The Instigator
kvaughan
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
SnoopyDaniels
Con (against)
Winning
78 Points

The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,115 times Debate No: 547
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (32)

 

kvaughan

Pro

First, let me define "God". Under my view God has three main characteristics:
1. omnipotence
2. omniscience
3. omnibenevolence

It's worth noting that I think my argument still flies if we substitute "goodness" for omnibenevolence.

The argument is quite simple: if God is omnibenevolent (or at least good), he must want there to be as little suffering as possible. Since he is omnipotent, he has the tools to stop the suffering and since he is omniscient, he knows where the suffering is and the best way to stop it. But, when we look out into the world we see a ton of suffering. This either means that God doesn't exist or that he doesn't have the characteristics mentioned.

Formalized, the argument is this:
1. God wants there to be no suffering
2. God has the power and knowledge to remove all the suffering
3. There is suffering in the world
4. Therefore, God does not exist

Here's an example of the kind of suffering I'm talking about:
We as humans have physical brains which appear to be the cause of out minds. God however is a mind (he thinks for example) yet he does not have a brain to generate this mind. This indicates that non-physical minds are possible.

Now, our physical minds are a source of immense suffering. They are extremely prone to injury, small chemical or neurological fluctuations can cause immense difficulties and before the advent of modern medical technology, the large heads of children caused the death of a large percentage of women in childbirth. There is no reason for these physical minds to exist – they are needless suffering. An omnibenevolent God would not create physical minds.

The most common response to this argument seems to be the "free will defense". I will deal with this if someone wants to argue with it, but you will need to provide a reason why an omnipotent God could not create a world with both free will and no suffering. These do not seem to be logically contradictory, so a being that can do everything could do this.
SnoopyDaniels

Con

The Problem of Evil

The Problem of Evil is a very valid formal argument. Unfortunately, it is hinges on one extremely flawed premise, which makes it unsound. Your argument goes thus:

1. God wants there to be no suffering
2. God has the power and knowledge to remove all the suffering
3. There is suffering in the world
4. Therefore, God does not exist

The problem with this argument is the first premise. You are assuming that God wants there to be no suffering. How do you, or anyone else, know what a perfectly good God would or would not allow? The answer, of course, is that you cannot. Short of having observed other perfectly good gods in action, one cannot logically make a statement about what God would or would not do! One can assume that God would do one thing or another, but that is all.

There is nothing in the definition of goodness that necessitates the elimination of all evil. Indeed, it is the exact opposite. Without the existence of evil, WE COULD NOT COMPREHEND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE GOOD (I'm not yelling, by the way, I'm using caps for emphasis, since we can't use italics). Therefore, if there were a God such as the one described in the Bible, there would be nothing more likely than for Him to allow evil and thus facilitate the appreciation of one of His primary attributes!

I can further illustrate this with an analogy. Think of the best book you've ever read. Did this book contain no contention, no challenges or problems, and perfect people in perfect situations? Of course it did not. The perfectly good book, then, is not defined by the lack of evil within its pages. It is exactly the opposite. Most of the books we love REVOLVE around conflict and the existence of evil, not the lack of it. Often, the more evil the better. The author could conceivably write a book in which everything worked out perfectly for the characters and nothing bad ever happened, but what would be the purpose in that?

The Bible offers an even more fitting example. It often refers to God as our "father". Would a perfectly good father give his child everything he ever asked for, shelter him from all heartache and failure, and provide for him until he died? Obviously not. Therefore, the definition of perfect goodness does not necessarily exclude the existence of evil. Indeed, the existence of evil actually makes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God more probable, not less!

Let me elaborate by posing a question. Why do we, as humans, possess the ability to lament, often painfully, the apparently random tragedies that strike our lives and the lives of others? Would it not be more conducive to our survival and proliferation (and thus, more easily explained in terms of evolution) were we to have none of this emotional sense? The only way to make sense out of our ability to perceive evil and lament it (in addition to a number of other facts and faculties) is to introduce the Judeo-Christian God into one's thinking.
Debate Round No. 1
kvaughan

Pro

First off, your concluding point is just wrong. It would NOT be better evolutionarily for us to be emotionless – emotions have immense evolutionary advantages: they cause us to procreate when it is not strictly advantageous, look out for loved ones in defiance of cool reason and become violent to ward off other people. In fact, there are people born without the ability to feel pain and these people have really high mortality in early years because pain teaches really valuable lessons that are needed for survival. Further, you are basically suggesting that for no good reason God wanted to create us so that he could make sure we could suffer. That seems awful to me.

But, I digress from real issues. Your response is to deny premise 1: God DOES want there to be suffering

First, I want to point out that I actually define benevolence (and thus omnibenevolence) as the desire to avoid suffering in others, based on how I think we use the terms colloquially. Maybe this kind of definitional defense is a cheap trick, but I think you have to take the further step and reject God's omnibenevolence to make this argument fly. This means that you have no more reason to think of God as a good guy than a bad guy – that is, ‘God' is as likely to be the traditional Christian God as the devil without a specific claim in favor of his goodness.

Your first claim is "Short of having observed other perfectly good gods in action, one cannot logically make a statement about what God would or would not do". I hope for your sake that you are mistaken in this claim. As I see it, the fundamental building block for all current religions is the idea that X human action will lead God to do something favorable for you in the afterlife. Believe in Jesus and you go do heaven. Blow yourself up and you'll get 72 virgins in paradise. If you want to make this argument, then you must take the further step and realizing that you cannot say that belief in Jesus (assuming you're Christian) will get you into heaven since you can't know what God will do. In fact, while you're at it, abandon all religion – we can't know what God wants or doesn't want and religion is built on knowing what God wants.

The next argument you make is a concurrent, but slightly different argument about how the existence of evil is necessary to understand the existence of good. The problem here is that the existence of the knowledge of evil is all that is necessary for us to understand good, but evil itself does not have to occur. God could just show some films, for example, that tell everyone what evil is (or use that omnipotence thing to make us understand) and then let us go along out merry lives never actually experiencing evil, but knowing what it would be if it ever came up.

This is also where you father and book analogies come into the picture. Would a perfectly good father make sure nothing bad ever happened to you? Hell yes he would! Of course, Earthy fathers don't do this because suffering is inevitable and children need to learn how to cope, but God can make 100% sure that nothing bad happens, and I think it would be an enormous kindness to do this. And, are books with more conflict better? Sure. But for three reasons. 1) it isn't happening to me. Conflict for others is one thing, but something awful happening to me is never enjoyed. 2) We have evolved to accept pain and suffering as a normal part of life. If God wasn't such a jerk, this wouldn't have happened. 3) we get bored with things being great all the time. But, this is part of our suffering which God could easily remove.

Ultimately, the majority of your responses cannot take into account the amount of suffering that actually exists. In fact, the world as we know it is built so that one cannot avoid suffering. Take a lion for example: she can do one of two things, kill and eat a gazelle alive, causing it to suffer until it dies, or she can let her and her cubs starve until they die. Either way, suffering results. Another example is my argument from physical minds. There is no reason to make suffering endemic to life – a small amount of pain would both make life interesting (as per the book/ parent analogies) and allow us to understand what it means to be good. Why not achieve these goals with far, far less suffering?

Finally, even if you win that it's not logically contradictory for there to be a God and evil, bear in mind that I only argue that God is unlikely because of the existence of evil. If we can make the claim that God is good (as the bible does) then it is likely that he would reject evil (based on the human notion of good).
SnoopyDaniels

Con

The real problem here is your definition of God. You are trying to disprove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, using a flawed definition that would make Him obviously non-existent. Nowhere does the Bible say that God is omnibenevolent. In the future, I should include a caveat, saying that I will not debate things like this with people who have not read the Bible in any significant measure.

If that were the definition of benevolence, and perfect benevolence were attributed to God in the Bible, then I would agree that your argument throws His existence into question. But the Bible does not say that God is unwilling to allow evil; therefore, your argument has nothing to stand on.

Another sense in which the Problem of Evil argument is flawed, is that if there is no God, then there can be no objective standard of morality upon which to challenge God's existence. Evil, in a purely materialistic world, would not exist, nor would we be able to conceptualize it. The only way evil can truly exist is in relation to an absolute God who defines moral good and evil. In this sense, if evil exists, then God MUST exist. In order to say that God does not exist, you must at least reject the idea of moral evil, which is half of the foundation fothe traditional PoE argument.

I will attempt to respond to your points, despite the erroneous foundation of the debate itself.

Emotions have no evolutionary advantage. Animals are capable of defending one another and caring for one another through pure instinct, no emotional suffering involved. A perfect example of why emotions are counter-evolutionary is the mall shooter in Omaha (my hometown). His emotional inability to cope with life led to him killing over a dozen people who could. That hardly seems advantageous to survival. I agree that pain teaches valuable lessons, which is why God allows suffering. You pretty much explain away your own challenge with that observation.

There is nothing wrong with my statement about observation. Christians can no, based on what we consider to be God's word, what He would, did, and continues to do. However, you don't accept the Bible as true, so how could I claim what we can know what God would or would not do on that basis? If we assume, though, that He did create this world, you would have to accept, in addition to the existence of evil itself, the existence of the various explanations in the Bible of why God allowed evil, in which case the problem of evil argument would fall apart.

"The problem here is that the existence of the knowledge of evil is all that is necessary for us to understand good, but evil itself does not have to occur. God could just show some films, for example, that tell everyone what evil is (or use that omnipotence thing to make us understand) and then let us go along out merry lives never actually experiencing evil, but knowing what it would be if it ever came up."

You can't know about something that doesn't exist. Furthermore, if evil didn't exist and we never had to experience it, what would be the point in showing us a film about it? Why wouldn't he use his "omnipotence thing" to make us understand? An excellent question. The answer, of course, is that He would, and is. Ergo, the existence of evil in our world. I don't understand your point. You can't just "know" whave evil is. It is something that can only be known in terms of experience. You're also assuming that His point is merely to show us the difference between good and evil, which it is not. If you had ever read the Bible, you would know this.

The point of the father analogy was to demonstrate that perfect goodness is not incompatible with the existence of evil, which is your assertion. There could be any number of reasons why a perfectly good being would allow evil. The point of the book analogy is to explain that the presence of evil in something doesn't make it not good. The question isn't whether evil exists in the world, but whether or not the ultimate outcome of allowing evil will be good or bad. If the outcome turns out to be good, then there would be nothing incompatible with the idea that a perfectly good God would allow evil, and the PoE argument would once again shatter. Moreover, we do not enjoy books because of the three reasons you just mentioned. At least I don't. We enjoy them because they have a point. A world without evil in which everything worked out perfectly for everyone all of the time would be as pointless as a book without a plot.

"There is no reason to make suffering endemic to life – a small amount of pain would both make life interesting (as per the book/ parent analogies) and allow us to understand what it means to be good. Why not achieve these goals with far, far less suffering?"

How do you know the goals CAN be achieved with less suffering? Where is the optimum level of suffering? If you can't offer a perfect level of suffering, then what is your claim based on? My philosophy professor offered the same argument in class the other day. I responded then as I did just now and he was unable to offer a counter argument.

"Finally, even if you win that it's not logically contradictory for there to be a God and evil, bear in mind that I only argue that God is unlikely because of the existence of evil."

Assuming that all I have done is prove that there is no logical contradiction between God and the existence of evil, there would still be no basis on which to argue that His existence is unlikely. If there is no logical contradiction between the existence of two things, how does the existence of one make the existence of the other less likely? If there is a good reason for God to allow evil, how does the existence of evil make His existence unlikely? Do you have some numbers for me? How do you calculate the probability of his existence based on the presence of evil in the world? You can't. And because you can't, you can also not say that evil makes God's existence less likely. It may make the existence of your mental charicature of God less likely, but not the reality of the God of the Bible.
Debate Round No. 2
kvaughan

Pro

Snoopy: You've made some interesting accusations, many of which I vehemently disagree with. I will address the most pressing (and fallacious) of these of these, but I won't be able to get to all of them, because it would take several debates to properly explain them all.

First, don't accuse me of not having read the Bible enough to debate this. Have I read it cover to cover? No. But I am a former United Methodist and I used to go to church and all that jazz. We read plenty of the Bible in church and my reading of the Bible helped me reject Christianity. Further, you don't see me claiming that you can't debate this because you haven't read Epicurus (the man credited with first explaining the problem) or David Hume's more famous exegesis on it. Ideas are either good or bad regardless of what you have or haven't read. Don't make absurd claims and assumptions.

Ok, so you also claim that my definition of God is the problem. I define him as omnibenevolent or perfectly good. I just do this because most Christians seem to think pretty highly of the guy. But maybe they don't think as highly as I think they do. Allow me to quote … myself here: "It's worth noting that I think my argument still flies if we substitute "goodness" for omnibenevolence. (Kvaughan from post 1). Ok, so I only REALLY need to defend that God is "good". Let me do that for you.

"PSALM 145:8-9
8 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, Slow to anger and great in mercy.
9 The Lord is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works."

I'm surprised that I even have to defend this point, seeing as it is a basic tenant of Christian faith, but desperate times … Point is, I am entirely consistent with God's Biblical characteristics.

Next, you make this "if there is no God, then there can be no objective standard of morality upon which to challenge God's existence" argument. First, I am distressed that you want to bring this up NOW in my last chance for rebuttal. But when I deal effectively with you other argument I guess you have to do what you have to do. I want to first point out, that I don't really see you defending the conclusion very effectively. You just claim several times that without God there can be no evil. Why must this be so? Why do we need God to define evil? So, the argument isn't sound as is, but assuming it was, I'm inclined to make two responses:
1) You're just wrong about this. We can use logic and reason to create an objective moral standard – Kant's categorical imperative would be an example of this.
2) This argument implies that without a belief in God, people would be less moral because God defines morality. First, this is empirically denied. If we look at percentages in prison for example, atheists are far underrepresented with only .21% of the prison population, but around 8-16% of the total population (http://www.holysmoke.org...). Second, if you knew God did not exist, would you go around committing heinous acts? I don't believe in God and I don't because I believe in morality.

OK, so onto the diving knowledge argument concerning if we can know what God wants or not. Your response is that we can know what God wants, because it's in the Bible that God wants us to believe in Jesus or whatever. My response is that God wanting there to not be evil is also in the Bible. See the Psalms quote above. Also, Jesus claims "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18) or "The eyes of all look to Thee, And Thou dost give them their food in due time. Thou dost open Thy hand, And dost satisfy the desire of every living thing" (Psalms 15-16) So, we do know that God is good and he "satisfies the desire of every living thing". The world, however, is irreconcilable with these claims. So, if we can know things about God from the Bible as you claim, we still have the PoE, if we can't know things, we don't have religion.

Moving on to my "show some films" argument. As a sidebar, I want to point out that you claimed "You can't know about something that doesn't exist". This claim seems false to me. I know things about what a unicorn is supposed to look like despite its non-existence. I can know things about it conceptually. Next you claim that instead of showing films, God could use omnipotence to show us what evil is like and that's what this world is. I intended to claim that God could show us what evil is like without us having to go through pain and that he could do this with omnipotence. Now, your response is that evil can only be experienced and not learned conceptually. It seems to me that it is not self-contradictory for you to know evil without experiencing it. For example, I know that killing is evil. Have I ever experienced it? No. So, this argument is not even true in the human sense, but for omnipotence this just has to be possible as it is an action and God can, by definition, do any action.

Finally, you attempt to refute my claim that the actual amount of suffering is unnecessary. I make this claim because your pro-evil arguments seem to imply that evil is useful for distinguishing good and that it makes life interesting. Some, but less evil would seem to accomplish these tasks. The reason I, or your philosophy professor can't answer your question is because it's irrelevant. First, there are no units for suffering, so I can't tell you the exact amount. Second, all I'm claiming is that we need only minimal suffering (maybe one bad even per life) to get what you think suffering gains us. Now, I can make this claim without a perfect amount in mind. I know, for example, that I need more money (I'm broke at the moment) and I can make this claim without knowing exactly how much money I want. I want less suffering, and that's all I need to claim.

Let me end on this note. If suffering is good for the reasons you mentioned, then why treat people well? Why not stab the person you just met in the spleen instead of shaking their hand politely? After all, suffering teaches them about good, makes life interesting, and is the will of the creator of the universe. Why do good instead of evil?
SnoopyDaniels

Con

The only reason I brought up your knowledge of the Bible is because all of your questions could be answered simply by studying the Bible. Instead, you choose to impose a strange definition of God (that he does not want there to be evil), and then knock it down. That's called a straw man argument.

"I define him as omnibenevolent or perfectly good."

I never said he wasn't perfectly good, only that your definition of "perfectly good" is flawed. You say the definition of omnibenevolence or perfect goodness demands the absence of evil, which I have clearly refuted. If we accept your definition then yes, the existence of God would indeed be unlikely. But your definition is not that held by most Christians.

Where in those two verses does it say that God does not want us to endure evil? You are reading things in to the text that simply aren't there.

"Point is, I am entirely consistent with God's Biblical characteristics."

You are, as far as your choice of words for describing God, but your definitions of those characteristics are your own.

"You just claim several times that without God there can be no evil. Why must this be so? Why do we need God to define evil?"

That's because it is axiomatic. Where do you find the concept of evil outside of religious texts, particularly the Bible? The only reason you or any other atheist believes in evil is because of western culture, which is rooted in Christianity. I am not saying that bad things wouldn't happen, but the idea that they are morally evil would never occur to you. For that matter, neither would morality.

"We can use logic and reason to create an objective moral standard"

That is not an objective moral standard. Everyone thinks differently, therefore, their reasoning could lead them to completely different moral judgments. This happened in Germany, where the Nazi platform was endorsed by the entire intellectual community. Without an objective moral standard, you cannot say they were wrong since they used, to their minds, logic and reason to arrive at their conclusions! You cannot form an objective moral standard based on ideas in the human mind.

I didn't say that God is required in order to have morality, only that you cannot have objective morality without God. I'm well aware that atheists can be very moral people, but they have nothing objective to base their morals on. In a purely physical world there can be no such thing as right and wrong, only space, matter, and energy. In that scenario, the only "right" and "wrong" that exists is imposed by each individual on the facts of reality. This is not objective, and morals are, by definition, objective. Therefore, there can be no morals without God. People can still behave morally, but they cannot logically, objectively support their behavior. I do respect atheists though, for their desire to do what's right without the treat of heaven or hell, and in that sense I think many of them are better people than many Christians. True Christians don't do what's right because of fear of heaven or hell either.

"Your response is that we can know what God wants, because it's in the Bible that God wants us to believe in Jesus or whatever."

I didn't say that at all. I said that if you accept the definition of God based on the Bible to use in a debate, you must also accept the explanations for evil given in the Bible which render the Problem of Evil irrelevant. Only by rejecting the definition of God in the Bible can you also reject the explanations given in the Bible for evil, in which case you also cannot present the problem of evil. Thus, the Problem of Evil is a weak argument. You point back to the verses in Psalms again, but once again, those verses don't say anything about God not wanting evil in the world. Psalms 145 is speaking poetically about nature, not about humanity. So what's the problem?

'Also, Jesus claims "No one is good except God alone"'

Yes, and this is another verse which, if you are going to assume the truth of the Bible for the sake of this argument, invalidates it (the argument). If God is the only truly good being, how can we make a moral judgment as to whether something He does is good or not. You can't.

"This claim seems false to me. I know things about what a unicorn is supposed to look like despite its non-existence."

You said "God could just show some films, for example, that tell everyone what evil is." I stress the word "is". Why would he show a film about something that doesn't exist? It's just a silly argument.

"I intended to claim that God could show us what evil is like without us having to go through pain and that he could do this with omnipotence."

Once again, why would God instill in us knowledge of something we would never have to deal with? You can't "know" what evil is without having experience it. You can have an idea about something without experiencing it, but in order to truly know what evil is, you have to experience it. It's simply illogical, a contradiction of definition.

I didn't say that evil exists to help us understand good or make life interesting ALONE. Those are just two of the reasons that come to mind. They explain why we might have evil. Whether or not we truly have too much evil depends on the actual reasons God had for creating this world. Indeed, God may create a world that contains even more evil than ours, and provided he has an adequate reason, there would be no basis on which to claim that there is "too much". There is just as much evil as is required to fulfill His purpose, whatever that is.

"Now, I can make this claim without a perfect amount in mind. I know, for example, that I need more money (I'm broke at the moment) and I can make this claim without knowing exactly how much money I want."

Very good point. However, you know you need more cash because you don't have enough to buy what you want. You can't provide a reason for deciding that there is too much evil other than that you think there's too much, which is totally a matter of opinion, not a logical argument.

"If suffering is good for the reasons you mentioned, then why treat people well? Why not stab the person you just met in the spleen instead of shaking their hand politely?"

You're digging really deep with this argument. One of the purposes of evil is for us to overcome it with our actions, not succumb to it, resulting in character. Your atheistic, for instance, morality would mean nothing if it was never tested by evil. That why I said we need evil in order to understand and appreciate good. If nobody was ever tempted to do something wrong, then saying "I'm a moral person" would be meaningless and shallow. It's not evil for it's own sake, it's the struggle against evil that is valuable. If everything were evil, you would have the same problem that you would if everything were "good". Going back to the book analogy, it is not the presence of evil alone in a book that makes it good, but its relationship to good, namely, struggle.

I think this is the last round. Great debate, you did very well.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by lukepare 8 years ago
lukepare
Con has the correct statements here. God is not simply Good he is Complete Goodness. the part left out by the Pro side is the fact that God is also Completely Just. It is the side of his justice in combination with his goodness which causes him to allow trials. The trials are there to develop his charachter in our lives and without them this would not happen. If you leave out the fact that God is Just Snoopy is correct that it becomes a cyclical argument
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 9 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Indeed, it was an enjoyable debate, Kvaughan. I admit that I'm surprised that I received so many votes. Given the option, I would designate this a tie.

Devil's Advocate, I didn't cop out. The instigator was building in to his definition of God that God would not allow evil, which is circular. We were debating the merits of the argument from the standpoint of whether or not God would allow evil. He concludes that God would not, and builds this into his argument, but as anyone can see, this is hardly an established point. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of that argument. There is no reason to ASSUME, based on the description "perfectly good" that God would not allow evil.

Perhaps I am simply so familiar with theological doctrines that I don't see the logical contradiction if it does indeed exist... Still, if we are working from the Biblical definition of God, it is not unreasonable to incorporate the Biblical explanations for evil. If the Bible says that God did allow evil, then obviously this is not inconsistent with His character. The real point of debate should be the merits of the Biblical explanations for evil. This would require extensive theological knowledge on the part of the atheist, and I doubt he would care to spend any time researching the topic.
Posted by Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Devils_Advocate
Con, please click my avatar and see my discussion on the problem of evil.

I voted pro, because CON refused to accept a premise the debate- that is, God is omnibenevolent. If CON refused to accept that premise... why did s/he take the debate?

It is clear that CON copped out.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
Masterworks: by your notion of free will, I am not free. I cannot choose to fly, for example, so I am not free. I think free will means that you have to be bale to choose to do anything that is POSSIBLE to do. So, God could make evil impossible to do and have free will.
Posted by Masterworks 9 years ago
Masterworks
Let's analyze the term "free will".
First, let's take a look at free.
Free, according to Dictionary.com (which compiles definitions from other dictionaries and puts them online) , means being "exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, etc." So, free means something like "without limitations".

Will, according to the same website, means "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions".

Thus, "Free will" means being able to choose anything. We, with conditions coming afterward, can do whatever we want. Seeing as all actions are caused by another, previous action, this evil started somewhere. The person that began this evil CHOSE to begin it. They have free will.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
good debate snoopy. I enjoyed it

Masterworks: I mention the free will argument in my opening. Why are free will and non-evil mutually exclusive?
Posted by Masterworks 9 years ago
Masterworks
God does exist. Evil cannot disprove the existence of God.
You see, God allows evil because He gave us free will, which He gave to us because He loves us. Also, though there is much evil in the world, God will bring good out of most of it. But only God may do so. It is, in Christianity (or at least Catholicism) considered a sin to do evil to bring good out of it, and a sin is defined as an action in which the object, intention, and circumstance are evil.
Posted by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
I want to debate the problem of evil with you, but we have to finish our current debate to start a new one
Posted by Fenrir 9 years ago
Fenrir
Just for the record, and because I have enjoyed/currently enjoy my debates with you, I'd love to take a shot at this, as well, if you're interested.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 day ago
Mharman
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by A51 7 years ago
A51
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by debatist 8 years ago
debatist
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by shdwfx 8 years ago
shdwfx
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by 8_belles 8 years ago
8_belles
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by flatwhite 8 years ago
flatwhite
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 8 years ago
scorpionclone
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
kvaughanSnoopyDanielsTied
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