects so youre obviously not all knowing like god, plus he even knows how to make kids born allergic to water :)

Quotes 4:21--To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize--Voltaire

GoodTimes 2:7--Imagine a world where there is not a shred of religious writings ever found. Until today. What a world it would be, you could read this newfound childish doctrine from the 80th Floor of either WTC :)
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Devient.genie, please remove your vote bomb.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
cartoon dinosaur, no crying, its incessant and habitual the way you cry on the regular :)

Walk It Off :)

Secrets 2:41--The Genie was infected with religious delusional thoughts in his past, then he turned 12 yrs old :)

Recognize 12:9--Humans live longer, better, and more comfortable lives, when they use their science to advance mankind, religions are zits and hemorrhoids all over advancing mankind :)
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
now if only deadlykris votebomb would be countered.....
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Science never claimed to be perfect in answering every single question we can ask. Not being perfect, doesn Not mean you also have to be a complete moron and wrong about everything. We have examined evolution inside and out for over 150 yrs, its game over, in 2013 science knows more than peole ignore :)

Humans live a better life when they use their science to advance society, religions are zits and hemorroids all over advancing mankind :)
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
MagicrMarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: It was close, but in the end pro finally pulled it off. Its not easy to think logically, but thanks to pro's work, maybe con will use this debate as a tool on how to grow as a person :)
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
MagicrMarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: After sifting through all this mess of votebombs and counter-votebombs, the only vote unaccounted for is jh1234l's. He gives three unwarranted points to pro and four unwarranted points to con. Therefore, he gave one too many points to con.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
MagicrMarauderTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Fritz was countered twice, evening it out
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
MagicrMarauderTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Conter Macgruber, Jarhyn already contered fritzsammberger, you cannot counter one vote twice. Arguments vote for better arguments.
Vote Placed by MacGruber 4 years ago
MacGruber
MagicrMarauderTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering FritzStammberger and supporting pros better arguments conduct and sources
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
MagicrMarauderTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB fritz.
Vote Placed by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
MagicrMarauderTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con better understands the problem of evil and clearly dealt with pros arguments sufficiently.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
MagicrMarauderTied
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: Pro not only met burden of proof, but refuted all arguments by Con that attempted to undermine his arguments and also refuted Con's arguments which were not designed to undermine Pro's burden of proof. He DID concede a point that should not have been conceded - that of the burden of proof for the concept of free will - but that point was secondary to his arguments.