The Instigator
Darknes
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
OMGJustinBieber
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The Problem of Evil is invalid

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 881 times Debate No: 17141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

Darknes

Pro

My initial argument will be a very short one (I dislike long and complicated debates).

Definitions

God: An all-powerful, all benevolent being who created everything that exists.

The problem of evil states that God cannot exist because evil exists. If there was an all-powerful, all benevolent God, he could eradicate all evil instantly. We still see evil, therefore God does not exist. Whoever accepts this debate also accepts this as the definition.

As I have stated in the definitions, the PoE claims that if God exists he would have destroyed evil. However, this is flawed logic. Assuming that God is real, he has already created heaven, a utopia where no evil exists and everybody alive eventually ends up in. This effectively solves the problem of evil.

I invite my opponent to show otherwise.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

Pro's Case:

1. Heaven exists, therefore the problem of evil on Earth is "effectively" solved.

R1: Everybody does not end up in Heaven.

I'm not sure where Pro is getting this view. From a Christian view, it is necessary to accept Jesus to gain entrance to Heaven. For centuries the Catholic Church held that unbaptized babies that died were sent to limbo, although now the matter has been deemed more ambiguous [1]. Moreover, given the disparities between Christian, Jewish and Muslim interpretations all have quite different views on who ends up in God's holy sanctuary. The Hadith states that belief in Allah is necessary for ascension to Heaven [2]. Jewish views on Heaven are a little more ambiguous from what I understand, but even inside each of these faiths there are many interpretations and views on who makes it to Heaven. Nonetheless, the view that everybody ends up in Heaven is not a common one, to say the least.

R2: A perfectly good God would have zero tolerance for unnecessary evil.

While Pro's first claim that everyone goes to heaven is very suspect, his second claim that heaven "effectively" removes the issue of Earthly suffering fails to grasp the concept "all good" and "all powerful." An all-good or all-powerful being does not settle for "a little" unnecessary suffering or simply abandon the Earth to chaos and then sort out the good from the bad. Anyone with this amount of power has a strong moral duty to remove that unnecessary evil, and granted God is also claimed to be all powerful this should be one of his main responsibilities. Secondly, a dismissal of all Earthly suffering comes across as naive at best, and probably psychopathic at worst. Any attempt to label the genocides, wars, and starvations in the history of mankind as "effectively" irrelevant - even if there is a Heaven - does not excuse the massive amount of evil that has taken place.

R3: Pro's point says nothing about non-human animal suffering.

Do animals go to heaven? I don't know. Nonetheless, the suffering of animals needs to be seen in conjunction with human suffering. When I refer to suffering, I can easily go beyond the natural processes of the food chain and include painful diseases and natural disasters. Animals are not even subject to original sin, unlike humans, so the unnecessary suffering of animals is unexcusable for an all-loving, all-good God. Anyway, since I am nearing my character limit here I await Pro's response. Remember, "all good" is not "mostly good." "All good" and "all powerful" do not compromise with evil, or allow Earthly evil (small, really?) to exists because at a later time everything will be okay.

Back to you, Pro.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com...
[2] http://muttaqun.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Darknes

Pro

Darknes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Darknes

Pro

Darknes forfeited this round.
OMGJustinBieber

Con

"lol... no offense, but its is kind of hard to take anyone with the username OMGjustinbieber too seriously. Although, if you like, I could present my case in an extremely simplified and easy-to-understand manner, without too many big words."

You do that.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Darknes 5 years ago
Darknes
This can't have been in the voting period for more than an hour?! Why did I come back JUST as I lost?
Posted by OMGJustinBieber 5 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
Let's talk. :)
Posted by Darknes 5 years ago
Darknes
lol... no offense, but its is kind of hard to take anyone with the username OMGjustinbieber too seriously. Although, if you like, I could present my case in an extremely simplified and easy-to-understand manner, without too many big words.
Posted by Darknes 5 years ago
Darknes
lol... no offense, but its is kind of hard to take anyone with the username OMGjustinbieber too seriously. Although, if you like, I could present my case in an extremely simplified and easy-to-understand manner, without too many big words.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
DarknesOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
DarknesOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter to MDs absurd votebomb.
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 5 years ago
MassDebator255
DarknesOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: smile..your on candid camera
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
DarknesOMGJustinBieberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit