The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
stubs
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Problem of Evil is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
stubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,233 times Debate No: 23545
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Microsuck

Pro

I want to thank stubs for agreeing to debate this.

Resolved: The Problem of Evil is sound and successfully refutes the existence of a Judeo- Christian type God.

ARGUMENT FORMULATED
  1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  5. Evil exists.
  6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
  7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.
NOTE that this argument (and this debate) talks about God who is:
  1. Omnipotent;
  2. Omniscient;
  3. Morally perfect;
  4. Omnibenevolent;
  5. And the other attributes assosiated with the Judeo-Christian type God.
Round 1 is for clarifications, terms, and acceptance only. Round 2 we will start opening arguments.
stubs

Con

First I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and also thank Microsuck for the opportunity to debate such a noteworthy opponent on such a vital topic.

I will be arguing that the Problem of Evil does not successfully refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

I would also like to define evil as - The lack or corruption of goodness.
For example: The corruption of sex in an adulterous relationship.
I would use this definition because evil is parasitic upon the good, and goodness can exist without evil (we need to know the original to know the perversion of it, but not the other way around).

I would like to define good as - That which is to be sought for its own sake.

For those of you that have seen my other debates or have talked with me, you know that I'm a pretty simple guy. I tend to just look at things how they are. That being said I would like to point out the heart of the argument:

If God could prevent evil, he would, and if God would prevent evil, he could.

Once again I would like to thank Microsuck for the challenge, and I know how much he hates plagiarism so I will cite anything I use that is not my own thoughts.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

I thank my partner for his opening reply and his clarification. This debate focuses on the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Hell. As I was beginning to prepare for this debate, my biggest trouble was what to leave out. There is so much that needs to be covered in only 8000 characters that it pains me to know that there are just some things I need to leave out.

-->OPENING ARGUMENTS<--

The Problem of Evil

A. The argument in a nutshell

The argument states basically this:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus



B. The Argument formulated

  1. If God exists, then he is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (by definition).
  2. If proposition 1 is true, then unjustufied evil will not occur.
  3. However, unjustified evil does occur.
  4. Therefore, it is probable that proposition 1 is false.

If proposition 1 is true, then unjustified evil will not occur.

My partner agreed that we will discuss the God as revealed in the Holy Bible. By my partner's very own definition, he is most wise, most holy, and most gracious, and most loving. Therefore, it is unreasonable that a God who is all these things will allow something that is unjustified to come into the world. Consider the following:


4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.-1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NIV.

The word translated as "love" is agape; [1] this is the same exact word that is used to define God in 1 John: God is Agape.

Unjustified evil does occur

This is where we beg the question: What is evil? I define evil as unecessary suffering; i.e., suffering that is unjustified. I contend that there are three forms of evil:

  1. Evil brought on humans by nature;
  2. Evil that we bring upon ourselves; and
  3. Evil that we bring upon oneself. [2]
Let's take into consideration some of the evil that has been done:

1) In the summer of 2011, a Norway lunatic Anders Breivik slaughtered many people, including children. At one point, the children found good hiding place. Eventually, there was a man that claimed to be a police officer who told them it was safe to come out. Unfortunately, it was the gunman in disguise and they were murdered. [3]
2) During the 2005 Hurricane Katerina, over 1300 people have been confirmed dead. [4] Likewise, many children have suffered during this terrible disaster as a result of homelessness, loss of life, and loss of family/friends. [5]

3) Christianity has been, for the majority of its history, a malevolent religion slaughtering thousands of people. For example, during the protesant reformation, hundreds of Christians died because they were standing up against the Pope of Rome and demanding a reformation in the church. Consequently, they were burned as heritics. [6]

4) During the times of trouble, it often appears that poor people suffer more than the wealthy.For example, when an earthquake hits a poor nation such as Hati, more people die than in a nation such as the US. In the 2010 Hati earthquake, 3 million people were in need of an emergency after the quake. [7]


Charles Bradlaugh responds:

The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block for the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God or it exist independently; but it cannot be caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exists hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been eternal, but according to the theist, it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or outside God; but according to the theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity. [7]

| Conclusion |

The world is indeed full of suffering that is not necessarily caused by human behavior and infraction; in fact, the majority of the time, it is caused by mother nature herself.

___________________________

References

1. The Strong's Concordence Dictionary
2. Maimonadies. The Guide to the Perplexed.
3. Frances, Bryan. The Problem of Gratious Suffering. pp.15
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com......;
5. http://www.ces.purdue.edu......;
6. Quoted in Paul Tobin's Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A skeptic's guide to Christianity.
7. Fox's book of Martyrs. View the entire book for free at http://www.ccel.org......;

stubs

Con

I would like to start off by saying that in round 1 my opponent said, "If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil."
But then in the second round, he did not defend this contention. He only defended the premises that, given God, unjustified evil does not occur and that unjustified evil does occur. I am not sure which he would like me to defend so I will defend both.

Is evil and God incompatible?
The atheist assumes that (a) a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that (b) there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. But why should the theist accept (a) or (b)? However, the logical argument from evil doesn't properly factor in human freedom or God's underlying reasons or overarching purposes.

In response to (a) it is logically possible that God has morally sufficient reasons (perhaps which God alone knows) for permitting (even horrendous) evils. As long as that is even possible it alone negates the conclusion that God and evil are incompatible.

What about (b)? It is logically possible that God cannot create significantly free creatures who never sin. Again, even if this is logically possible, it alone negates the conclusion that God and evil are incompatible.

"It is possible that God could not have created a universe containing moral good (or as much moral good as this world contains) without creating one that also contained moral evil. And if so, then it is possible that God has a good reason for creating a world containing evil." [1]

Atheist philosopher William Rowe: "Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim." [2]

We must distinguish between logically-possible worlds and feasible worlds for God to create. While a sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God's grace and love

I agree that if God exists, than unjustified (pointless evil), or gratuitous evil, will not occur. I disagree that gratuitous evil occurs. We must keep in mind that inscrutable evil is not equivalent to gratuitous evil. Inscrutable evil is We can't figure out why so much evil exists or why this or that evil exists (but God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting it, though we don't know it). Gratuitous evil is there is pointless evil in the world (and God could have no morally sufficient reasons for permitting that evil).

Actually, evil seems gratuitous on the grounds that it is inscrutable; that is, the only evidence for the existence of possibly gratuitous evils is the inscrutability of some evils. The atheist can't definitely say that gratuitous evil exists—only that it seems so. But if the skeptic is just agnostic about a key premise in the argument against God, then there is no argument.

I would like to show the theistic argument:
If God exists, he does not allow any pointless evil.
God exists.
Therefore, there is no utterly pointless evil. [3]

Natural evil
My opponent brought up the point of natural evil. We must keep in mind that phenomena such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes actually serve important functions in maintaining livable conditions on earth.

Hurricanes/tornadoes prevent the oceans from trapping too much of the sun's heat by helping to circulate greenhouse gases globally as they shade the ocean locally, preventing heat from building up too dramatically for the safety of certain sea creatures. [4]

Shifting tectonic plates (which results in earthquakes) allows essential nutrients for life to be recycled back onto the continents. Without earthquakes, "nutrients essential for land life would erode off the continents and accumulate in the oceans. In a relatively brief time, land creatures, at least the advanced species, would starve. [5]

Also, natural regularities furnish a context for human freedom to be exercised. We can act in light of a predictable environment. For all we know, there may not be a more suitable world that is governed by laws which have no source of natural evil as a by-product.

Once human beings rebelled against God, they become vulnerable to wild animals, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, thorns, and harmful microbes—from which God had previously protected them. Daniel Howard-Snyder's suggestion seems on target: "the potentially destructive forces of nature became [Adam's and Eve's and their offspring's] foe since a consequence of separating themselves from God was the loss of special intellectual powers to predict where and when natural disasters would occur and to protect themselves from disease and wild beasts, powers dependent upon their union with God. The result is natural evil. [6]

I believe I have shown that (1) Evil and God are not incompatible (2) Gratuitous evil does not occur. This would render the Problem of Evil is not sufficient to negate the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

[1] Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 31
[2] William L. Rowe, "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism,"American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (October 1979): 41n.
[3] C. Stephen Evans, Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985),138-9.
[4] Hugh Ross, "Hurricanes Bring More Than Destruction," Facts & Faith 12 (1998): 4-5.
[5] Hugh Ross, "Tremors Touch Off Questions," Facts and Faith 6/3 (1992): 2-3.
[6] Daniel Howard-Snyder, "God, Evil, and Suffering," Reason for the Hope Within, ed. Michael Murray (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 93.
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your swift response.

THERE are two ways that I have formulated the argument, as both ways are sound and basically the same; though different wording.
  1. If God exists, then by definition he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
  2. If the above proposition (that God exists) is true, then unjustified evil (or suffering) will not occur.
  3. However, unjustified evil will occur.
  4. Therefore, proposition 1 is probably false.

My partner has called me out on a mistake that I have not defended the proposition that "If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil." This is the wording that I have in round 1. So, why do I make such a proposition? Let's consider the facts:

1. Omnipotent - God has the power to eliminate suffering and evil.
2. Omnibenevolent - God will have the moral desire to eliminate suffering and evil.
3. Omniscient - God knows when suffering occurs.

IS EVIL AND GOD INCOMPATIBLE?

My partner asks that a good being eliminates evil insofar as he can and that there are no limits to what a omnipotent being can do. Why should we accept both propositions? Because by definition, God is omnipotent meaning that he has all power. The word omnipotent means all-power; hence if God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate evil. Moreover, if God was morally perfect and omnibenevolent, then by definition of necessity, God will want to have the desire to eliminate evil.

Next, to say that it's logically possible that God has morally sufficent reasons for permitting horrendous evils is akin to saying that maybe Adolf Hitler had justifiable reasons for committing his heanous deeds. It is ridiculous. Let's look again at what Paul says that God is [1]:

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.-1 Corinthians 13:4-7, NIV.

Because God is suppsedly love, then by the very definition of love, he is kind. Therefore, he will not allow unecessary suffering to occur."What about (b)? It is logically possible that God cannot create significantly free creatures who never sin. Again, even if this is logically possible, it alone negates the conclusion that God and evil are incompatible."The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish worldview presupposes the existence of a heaven. Consequently,it concedes that it is possible for God to create a situation wherein free agents would always choose to do good.


"We must distinguish between logically-possible worlds and feasible worlds for God to create. While a sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God's grace and love."

Why can't it be feasible? God is omnipotent; therefore anything is possible and feasible for God. Likewise, I believe the concept of heaven negates such a wordlview (see above for explanation).

NATURAL EVIL

I have brought up the point of natural evil; namely, evil brought upon humans by nature. My partner says that phenomena such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes sever important functions for earth. For a moment, let's concede this point. What then? Well, because God is omnipotent it can be accomplished in ways that don't involve suffering on the part of humans.

CONCLUSION

What are we to make of such an argument?

"Is He 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?"

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion



___________________

Footnotes

1. Remember, we are talking about a Judeo-Christian type God. Therefore, definitions that are brought up in any religious texts are permitted.
stubs

Con

I thank my opponent for the short response.

"THERE are two ways that I have formulated the argument, as both ways are sound and basically the same; though different wording."

The two arguments you presented are not "basically the same" as you suggest. One attempts to show that evil and God are logically contradictory, and the other one attempts to show that unjustified evil occurs which would be a evidence against God.

"The word omnipotent means all-power; hence if God is omnipotent, he has the power to eliminate evil. Moreover, if God was morally perfect and omnibenevolent, then by definition of necessity, God will want to have the desire to eliminate evil."

I agree that God can eliminate evil and wants too. However, this is not the only thing God wants. Is it possible that God wants to make free human beings who can choose either to accept Him or not? Of course, that is what the Christian has always believed. When humans choose to do contrary to what God wants, that is when evil happens. The only way to eliminate evil would be to eliminate free will (other than humans always acting in accordance with what God wants).

My opponent seems to think that there is no chance God could have morally justifiable reasons for allowing Hitler to do what he did. However, he did not explain his reasoning, he only said that the claim "is ridiculous." This goes back to my point that what Hitler did is an inscrutable evil, not a gratuitous evil. My opponent can not know that God does not have morally justifiable reasons for allowing such evils, only that it seems so. However, even if there is the chance that God has morally justifiable reasons for allowing such evils it negates my opponents own resolution that he presented in round 1 that The Problem of Evil successfully refutes the existence of a Judeo-christian type God.

"The Christian, Muslim, and Jewish worldview presupposes the existence of a heaven. Consequently,it concedes that it is possible for God to create a situation wherein free agents would always choose to do good."

The kind of robust freedom on earth is a requirement for choosing one’s own final destiny—by freely responding affirmatively to God’s loving influence or by resisting it so that our earthly desire to be with God or away from Him is “sealed.” Thus God couldn’t have created a heaven-like state on earth in which the redeemed can’t sin. (Another view is that God foreknows that no one will sin in heaven which guarantees heavens sinlessness.)

"Why can't it be feasible? God is omnipotent; therefore anything is possible and feasible for God. Likewise, I believe the concept of heaven negates such a wordlview (see above for explanation)."

This is false. There are things not feasible for God to do such as sin, create a square triangle ect. This does not make God non-omnipotent. A sin-free human world is logically/theoretically possible but, it may not be feasible for God to create it since it is up to humans to respond to God’s grace and love.

My opponent thinks that there can be another world where natural evil does not occur but, for all we know, there may not be a more suitable world that is governed by laws which have no source of natural evil as a by-product. Asking God to make a world governed by laws that do not have natural evil as a by-product may very well be like asking him to create a square triangle.

Microsuck has shown that 1) evil exists 2) God can eliminate evil 3) God wants to eliminate evil. All of which I agree with to a certain extent. However, he did not show that evil is logically contradictory to the Judeo-Christian God, and I agree with the atheist William Rowe when he said that no philosopher has been able to show that [1]. Microsuck then told us that evils seem gratuitous, but provided no reason why we should think it is gratuitous rather than inscrutable. He was not able to defend my contentions that a good being does not necessarily eliminate evil insofar as he can or that there are limits to what an omnipotent being can do. He did not show that it is feasible for God to create a sin-free human world. I believe I have shown that God and evil are not incompatible and that at best Microsuck can say that evil seems gratuitous, but as long as there is the possibility it is only inscrutable, that is enough to negate the resolution that the Problem of Evil disproves the Judeo-Christian God.

[1] Quote in round 2
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

Thanks for your swift reply. This round is for closing statements only.

Conclusions

My partner concedes that: 1) Evil exists; 2) God can eliminate evil; and 3) God wants to eliminate evil. Because of the very nature of God and the very definition of God, it is impossible for God to want to eliminate evil, has the power to eliminate evil, and for evil to exist. What my partner is saying is that the evil is greater than God to handle; which would make evil and suffering God.

This debate has came down to the definition of evil. What is evil? I define evil as unecessary or needless suffering. Although sin may exist, it cannot exist in the presence of a holy God. But why suffering? Suffering certainly seems gratious. I define unecessary suffering as suffering that is not needed or can/should be avoided. Those are suffering such as 9/11, hurricane katerina, or botched executions which should have took a relatively short period of time, but was prolonged to make the condemned suffer. There is no need for this suffering and god should have the moral desire/obligation to intervene and stop the suffering.

I urge the voters to look at the two sides from an open standpoint and consider the following question:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

I want my partner to answer this question. He concedes that God is omnipotent thus having the power to eliminate evil; omnibenevolent having the moral desire to eliminate evil; and the omniscient having the knowledge of when it occurs. My partner states he is both able and willing. Then the question asked is whence commeth evil?

Thank you for a fun debate.
stubs

Con

Conclusion:
My opponent is correct in saying that I agree evil exist, God can eliminate evil, and God wants to eliminate evil. However, eliminating evil is not the only thing God wants. He wanted to create creature with the free will to either accept or reject him as I previously stated, but Microsuck ignored it. Since this is the case, it simply does not logically follow that evil and God are logically contradictory. Most theist and atheist such as: William Rowe and Christopher Hitchens in his panel debate with WLC, and strobel, agree that evil and God are not contradictory.

Even though my opponent used the strange definition of evil as unnecessary suffering, I have still defended the proposition. Microsuck even said "suffering... seems [sic] gratious" This is why the argument fails. The best microsuck can say is that it seems gratuitous. However, that only leaves us with inscrutable evil which is not logically contradictory to God. He also said that "there is no need for this suffering." However this claim is unwarranted because he cannot possibly know that. If he knew that he would actually be God and make a great case for the theist!

I will gladly answer my opponents question. Evil came into the world during the fall. When Adam and Eve chose to do something that is contrary to what God wants. God did not create evil, humans chose to bring it into the world by sinning. It does not then follow that evil is greater than God, as it has been suggested. All that logically follows is that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. As long as there is this chance (even microsuck seems to agree when he says suffering seems gratuitous) it negates the resolution that the moral argument successfully refutes the existence of a Judeo-Christian type God.

Thanks to Microsuck for the debate. If you, or anyone who reads this, would like to ask me a question about the Problem of Evil I am more than happy to talk with you as I do not find the Problem of Evil that much of a problem at all.
Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
Sorry I have no idea what that comment meant.
Posted by JusticeBringer125 5 years ago
JusticeBringer125
ummm, if someone is omibenevolent then god would love every thing and allow bad to happen,no but isn't because it's more of a "watchmen" characteristic, i say god would be more similar to G-man?
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
@writerdave the resolution wasn't probabilistic. The resolution was the problem of evil refutes the existence of the judeo-christian type God. I don't want you to change your vote I'm just pointing it out
Posted by Rusty 5 years ago
Rusty
Pro copied and pasted his arguments from a source he neglected to metion. He simply took *their* source instead in an effort (I'm guessing) to make it look like he was the one summarizing the original work, when he actually stole their exact wording and everything... It's literally word for word the exact same thing. He even wrote the same incorrect page number as the other person, which he later corrected when asked about it, possibly because it was his first time actually seeing the thing *he* was supposedly quoting. Details on pages 1 and 2 here:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
Thanks for your feedback. Yeah, I should have done a better job addressing free will.
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
Agree; that's what I brought it up. GenesisCreation, I am sorry if it offended you or anyone else--but it shows that there is so much unfairness in the world and inequality.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
Micro- I love what you've brought to the light with your argument. That image of the woman, the football player and the hungry child. I am willing to bet that so many Christians are looking at that image and are feeling anger towards you, feeling that you misrepresented the Church. Yet, I'll tell you as a Christian, it represents modern Christianity with a scary accuracy. Isn't it disgusting how we thank God for our KFC, yet we can't roll down the window at the interstate merger and slip the vagrant a bag of food and a Gospel tract. What ever happened to praying like Jesus in the garden?

"Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
S&G: Con had difficulty with conjugation and spelling. "Is evil and God incompatible?" should be "are..." "Gratious" should be "gratuitous" or "gracious." "Most theist and atheist" should be "Most theists and atheists."

Arguments: Pro didn't really address the most essential part of Con's case: free will. Even though the preponderant majority of human misery has no traces to human free will, if this argument was unaddressed, then Con automatically wins. It's utterly fatuous, but should have been addressed. Had Pro addressed this weak argument, he would have won. But, in a debate, if someone says, "The sky is green!" and the opponent doesn't refute the claim, the claim is taken to be true. I'm operating under the assumption that Pro ran out of time, and thus couldn't provide a thorough argument.

Alright debate. 6/10
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
Actually I do mean "in" haha sorry
Posted by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
*For example the corruption of sex is an adulterous relationship.
Sorry for they typo.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CalvinAndHobbes 5 years ago
CalvinAndHobbes
MicrosuckstubsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's point that "The problem of Evil" is a false continuum was not countered. As it is a logical debate one must prove the existence of a fallacy, Con successfully did.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
MicrosuckstubsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB to WriterDave. He obviously didn't read the debate. No where was the probabilistic argument used. I don't even know where he got that. Note: I'll be changing my vote and giving a detailed RFD later.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
MicrosuckstubsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was pretty obviously making a probabilistic argument from evil for the nonexistence of God, whereas Con's responses sought to show that it is logically possible for God to co-exist with evil. "God probably does not exist" and "God and evil are logically compatible" are compatible statements. As for gratuitousness, Con did not show that "it is possible that it is necessary that" shows probability, much less necessity. EDIT: fixed vote.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
MicrosuckstubsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments