The Instigator
wiploc
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Rednerrus
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

The Problem of Evil Proves that Tri-Omni Gods Do Not Exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,038 times Debate No: 18972
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (5)

 

wiploc

Pro

Resolved: It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil.

Tri-omni: Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. But we could not logically discuss a god who thwarted logic, so we must restrict ourselves to punk omnipotence rather than true omnipotence: An omnipotent god, then, can do anything except violate logic. No square circles; no married bachelors. Eliminating evil does not violate logic. Nor, unless free will is evil, does eliminating evil while allowing free will. An omnipotent god could do that easily.

Omniscience: Knowing everything. Including the future. According to Plantinga, when god was choosing which world to create, he knew everything that would ever happen, including every choice that would be made, in every possible world and in every impossible world. I'm with Plantinga on this: An omniscient god knows all about evil, when and in which circumstances it would happen, how to keep it from happening.

Omnibenevolence: Benevolence is wanting good, opposing evil. Omnibenevolence, then, at a minimum, is totally, infinitely, wholly, strongly, unconflictedly wanting there to be no evil. For an omnibenevolent god, opposing evil is not on a back burner.

An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil if he could. An omnipotent god would be able to prevent evil if he wanted to. A god both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would both want to and be able to prevent evil. And no evil would slip past or baffle an omniscient god.

If a tri-omni god existed, then, there would be no evil.

Anyone who believes that evil exists is therefore in error if she also believes that a tri-omni god exists.

Five Responses:

There are five legitimate responses to the PoE (problem of evil). I've seen all five of them used.

1. God is not really omnipotent.
2. God is not really omniscient.
3. God is not really omnibenevolent.
4. There isn't really any evil.
5. God is contrary to logic.

All of these responses amount to consessions that the PoE is correct.

The PoE proves that, if evil exists, then tri-omni gods don't exist. But it doesn't prove that other gods don't exist.

The Christian God: Is the Christian god tri-omni? Does the PoE prove that the Christian god doesn't exist? In my mind, the tri-omni version is the standard model Christian god. But I grew up in Kansas, which may have influenced my views. There are certainly many Christians who believe in other models.

One could argue that the PoE doesn't even disprove the god of Christians who believe god is tri-omni. It merely, if evil exists, proves that they are mistaken as to their god's nature.

Evil: I don't know whether to define it. I don't want to argue about the definition. But, in case it will facilitate discussion, I'll say that I think of evil as suffering or unhappiness. If Red wants another definition, we can use that.

The PoE is bulletproof regardless of how evil is defined. If we defined evil as the color blue, then there would be nothing blue in a world that had an omnipotent omniscient god totally opposed to blueness.

Might there be such a god in this world, the actual world? No. Some things are blue, therefore we know that no such god exists.

Suffering exists, so we know there is no omnipotent omniscient god who is totally opposed to suffering.

Regardless of how evil is defined, we know that if evil exists, there is no omnipotent omniscient god who is totally opposed to evil.

Anybody who believes in both evil and a tri-omni god is wrong.

Sin vs. Evil: Many people conflate sin with evil. I'm not sure this is relevant, and I certainly don't want to hold Red to my definition of either sin or evil. So I offer this only in case it helps.

Sin is doubt or disobedience of god. Evil is the punishment for sin: suffering. It's easy to confuse them, because sins can be moral evils. If lusting after your neighbors wife is forbidden by god, it is a sin; and if it causes unhappiness, then it is also evil.

What about mixed evil and good? Again, I'm not holding Red to any definition of evil. Just clarifying my views in case that is helpful. What if something made one person happy and another person sad? Would it still be an evil? Yes, because that's the definition of evil. And it would also be a good, because making someone happy is the definition of a good. An omnipotent god could have arranged things so that both people were happy.

What about malevolent people? What if someone can only be made happy by the unhappiess of other people? Wouldn't that stump an omnibenevolent god? No, not unless he was really stupid. An omnipotent god could fix it so that people didn't develop malice. An omniscient god would know ways to effect that. I don't have to know the ways, myself. An omniscient god would know. As a last resort, if nothing else worked, god wouldn't have to create those malicious people. He could create the ones who get along with each other.

Pantinga admits that there are possible worlds in which no evil choice is ever made. And some of them have free will. God could have created one of them. An omnibenevolent god would have wanted to. An omnipotent god would have been able to. An omniscient god would have known which worlds they were. A tri-omni god would not have created a world with evil.

"But, That's Not My God": I don't know why people who don't believe in a tri-omni god argue against the PoE. Many say, "The PoE is wrong; god doesn't know the future." But that's really the PoE's point: god doesn't know the future. Not if he's omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and if evil exists.

People who believe in this lesser god shouldn't try to fight the PoE. They should use it to enlighten benighted souls who believe that god is tri-omni and coexists with evil.

Morality and Omnibenevolence: I don't want to put words in Red's mouth, but I'm happy to help him to a running start if I can. And I suspect that I know how he'll argue, so I'll try to help. But, he may have a different angle. In which case this bit is moot. I'm not trying to bind him to a position.

I think Red will use move three: god isn't reallly omnibenevolent. Because god is moral, he isn't really totally opposed to evil.

I don't know why morality would require toleration of evil, but, hey, that's not what we're discussing. If Red believes that god's morality means he isn't totally opposed to evil, that's a legitimate response to the problem of evil. Red can hold that position, and the PoE has nothing to say against it.

I just want to be clear that that isn't a refutation of the PoE. That agrees with the PoE. The PoE proves that, if god exists, and if evil exists, and if god is omnipotent and omniscient, then god cannot also be omnibenevolent.

So if Red argues that god, because of his morality, is not totally opposed to evil, that is not an argument against the PoE.

I'm laboring this because we only have four rounds, and I've seen people go ten or twenty rounds on this specific issue. You can't refute the PoE by agreeing with it.

None of the five legitimate responses contradicts the PoE. And no other response is even on topic.

We must conclude that if evil exists, then there are no gods who are omnipotent, omniscient, and also omnibenevolent.

Thanks to Red for engaging with me on this topic.

Vote Pro.














Rednerrus

Con

Intro

I will be defending the Chrisitian position in this debate, not a generalized concept of a tri-omni God.

What Is The Problem Of Evil (PoE)

I would like to start by first talking about what my opponent's argument is about and what it tries to accomplish. A lot of times, people using the PoE argument do not understand it and turns it into a completely different argument during the course of the debate.
The PoE is an argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, that claims that the existence of such a God is incompatible with the existence of evil. The problem of evil amounts to the charge that there is logical incoherence within the Christian outlook. The PoE is an internal critique of a worldview that adheres to the belief that a tri-omni God, exists simultaneously with evil. So for this debate, I will only be defending the internal coherence of the Christian worldview. This calls for both Pro and I to assume for argument sake, all of what Christianity claims to be true.

David Hume persuasively expressed the PoE this way,
“Is [God] willing to prevent evil but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (1)

The PoE's goal is to show that a belief system that claims that a tri-omni God exists while at the same time evil exists, is internally incoherent, and is therefore is logically impossible and false.

This PoE usually concerns the God of the Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam, due to the claims of respective holy texts. I will be defending the Christian worldview, more specifically Reformed Protestant Christianity, which I would argue is the biblically accurate Christianity. I would also argue that Christianity is the complete and real Judaism, and that Islam is just a perversion of Christianity. This has little to do with this debate, but I just wanted to point out that Abraham's God is unique in that it is the only God with tri-omni traits.


My Position and Response

We have to first realize that the description of the Christian God is entirely rooted from the claims of the Bible. We know that the Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, sovereign, perfectly just, loving, personal, etc. only by the revelations of scripture, which claims to be God's very word.

We also have to realize, though Pro will probably disagree, that we only know what evil is because God Himself revealed it to us. This issue may or may not matter in this debate depending on Pro's arguments.

Now the Christian worldview claims that indeed, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent while simultaneously evil exists. It also claims that since God is completely sovereign, God ultimately was the one who allowed evil to exists. He did this when He chose to create human beings despite knowing that they were gonna rebel and cause the fall of all of nature, and God is also ultimately the one who is allowing the continous ongoing evil, despite having the power to stop it at anytime.

Pro listed what he thinks are the 5 legitimate responses to the PoE. Obviously I disagree that any of those are legitimate answers. All 5 of them are against the Bible teaches.


The Biblical, logical, and legitimate response is this:

The omnipotent, omniscient God, sovereignly allowed and continues to allow evil to exist for a morally sufficient reason. As Dr. Greg Bahnsen puts it, “any evil we find must be compatible with God's goodness. This is just to say that God has planned evil events for reasons which are morally commendable and good.” (2)

This response does not result into any internal incoherence, conflict or negation of any of His revealed traits, refuting the PoE claim that God and evil are logically incompatible. Of course Pro begs to differ, but let's see why.


Omnibenevolence
I think the main issue in this debate will be the issue of omnibenevolence and it’s definition. “The phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes 'infinite benevolence'.” (3)

Pro said while defining omnibenevolence that,
“Benevolence is wanting good, opposing evil. Omnibenevolence, then, at a minimum, is totally, infinitely, wholly, strongly, unconflictedly wanting there to be no evil. For an omnibenevolent god, opposing evil is not on a back burner. ” He adds, "An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil if he could."

This is not exactly the Biblical definition of God’s moral character. The Bible never said that because of God’s perfect goodness or omnibenevolence, He is unable to permit evil. Christianity does not at all claim that God is not willing to allow evil. The fact that He already allowed evil tells us that He was willing to permit evil. Nevertheless the Bible teaches that God is all-good, omnibenevolent. The angels declare that “holy, holy, holy, is the Lord almighty”. The word of God claims that God is not guilty of ANY evil.

So the question is; is God still omnibenevolent even if He is willing to, and in fact did, allow the existence of evil for a morally sufficient reason?

The Christian position is that God's intentions for permitting evil are purely good and morally justifed, so the answer is yes, God remains omnibenevolent in allowing evil to exist.

However, according to Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence, the answer is No, He is not omnibenevolent.


Problem with the definition

We have to remember that the PoE is an internal critique. But you see, when Pro decided to define one of God’s traits (omnibenevolence), outside the revelation of scriptures, and in a way that does not describe the God of the Bible, Pro is no longer arguing against the existence of Abraham’s God. He is commiting what I like to call strawgod fallacy (pretty self explanatory).

Omnibenevolence in the Bible means HOLY, morally perfect, not guilty of any evil. God does hate evil and will ultimately and absolutely abolish it. But He chose to permit and make providence for it for His purpose. The specifics of the purpose is not revealed to us but we have a general idea by deducing from what He did reveal. "Everything is by Him, to Him, and for Him." We know that ultimately Christ will be glorified. In the Christian worldview, this is the ULTIMATE good, displaying the glory of Christ.

Now Im sure Pro will challenge this response by saying that God is guilty of evil when He permitted evil to display His glory, or for permitting evil for any reason at all. Well we can not just accept this unless Pro can provide a moral basis to why God choosing to permit evil for morally commendable and good reasons like displaying His glory, results into the negation of His all-good nature. If Pro wants to make his own definition of “omnibenevolence” outside the Bible, then he needs to provide a standard of omnibenevolence or “good” that isn’t arbitrary or question begging. Pro will first need to somehow come up with a moral standard that he can apply to God.

If he is unable to do so, then his argument is basically, "God is not omnibenevolent because I don't like the fact that He permitted evil to fulfull His purpose." And this leads us to the the ironic fact that the PoE is actually a problem for the unbeliever. I will not get into this right now to avoid complicating this already phylosophically heavy topic. But It might come up depending on Pro's arguments.


Conclusion

God having a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil the exists, refutes the claim that the Christian worldview is logially impossible. Unless one just want to disagree according to one's own arbitrary moral standards, making the problem a psycholigical problem, instead of a logical one.







(1) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Nelson Pike (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill Publications: 1981), p. 88

(2) Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, ALWAYS READY

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...;


Debate Round No. 1
wiploc

Pro


Two points before I begin:


- I apologize for the formatting. I'm new here, and don't yet know how to make Microsoft Word paste fluently to this site.


- Thanks to Rednerrus for participating, and for pointing out that the PoE doesn't refute all gods, doesn't refute all Christian gods, and doesn't refute Rednerrus's god. I hope he has eliminated any readers' confusion on this point.


And now my second post:


===


Con has conceded. Vote Pro.


Con agrees that god has the power and knowledge so that he could prevent evil if he wanted to, and that therefore there would be no evil if god were totally opposed to it.


God could prevent evil if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to. That's Con's point, and it is my point. It is what I set out to prove, and Con agrees with me. So he has effectively conceded.


Con wrote:


: … God is also ultimately the one who is allowing the continous


: ongoing evil, despite having the power to stop it at anytime.


and


: Christianity does not at all claim that God is not willing to allow evil.


and


: That is not exactly the Biblical definition of God's character.


So he's agreeing with me that god is not totally opposed to evil. Con's way of coping with the problem of evil is to admit that god is not totally opposed to evil. But that's my point. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, and if evil exists, then god must not be totally opposed to evil.


Con is agreeing with me. He even wrote,


: The fact that He already allowed evil tells us that He was willing to permit evil.


Bingo! That is concession.


In my opening post, I wrote:


: : I don't know why people who don't believe in a tri-omni


: : god argue against the PoE. Many say, "The PoE is wrong;


: : god doesn't know the future." But that's really the PoE's point:


: : god doesn't know the future. Not if he's omnipotent and


: : omnibenevolent, and if evil exists.


Yet here's Con, himself not believing that god is totally opposed to evil, and yet thinking he's arguing against the PoE.


Con says that god allows evil for his own purposes. That's my point. That's not a refutation of the problem of evil, rather it is agreeing with it: If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and if evil exists, then god must not be totally opposed to evil. That's what I set out to prove, and Con agrees that I am correct. Con has conceded.


Con argues that the reason god doesn't totally oppose evil is that he has some screwy not-opposed-to-evil morality. That's fine with me. For the purposes of this debate, I don't care about the reason. My claim is only that, if evil exists, god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil.


Con agrees that if god were omnipotent and omnipotent and totally opposed to evil, then evil would not exist. That's a concession. That is the very issue we are debating, and Con has conceded it.


Vote Pro.



Notes and asides:


Con accuses me of strawgodding by suggesting that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. Apparently he's missed the whole point of my argument. I proved that, if he coexists with evil, god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. I'm not strawgodding; I'm proving that that strawgod does not exist. And Con agrees with me: That god cannot exist. Con concedes my point.


-


Con points out that if we defined "omnibenevolent" differently, then god could be tri-omni and still coexist with evil. I grant this point. There is no argument on any subject that couldn't be defeated by changing the meaning of the words.


In my opening post, I defined "omnibenevolence." I said,


: : Benevolence is wanting good, opposing evil. Omnibenevolence,


: : then, at a minimum, is totally, infinitely, wholly, strongly, unconflictedly


: : wanting there to be no evil. For an omnibenevolent god, opposing evil


: : is not on a back burner.


Con wasn't bushwhacked by this definition. He agreed to this debate knowing what my definitions were. He knew what issue I wanted to discuss. And he agrees that if we use my definitions, the resolution is correct: I win the debate. But he wants to make the point that if he changes the definitions then my argument no longer works.



Well, that doesn't bother me, because there is no argument on any subject that couldn't be defeated by changing the meanings of the words. What's important is that if we do not change the meanings of the words, then the resolution is proven to be correct, and Con agrees that it is correct, and every reader should vote Pro.


As I may have pointed out in my opening statement, some Christians don't believe god knows the future. But they still call him omniscient. And I've talked with one Christian who doesn't think god can supersize fries, but he still calls him omnipotent. In other contexts, Con is welcome to call his tolerant-of-evil god "omnibenevolent" if he wants to, but in this debate I have defined the word. And Con agreed to that definition by accepting the debate. And he agreed that if we use definition, then god cannot be tri-omni and coexist with evil. In other words, he conceded. He even wrote:


: However, according to Pro's definition of omnibenevolence, the


: answer is No. He is not omnibenevolent.


That is full concession of the only point in contention. Vote Pro.


-


Con makes some claim about the worldview of Reformed Protestant Christianity. I don't know anything about that. This debate has nothing to do with that. Con is welcome to start a debate on that topic if he wants to. I won't have standing to participate.


-


In his conclusion, Con writes:


: God having a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil


: the exists, refutes the claim that the Christian worldview is


: logically impossible.


The PoE (problem of evil) doesn't say that "the Christian worldview" is impossible. It says that if evil exists, then there can't be an omnipotent and omniscient god who is totally opposed to evil. Con doesn't believe in that god anyway, so he is in agreement with the PoE.



Conclusion:


Con hasn't really tried to refute the PoE.


His real point may be that you can be a Christian without believing in a logically impossible god. I've got no problem with that. Nor has the PoE.


And if Con wants, in other contexts, to call god "omnibenevolent" even though he isn't totally opposed to evil. I've got no problem with that either.


The point is that, if evil exists, then there can't be a god who is omnipotent and omniscient and who is totally opposed to evil.


Far from refuting this point, Con has endorsed it, agreed with it, conceded that it is correct.


Therefore, the resolution is uncontested.


Please vote Pro.




Rednerrus

Con

Intro

That was quite an amusing post by Con.

Con admits to strawgodding,

“Thanks to Rednerrus for participating, and for pointing out that the PoE doesn't refute all gods, doesn't refute all Christian gods, and doesn't refute Rednerrus's god.”

“I'm proving that that strawgod does not exist. And Con agrees with me: That god cannot exist. Con concedes my point.”

If Con wins the debate by proving that the strawgod that he created doesn’t exist, then that’s totally fine by me. Con accomplishes nothing by doing this and proves what I already told him, that he does not know how to use the PoE argument correctly.

The PoE as I’ve said in the opening round is an internal critique. So exactly which worldview is Pro internally critiquing? The PoE, which was first discussed by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (371-270 BC), was created to refute a tri-omni God, but if you remember from my previous post, Abraham’s God is the ONLY God with these characteristics. The PoE argument was primarily formed to refute Abraham's God, the Christian God, not just any strawgod.


The Actual Debate

I never conceded to the resolution of this debate.
My position is still that the PoE does NOT prove that a tri-omni God exists.

Before Con and I started this debate, we were discussing in the comments section of my previous PoE debate (where God = the Christian God) about his PoE argument.
http://www.debate.org...

After seeing his comments, I replied that our PoE debate will most likely revolve around whether God (the Christian God) remains omnibenevolent despite the act of permitting evil to exist.

I said, "yes that is the original PoE, and my answer to that is kinda like what you mentioned, that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil that exist. But this does not take away from His omnibenevolence (Holiness is a HUGE part of God's character). God is still not the one committing the evil. He's only made providence for them. I guess that could be our debate. Whether God remains Holy despite Him allowing evil."


1. I assumed that Pro knew that we will be debating about my God, the Christian God, and not a strawgod that he created.
2. I never agreed to Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence. I told him before the debate started that the issue of omnibevolence will be the focal point of the debate.


Pro is banking on a technical win by default, by claiming that I accepted his definition. Again, I never did, my opening post is centered around my rejection of Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence.

In my opening post, I challenged pro to give us a rational basis to his definition of omnibenevolence. In other words, I challenged him to give us a universal absolute standard of benevolence that he can then apply to God. He did not even try.


Omnibenevolence


If Pro is still interested in debating about the Christian God’s omnibenevolence, I will then reitterate my arguments.

Pro says,
“Con agrees that god has the power and knowledge so that he could prevent evil if he wanted to, and that therefore there would be no evil if god were totally opposed to it.
God could prevent evil if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to. That's Con's point, and it is my point. It is what I set out to prove, and Con agrees with me. So he has effectively conceded.”

“So he's agreeing with me that god is not totally opposed to evil. Con's way of coping with the problem of evil is to admit that god is not totally opposed to evil. But that's my point. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, and if evil exists, then god must not be totally opposed to evil.”

“Con agrees that if god were omnipotent and omnipotent and totally opposed to evil, then evil would not exist. That's a concession. That is the very issue we are debating, and Con has conceded it.”

Not exactly. I said that if omnibenevolence is (wrongly) defined the way Pro did, then of course his syllogism stands. But the debate is mostly about the definition.
I don’t accept Pro’s definition.
1. Because he is no longer critiquing the same God that I am defending, which I thought was defined as the Christian God, prior to start of the debate.
2. Because he has not provided a universal absolute moral standard of benevolence/goodness to back up his definition of omnibenevolence.


The Christian Worldview


The Bible teaches that God is powerful enough to eliminate evil. This is a non-issue in this debate. The question is, why did an all-good God permit evil?

The Christian answer is that God chose to permit evil to display His glory. Though we don't know the specifics like why it has to be this severe and this long. We know that ultimately it glorifies Christ in a way that can only be possible if evil was permitted.

As John Piper beautifully said,

"The terrorized and troubled world exists, to make a place for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to suffer and die for our sins. The reason there is terror in the world is so that Christ could be terrorized. The reason there is trouble in the world is so that Christ could be troubled. The reason there is pain in the universe is so that Christ could feel pain. This is the world that God prepared for the suffering and death of His Son. This is the world where the best display of devine love could happen. Because the Bible is real clear what the highest and most beautiful display of love is. Romans 5:8 'God shows His love for us in that while were still sinners, Christ died for us' This world of suffering and death exists so that God could love like He could only love in this world. And you can back up and say 'I wouldn't have done it that way.' Well you're not God, and I am thankful. I think it's really arrogant to say that you, before the creation of the universe would have greater wisdom than the Almighty to design a universe in which the fullness of the panorama of His perfections would shine more brigthly than in this one."


Conclusion

What exactly is Pro's goal in this debate?

Pro says,
"Con makes some claim about the worldview of Reformed Protestant Christianity. I don't know anything about that. This debate has nothing to do with that. Con is welcome to start a debate on that topic if he wants to. I won't have standing to participate."

"The PoE (problem of evil) doesn't say that 'the Christian worldview' is impossible. It says that if evil exists, then there can't be an omnipotent and omniscient god who is totally opposed to evil. Con doesn't believe in that god anyway, so he is in agreement with the PoE."

This debate has a lot to do with the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview claims the opposite of what the PoE claims. The Christian worldview holds to the belief that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, and at the same time permitted evil to exist. Your goal is to refute this system but all you have done so far is proved that your strawgod does not exist. In order for your resolution to be proven, you need to refute the Christian worldview. This can not be done by arbitrary defining words and claiming that since your opponent agreed to the definitions you win. You might as well say that for God to be omnipotent, He must be able to microwave a burrito so hot, that even He can't eat it.

I'll help you out, you need to somehow prove that your definition of omnibenevolence, is universal and absolute, and applies to God. You do that and I'll do what you numerously asked in your last post and "vote for pro."

Debate Round No. 2
wiploc

Pro



The Essence of This Debate:


I set out to show that evil could not exist if there were a god who was omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. Con agrees with me. He stipulates that such a god is not compatible with evil. Or, we could put it another way: If evil exists, then that particular god does not exist.


That's what I undertook to prove, and I have proven it even to my opponent's satisfaction.


He has repeatedly conceded that point, which is the only point in contention. Vote Pro.


===


Notes and Asides:


What's left to discuss?


1. Con seems to wish I were trying to refute a different god. He thinks an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-moral god could coexist with evil. I don't know that such could coexist with evil, but I also don't see how we could productively debate the subject, since we aren't likely to agree about morality.


The fact is, I'm not arguing against Con's god. I'm arguing against an omnipotent, omniscient, and totally-opposed-to-evil god who nonetheless coexists with evil. That god does not exist because it cannot exist. Which point, Con concedes repeatedly. Vote Pro.


2. Con claims that he didn't agree to my definition of "omnibenevolent." How not? I set out the definition on my opening post. He read the post, and then he agreed to the debate.


I was perfectly clear as to what we would be debating, and he agreed to the debate.


Or did he not read the opening post before agreeing to the debate? If not, that was his mistake, not mine. I was perfectly clear.


In fact, I think this is worth a conduct point. I was clear about what I wanted to debate, and he keeps trying to hijack the debate so we discuss something else. As a judge, I've given conduct points for that in other debates.


3. Con has some confused (at least unclear to me) claim based on our discussions elsewhere. If you follow his link, you'll see that I was perfectly clear even there. When he told me I should argue about god's moral perfection, I declined. When he asked how I would argue, I gave him a preview. When he read my preview, he said he would have to change his argument in order to respond.


And yet, here he is refusing to change his argument. He's still saying that I can't refute some other god, when I'm only interested (in this debate) in refuting the omnipotent omniscient god who tolerates evil even while being totally opposed to evil.


That god doesn't exist, and Con agrees that it doesn't exist. Vote Pro.


That god is clearly the topic of this debate, and Con's attempts to hijack the thread so we can talk about other gods should cost him a conduct point. Vote Pro a conduct point.



4. Con says I admit to strawgodding. I think that's a lie, and I think it's worth a conduct point.


Had I defeated one argument while pretending to defeat another, I would be committing the strawman fallacy. If I refuted one god while pretending to refute another, that would be strawgodding.


But I am not strawgodding. I have never pretended that the god I disprove (omnipotent, omniscient, totally opposed to evil, yet coexisting with evil) is the god Con believes in (presumably, some other god).


I have been perfectly clear about this, to the point of tedium, and yet Con accuses me of strawgodding. I don't see that he can say that in good conscience. I think it is worth the conduct point.


Now it's true that when Con called the god I discuss a "strawgod," I adopted that label for purposes of clarification. I refute the one god while Con defends another. I called mine the strawgod, and called his, "Con's god." So, yes, I did use the "strawgod," label.


But when Con charges that I have admitted to strawgodding, he's clearly saying something else. He's accusing me of a strawman argument, and claiming that I admitted to doing that.


I not only didn't admit to it, I didn't do it. And Con should not have misrepresented me.


4. Con challenges me to provide prove that god doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating evil. That would only be relevant if I were talking about Con's god, who is morally perfect. Let me make it clear, yes even unto the point of tedium, that I am not talking about morality. If Con's god tolerates evil for perverse moral reasons, then that is not the god I am disproving. I am disproving the god who does not tolerate evil. I couldn't possibly be more clear about this.



Conclusion:


The topic of this debate is whether an omnipotent omniscient god who totally opposes evil would tolerate evil. I proved my case. Con agrees that I proved that case. Vote Pro.


Rednerrus

Con

Pre-debate

“Con has some confused (at least unclear to me) claim based on our discussions elsewhere. If you follow his link, you'll see that I was perfectly clear even there. When he told me I should argue about god's moral perfection, I declined. When he asked how I would argue, I gave him a preview. When he read my preview, he said he would have to change his argument in order to respond.”

The readers can see for themselves what Pro and I said by following this link.
http://www.debate.org...


“And yet, here he is refusing to change his argument. He's still saying that I can't refute some other god, when I'm only interested (in this debate) in refuting the omnipotent omniscient god who tolerates evil even while being totally opposed to evil.”

I said that that my argument will be different depending on Pro’s syllogism. That’s exactly what happened. After looking at Pro’s definition and syllogism, I decided to refute the resolution by challenging Pro’s definition of omnibenevolnce.



Accepting Definitions


“Con claims that he didn't agree to my definition of "omnibenevolent." How not? I set out the definition on my opening post. He read the post, and then he agreed to the debate.”

Pro is again claiming that since I accepted the debate, it automatically means that I accepted all of his definitions.
1. Accepting a debate does not mean that you accepted your opponents definition, unless it is agreed upon before hand.

2. I did not accept Pro’s definitions when I accepted the debate, I accepted the debate to challenge the resolution, and I challenged his definition of omnibenevolence as part of my argument against the resolution. I did this right off the bat in round 1, and I will continue to do so.

3. I assumed that our definition of God is the Christian God since Pro knew prior to the start of the debate that I will be defending the Christian God, but after my first post where I criticized him of not actually arguing against the Christian God, Pro starts claiming that he is in fact just arguing a strawgod.



Strawgodding


“I not only didn't admit to it, I didn't do it. And Con should not have misrepresented me.”

I will forgive Pro here, since I did not really explain what I meant by strawgodding. What I meant by strawgodding is simply creating a god with arbitrary traits and arguing agaisnt it. The readers can see for themselves that Con both did this and admitted to it. I am not however accusing Pro of claiming that I believe in this strawgod that he created.

I pointed out that in refusing to use the PoE as an INTERNAL critique of the Christian Worldview (which claims the opposite of the PoE), his argument was reduced to an argument against a strawgod that he himself created.

1. He accomplishes nothing.
2. He knew beforehand that I will be defending the Christian God.

“The fact is, I'm not arguing against Con's god.”

“I set out to show that evil could not exist if there were a god who was omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. Con agrees with me. He stipulates that such a god is not compatible with evil. Or, we could put it another way: If evil exists, then that particular god does not exist.”

Pro again admits that his argument does not even argue against my God. I conceded that Pro’s strawgod does not exist. But Pro claims that by this concession, I have conceded the full resolution of the debate. I think Pro forgot that the Christian Worldview, which he refuses to argue against, claims that a tri-omni God exists simultaneously with evil. I did not concede the full resolution of this debate since refuting the Pro’s strawgod does not prove his resolution.


“I'm arguing against an omnipotent, omniscient, and totally-opposed-to-evil god who nonetheless coexists with evil. That god does not exist because it cannot exist. Which point, Con concedes repeatedly.”

Yes, indeed I agreed that that particular God can not logically exist with evil. But I argued that since omnibenevolence does NOT necessarily mean TOTALLY opposed to evil, a tri-omni God is still logically compatible with evil. This is why the debate revolves around the defintion of omnibenevolence.



Back to the PoE Debate

Perhaps It’s my fault for trying to stay 2 arguments ahead of Pro. I will try clarify my position, and my argument against the resolution of the debate.

The full resolution of the debate:
“It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil.

I completely disagree.

Con’s formulation of the argument:
“An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil if he could. An omnipotent god would be able to prevent evil if he wanted to. A god both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would both want to and be able to prevent evil. And no evil would slip past or baffle an omniscient god.
If a tri-omni god existed, then, there would be no evil.”

Sounds like the typical logical PoE argument so far and the typical refutation is:

God being omnibenevolent, does not necessitate that He eliminate and prevent all evil. Rather, what follows is that God will eliminate or prevent all evil, UNLESS he has a morally sufficient reason not to do so. The fact that evil exists does not at all undeniably prove that a tri-omni God can not logically exist. Because if God has a morally sufficient reason to permit evil, then God retains all of his traits while evil exists, refuting the logical PoE claim.

That is the standard response that refutes the logical PoE. And this alone wins me the debate, so "VOTE CON!"

But here’s the issue, looking at Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence, I know that he will not accept this response and claim that God is no longer omnibenevolent since according to Pro, an omnibenevolent God would not permit evil for ANY reason whatsoever.

In anticipating this, I jumped on the opportunity to point out what every Christian apologist knows; that the unbeliever does not have a moral standard outside of the Christian worldview. In other words, my opponent does not have an absolute and universal standard of good that he can use to judge God's actions, and therefore will not be able to account for his definition of omni-good.

“Con challenges me to provide prove that god doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating evil. That would only be relevant if I were talking about Con's god, who is morally perfect. Let me make it clear, yes even unto the point of tedium, that I am not talking about morality. ”

No, I did not challenge Con to prove that God doesn’t have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating evil. I challenged Pro to prove that God, in permitting evil, loses His omnibenevolence. To do this Pro must undeniably substantiate his definition of omnibenevolence.

Pro says that he is not talking about morality, and he’s even said, “I don't claim to understand morality.” Yet Pro claims to know the absolute definitions of “omnibenevolence” and “evil”. You see, Pro must first pressupose the system where words like omnibenevolence and evil can be absolutely and universally defined in order to argue against it.



Conclusion


Pro wants to win the debate by making arbitrary stipulations to God’s traits and then claiming that God has not met the stipulations. Well anyone can disprove anything by doing that. Like I’ve said, Pro might as well define omnipotence as being able to microwave a burrito so hot that even He can’t eat, then claim that God is therefore not omnipotent by definition.

I accepted this debate and argued primarily that Pro can not account for his definition of omnibenevolence. Pro is now relying on the claim that since I accepted the debate, it means that I have to accept his defintions. I never did and if the readers decide that I did, and that therefore Pro proves his resolution by default, then that is perfectly fine with me since MY tri-omni God is uneffected, and Pro’s argument only refutes a God that no one believes exists anyways.
Debate Round No. 3
wiploc

Pro

From the very beginning, I made it clear what my subject was. I said that a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil cannot logically coexist with evil. That was my point, and I proved it.

Please vote Pro.

Con's objection seems to be that I shouldn't have used the word "omnibenevolent" to stand for the phrase "totally opposed to evil." He likes to use the same word with another meaning. He never intended, apparently, to discuss the subject matter of this debate. As near as I can make him out, his whole purpose has been to chastise me for misusing his word.

His attempts to hijack this thread cost me and our readers time and effort, with no upside. He deliberately wasted our time. That's worth a conduct point.

Please vote Pro a conduct point.

Con wrote:

Pro claims to know the absolute definitions of “omnibenevolence” and “evil”.

I never made such a claim. I made it clear what I meant by "omnipotence." That doesn't bind anyone else in any other circumstance, but it did make clear what this debate is about.

I did offer one possible definition of evil, but I repeatedly offered to let Con submit another. The problem of evil works regardless of what definition is used, as I made clear. Con never took me up on this, never submitted another meaning for the word "evil."

And now he says I claim to know the "absolute definitions" of these words, by which I assume he means that I claim to know what definitions his god uses.

I made no such claim. I only provided definitions so that people would know what I meant by the words.

Con's complaint is unfounded. I said nothing like what he accuses me of saying. I don't even see how he could say that in good faith. I think Con's accusation, made in reckless disregard of the truth, is grounds for voting me the conduct point.

Please vote Pro a conduct point.

Con wrote:

Conclusion

Pro wants to win the debate by making arbitrary stipulations to God’s traits and then claiming that God has not met the stipulations.

I have demonstrated that one particular kind of god does not exist.

Well anyone can disprove anything by doing that.

I can't disprove Con's god. I can only disprove the god who is the subject of this debate (the one I call, "tri-omni," and Con calls, "strawgod") because that god's characteristics are self-contradictory.

Like I’ve said, Pro might as well define omnipotence as being able to microwave a burrito so hot that even He can’t eat, then claim that God is therefore not omnipotent by definition.

That would be pointless. But, on the other hand, if Con set up a debate on that topic, and if I accepted that debate, then that is the topic I would have to discuss. It would be poor behavior if I accepted that debate and then insisted on talking about something else.

I accepted this debate and argued primarily that Pro can not account for his definition of omnibenevolence.

I don't even know what that means. "Account for"? What I know is that if there were a god, and if he were omnipotent and omniscient and totally against evil, then evil couldn't exist. I don't see any part of that that I should "account for."

Pro is now relying on the claim that since I acceped the debate, it means that I have to accept his definitions. I never did.

I'd like to see a debate between Con and Einstein.

Einstein: "In my equation, E=M * C squared, E stands for energy."

Con: "E is a vitamin. Everybody knows that. And MC is a rapper, a rapper who, I must insist, is not at all square."

Einstein: "Excuse me. That's not what I'm discussing."

Con: "You think you get to decide what you're discussing? Well, anyone could disprove anything by doing that."

Please vote Pro.

Rednerrus

Con

Intro

Pro has given up on the debate and has resorted to protesting that I “hijacked” the debate, as if he wasn’t the one who challenged me to this debate, knowing that I will be defending the Christian God. I will let the readers judge if my posts dealt with the debate issue or not. But I want to remind the readers of what the full resolution is.

“It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil.”

Pro has not proven this statement across the board. Especially since he refuses to even argue against the Christian worldview, which claims that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God coexists with evil. Pro refuses to use the PoE against the God that it is designed to try to refute.

Pro refuted what he is now saying as, “a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and TOTALLY OPPOSED TO EVIL”. He then goes on to say, “I can't disprove Con's god”, knowing that my God claims to be omnipotent, omniscient, and OMNIBENEVOLENT. There is obviously a discrepancy here that I tried to explore but Pro refused to engage.


Einstein VS wiploc Debate

wiploc: Hey Einstein, E=MC squared is false and i’ll prove it. A squared rapper does not equal energy! Vote Pro!

Einstein: But E=MC squared if we use the definitions of my system.

wiploc: Yeah but I'm not arguing against your system, I’m just trying to prove that a squared rapper does not equal energy! Vote Pro!

Einstein: You did prove that, but you’re supposed to prove that E=MC squared is false, it's still true within my system.

wiploc: No I don’t I just have to prove that E=MC squared is not true, and using my definitions, I did this and you agreed, therefore E=MC squared is false. Vote Pro!

Einstein:You don't have to accept my definitions but I will not accept yours either. If E=MC squared is true in any other system, then you failed.

wiploc: Vote against Con for misbehavior since he won't accept my definitions. Please vote Pro!



Definitions

I will let the readers judge if my rejection of Pro’s definition should cost me conduct points or even the whole debate. But to my defense, Pro did not stipulate like others on DDO do, that acceptance of the debate means acceptance of his definitions.

The first thing I discussed is what the PoE is and its objective. It is meant to be an internal critique. In order for the PoE to even be debatable, both sides must agree on the definitions. In an internal critique, the critic must use the definitions of the system in question, or at least challenge these definitions. Pro did not do this. I could have just said, “I don’t accept your definitions, they don’t apply to my system, my system is still untouched, your resolution is not proven, debate over.” But I thought that a legitimate PoE debate could still be discussed here.

The debate was centered around whether or not God remains omnibenevolent in permitting evil for morally good reasons. The Bible, which in my worldview is ultimate judge of morality, says God is justified and remains omnibenevolent in permitting evil. Pro disagrees and claims that God is not omnibenevolent if he allows evil for any reason. Obviously Pro and I are standing on 2 different towers here. The only way to debate now is to see which tower is on solid foundations.

I stepped out of my tower and challenged Pro’s to account for his definition of omni-GOOD. How can Pro have his own definition of good when he claims to not understand morality?! Pro’s tower has no foundations whatsoever! If he can’t account for the definition of good and omni-good, then his definition is arbitrary and he might as well say that omnibenevolence means that you are a 40 foot gap-toothed clown with 3 fingers. My God would fail to meet that stipulation as well.

Pro said, “What I know is that if there were a god, and if he were omnipotent and omniscient and totally against evil, then evil couldn't exist. I don't see any part of that that I should account for.”

Pro again replaced the word “omnibenevolence” with “totally against [uwilling to permit] evil”. That’s exactly what Pro needs to account for!
Why is it that omnibenevolence = totally unwilling to permit evil for any reason?

I told Pro that if he can somehow show that his definition of omnibenevolence is universal, absolute and applies to my God (who claims to be omnibenevolent), then I myself would “vote Pro”!

Pro did not even make any attempts to do this. Pro did not attempt to refute the Christian God’s claim of omnibenevolence, or challenge my definition of omnibenevolence.

In essence, Pro conceded that the Christian God is omnibenevolent within it’s own system, which would also mean that Pro conceded to the fact the Christian system is logically coherent. Pro lost the debate, or rather, Pro masterfully debated and beat himself.


PoE Refuted

The omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God sovereignly planned (all-knowing) and permitted (all-powerful) all evil for morally commendable reasons (all-good).

The PoE is based on 2 wrong presuppositions:

1. We autonomously know everything about everything.

2. We have the moral authority, perspective and capability to judge God’s actions. (Pro defining what an omnibenevolent God ought to be, falls under this category).



The PoE is the Problem of the Unbeliever

Pro admits to not understanding morality, but shows inconsistency when he then turns around and gives definitions to words like “good” and “evil”.

Pro says, “I never made such a claim [knowing absolute definitions of omnibenevolence and evil]. I made it clear what I meant by "omnipotence." That doesn't bind anyone else in any other circumstance,”

This is precisely the point! Pro chose not to argue within the Christian context, where words like good and evil are absolutely and universally defined. My challenge to Pro was why should I or anyone accept his own system’s definitions of good and evil, when his system does not have an absolute and universal standard of good and evil, and Pro himself even admits to not understanding morality (good and evil)?!

If Pro wants to claim that he has his own definitions and that the definitions of my system are irrelevant, then Pro needs to validate his definitions of good and evil.

The PROBLEM of evil is that even unbelievers believe that evil truly exists. But evil presupposes a transcendental, absolute and universal standard of morality. Not only that, but our experiences can only tell us descriptive truths,not prescriptive truths. We can't know what ought to be, from what is. Only the tri-omni, personal God of the Bible can account for both the ultimate standard of morality and our knowledge of it. I challenge anyone who disagrees to show me an alternative system.

Pro, apart from a Biblical context, does not have an objective moral standard that he can use to define words such as good, omni-good and evil. The PoE is the problem of the unbeliever who claims that evil indeed exists, but can not account for an absolute universal moral standard and our knowledge of it.

The PoE, as internal critique is refuted, and when not used as an internal critique is irrational.



Conclusion

Pro set out to prove that “It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil” but he has only done so if his stipulations are granted. Pro did not validate his stipulations and actually admitted to not having a rational basis for them when he admitted to not understand morality.

Pro repeatedly admitted that he is not interested in refuting the Christian God. He said,

“I can't disprove Con's god. I can only disprove the god who is the subject of this debate (the one I call, "tri-omni," and Con calls, "strawgod") because that god's characteristics are self-contradictory.”

Pro repeatedly neglects the fact that my God claims to have the characteristics that Pro claims to be self-contradictory given the existence of evil. Pro never challenged the ONLY tri-omni God in the history of all religion, the God of the Bible.
I want to thank wiploc for the debate and the readers for your time.

Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Definitions can be debated, of course. Two people can agree to debate anything they want.

What's messed up is when one person sets up a debate on a specific topic, and another person accepts that debate with intent to talk about something else.

I wanted to debate this: Would a god coexist with something if it was able to do anything; knew everything; and was totally, infinitely, strongly opposed to that thing?

Red wanted to debate this: Is there more than one way to define "omnibenevolent"?

He can set up a debate on that topic if he wants to. Somebody who wants to debate that topic can accept the debate. But it would be a pisser for Red, if he was serious about wanting to discuss that topic, if someone accepted his debate, and then insisted on turning the conversation to whether "define" meant "not good." That would be just rude and obstructive.
Posted by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
the point i was trying to make and what rednerrus has been trying to tell you the whole time, is that definitions are part of the debate. you can't seem to get that.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
You asked what my thinking was, NewCreature, and I explained it. I don't know why you think _your_ definition of human being was more rational or objective than your opponents, but I'm not going to re-argue your debate here, or even re-read it.
Posted by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
no wiploc, your post did not make sense at all. I never changed my position on what murder is; the unjustified killing of a HUMAN BEING. my opponent's whole argument was the denial of that definition. he argued that murder is the unjustified killing of a PERSON.

but you see, unlike you. i did not cry foul and claim that my opponent must accept my definitions. i welcomed the fact that my opponent challenged my definition. my counter argument was that, my opponent's criteria for personhood is subjective and has no rational basis, and is not unlike the criteria of the nazi's or american/european slave owners' criteria for what a "human being" is.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
tbh, I don't remember what I was trying to prove in the first place :L
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
I don't know what you want me to prove, Leftii. You asked a question, and I answered it.
Posted by Leftii 5 years ago
Leftii
"If a tri-omni god existed, there would be no lack of suffering."

This proves nothing. There is no lack of suffering in our universe.
Posted by Rednerrus 5 years ago
Rednerrus
wiploc,

ok mr. sensitive, how was i a jerk? i never personally attacked you. if you can't handle people criticizing your reasoning and arguments, don't debate.

"Are you wanting me to do like you did, and try to twist your words around so we're talking about something else?"

did you not read the part when i said that you can challenge my definitions, and that i actually want you to, to point out that you can't just dictate definitions of words like omnibenevolence without accounting for the basis of it?
defining good and evil outside the Christian worldview is the weakness of the PoE argument, everyone knows this. you yourself admitted that you don't understand morality (good and evil).

you're right, another debate would be a waste of time, since you really can't seem to get it.

happy thanksgiving, peace out.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
You changed your mind, NewCreature. You started by saying that any killing of a human being with malice is murder. Con pointed that makes war murder. So _you changed your definition._

Murder became any killing with premeditation. No malice required. Which seems a step in the wrong direction.

Con then persuaded you to abandoned your initial position: You wrote, "But whether the human being needs to be a "person" by Con's criteria or if Con's view of personhood is even valid, _is what this debate is all about_." (Emphasis added.)

You can't blame me for accepting that.

You'd have been perfectly within your rights to refuse his suggested change. You could have said, "No, I defined "murder" in the opening post. You accepted the debate knowing that this definition was a given. Therefore, arguments about "persons" rather than "human beings" are beside the point.

Con could have made the best of a bad situation, showing that, according to your clearly erroneous definition of murder, abortion is murder, but murder isn't always a bad thing.

You'd have won the debate then, though it might have seemed an empty victory. (As my victory in this debate was empty, given that Con agreed with me the entire time. We'd have both been better off if Red had left acceptance to someone who disagreed with me.)

So I think you did well to agree to the change in what your debate was about. But then you failed to prevail on the new topic that you had agreed to.

Does this make sense to you.
Posted by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
Lol wiploc, you think rednerrus was a jerk for challenging your presupposed definitions??? I find this funny because in my Abortion debate, me and my opponent pretty much argued about the definition of Murder (unjustified killing of human being vs unjustified killing of a "person"). Why didn't you criticize my opponent for not accepting my definition of murder?

I don't know why you can't seem to get the concept that definitions are often times part of the debate. Especially when you are talking about metaphysical words like "good/benevolent" and "evil". You keep accusing rednerrus of asserting definitions when he NEVER did. He was just trying to make you aware that your definition of omnibenevolence are presupposed and arbitrary, and are not even universallly accepted in secular philosophy.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
wiplocRednerrusTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: nvm dont need comments section. This debate was a little bit ruined by the amount of definition arguments going on, which is disappointing as this started out really good. A Tri-Omni God is Omnibenevolent, but con seems to argue for a God that is not Omnibenevolent as he says God is not totally apposed to evil. Con does try to give a different definition of Omnibenevolent which, as pro pointed out, was more of a omni-moral God. Pros definition was better argued. Nice analogy usage by pro as well
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
wiplocRednerrusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con repeatedly concedes his position.
Vote Placed by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
wiplocRednerrusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stopped arguing after round 1. Pro conceded that he isn't and can't refute Christianity, which is a system that contradicts the resolution of the debate. My fellow presuppositionalist, rednerrus, raised valid points about accounting for what good and evil is outside Christianity that was never answered. Pro did not cite any source, while Con cited a good one about the definition of omnibenevolence. Con debated very well and was very concise.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
wiplocRednerrusTied
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: Con essentially conceded the argument at the beginning and instead focused on a Christian god, which isn't necessarily the only target for PoE.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
wiplocRednerrusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments