The Instigator
Zetsubou
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Atheism
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 7/14/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,088 times Debate No: 12406
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (3)

 

Zetsubou

Con

Any times has Atheism stated that the Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy. Even in a prolonged forum debate on the subject he called ignorance and changed the subject.

This is Atheism's moment to shine. Arguments come in Round 2. Ready up.

Atheism has this round to explain his ‘Problem of Evil', note - your definition has to be similar to the conventional argument.

Thank you and Good luck.

Good = Rational and Logical
Atheism

Pro

So, it will go like this:
R1 -Blah
R1 -Blah
R2- -Zets' argument against the problem of evil-
R3- -Refuting Zets' argument, and proposing my own(which has some elements from TheSkeptic's, so props to him)-
R4- -Same-
R4 -Same-
R5 -Same/Conclusion-
R5 -Same/Conclusion-

So, just to be sure, con also has to meet a B.o.P.
He cannot just post nothing in R2, refute my arguments(if he can), and then not state what his arguments against the Problem of Evil.
Both have a B.o.P.
That is all, and I hope for a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Zetsubou

Con

Burden of Proof,

Sorry to have to be difficult but in a debate a 'BOP', as you call it, can be accepted or declined by the instigator in round one. I relished this 'Burden' in round one, in case Pro missed it here it is again:

"Atheism has this round to explain his 'Problem of Evil', note - your definition has to be similar to the conventional argument."

My part in this debate exists only to prove you wrong and change your attitude which you display with most selective ignorance on the forums.

Round 1 existed for you to give you interpretation of the problem of evil. My position exists to contradict or contend your assertions, there's a reason Pro & Con exist. Should the instigator (as Con) relish his Burden of Proof he need not be burdened.

Thank you, I seek Atheism's argument next round. I deeply apologise for this incontinence most attentive reader; if all goes well the debate shall resume as intended next round.

I also wish to remind Pro it is not in his place as contender to set the terms of the rounds in this debate.
Atheism

Pro

//Sorry to have to be difficult but in a debate a 'BOP', as you call it, can be accepted or declined by the instigator in round one. I relished this 'Burden' in round one, in case Pro missed it here it is again//
You mean relinquished, I presume? And no, the instigator almost always has the B.o.P, whether he tries to pass it off or not. That fact that you made yourself Con as an instigator just to escape from it is quite annoying. In any case, in a topic as controversial as this, we both should have a B.o.P.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omni benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Anyways, my Problem of Evil characterization goes as such:

God is omni benevolent, and, as such, has the power to stop evils. Now, you may say these evils have a purpose, and can build character, greater good, etc. However, how does God justify evil with no purpose, which is will be hereby referred to as UUE (Unneeded, Unnecessary Evil).

UUE exists all over the world, in rape, child starvation, unneeded slaughter, natural disasters, etc.
Why, then, would a God allow this? It directly conflicts with his omni benevolent nature, and omnipotent powers.
He has the power to stop these evils, and his omni benevolence would compel him to do so. Since he does not, he probably does not exist.

A syllogism (Burrowed, with permission, from TheSkeptic):

(1) UUE probably/does exist(s).

(2) UUE is incompatible, and mutually exclusive from the God of Christianity(Omni benevolent, omniscient, omni-potent, etc.)

(3) Ergo, the God of Christianity (probably) can't (does not) exist.

As you can see, I have supplied both evidential and logical arguments against the God of Christianity, which my opponent will have to defeat.
Evidential arguments rely on probability, and logical arguments rely on certainty, just to clarify.
He will have to prove that UUE does not exist, and that there is some reason in these evils, and, if he manages to do that, prove that they are not mutually exclusive from the God of Christianity, which is hereby named G.o.C, since I am too lazy to type it out again and again.

I look forward to a fantastic debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Zetsubou

Con

I just want to stress that any atheist(religious skeptic) voters please read without voting with utter disregard of reason to the atheistic side.(Yvette, I'm talking to you)

Very good on the large part, but the overall syllogism is flawed.

You assume that omnibenevolence is by a human moral standard. Omnibenevolence literally means ‘always fair -ness' most definitions call it 'all loving' but my point applies to both terms. 'fairness' 'love' 'UUE' by definition, within moral relativism, are all relative and subjective. What is fair for one is not necessarily fair for another. What is lovely for one is not necessarily lovely for another. What is evil for one is not necessarily evil for another. They fail the moral 'categorical imperative'[Kant. et al.]. Their application to all human subjects let alone divine subjects(Whose moral standard you have no objective way of knowing!). Give me one example of what is universally evil, fair or lovely. Rape, child starvation, unneeded slaughter, natural disasters are evils only to people who share your moral belief. God may see these things as love, prove he doesn't. You can't.

To say omnibenevolence of an omnipotent figure is impossible is absurd. You assume that the figures moral code is your moral code! With your hypothetical situation that the Christian god exists you assume that his divine omniscience morality is like yours. His morality might be better than ours, after all he's omniscience and you're not.

Pro gave his Problem of evil to any 'omni'type god not necessarily the Christian god but he is welcome cite biblical scripture of God promising to help all those that ask for it.
Eg. Revelation 21:6, commonly used out of context by atheists attacking Christianity with the POE.

->Other argument
What is good/fair/lovely is just the absence of what is malicous/evil/bad. There is a ethical scale of what is good or evil, remove the furthest pole of what is evil, exterminationism for example, the scale will shift. If I remove all evil acts you will be left with only good acts, correct? What is good will lose its meaning when there is no opposing standard. All actions will become simply neutral, nothing will be good because nothing will be bad. In a sentence: Goodness as an absolute it's fully consistent and reliant on other postulates concerning moral value.

->On the Burden of Proof. (forgive me, but if I ignored that paragraph I'd look defeated)
"And no, the instigator almost always has the B.o.P, whether he tries to pass it off or not."[citation needed]

Under the Status Quo and most schools of thought and rhetoric, a Burden of Proof can be relinquished.

Examples of the relinquishment of the Burden of proof exist all over DDO, Puck I know for sure has a few, usually the ones he instigates. (I originally modeled my DDO debate style off him.)

Read the 'Schools of thought' area below it gives a concise guide to the 'BOP'.
http://ddofans.com...

-Page By Askbob, Wjmelements, Mongeese, Rezzealaux.

Are you content?

-
-
-

--->This topic is not controversial relative to most mainstream debate topics.
Atheism

Pro

//You assume that omnibenevolence is by a human moral standard. Omnibenevolence literally means ‘always fair -ness' most definitions call it 'all loving' but my point applies to both terms. 'fairness' 'love' 'UUE' by definition, within moral relativism, are all relative and subjective. What is fair for one is not necessarily fair for another.//
You just stated that an omnibenevolent god is, by definition, always fair. So, if it is always fair, it should be fair to everyone, in everyone's eyes, instead of just one being.

//What is lovely for one is not necessarily lovely for another.
What is evil for one is not necessarily evil for another. They fail the moral 'categorical imperative'[Kant. et al.]. Their application to all human subjects let alone divine subjects(Whose moral standard you have no objective way of knowing!). Give me one example of what is universally evil, fair or lovely. Rape, child starvation, unneeded slaughter, natural disasters are evils only to people who share your moral belief. God may see these things as love, prove he doesn't. You can't.//
You just told me to prove a negative. The B.o.P is upon you to prove that God does have a moral code separate from us, since you are the one asserting he does. You can;t just say prove that he doesn't; that is fail. You have the B.o.P and you cannot just try and pass it on. It is logically upon you.

//To say omnibenevolence of an omnipotent figure is impossible is absurd. You assume that the figures moral code is your moral code! With your hypothetical situation that the Christian god exists you assume that his divine omniscience morality is like yours.//
And you are the one -asserting- it isn't. The B.o.P is upon you.
//His morality might be better than ours, after all he's omniscience and you're not.//
I think you mean omni benevolent. And you used the wrong form of omniscient right there.

//What is good/fair/lovely is just the absence of what is malicous/evil/bad. There is a ethical scale of what is good or evil, remove the furthest pole of what is evil, exterminationism for example, the scale will shift. If I remove all evil acts you will be left with only good acts, correct? What is good will lose its meaning when there is no opposing standard.//
Actually, there will be neutral actions left. For instance, a good act would be to pick up a pencil someone dropped. A neutral act would be to not help, but not hurt either.
//All actions will become simply neutral, nothing will be good because nothing will be bad. In a sentence: Goodness as an absolute it's fully consistent and reliant on other postulates concerning moral value.//
Wrong.
Neutrality would be a zero, and good acts would rank higher than zero.
See my pencil dropping analogy above.
Neutral acts, you neither help nor hinder.
Good acts, you help.
Bad acts, you hinder.
Nothing too confusing there.

//Under the Status Quo and most schools of thought and rhetoric, a Burden of Proof can be relinquished.//
Yes, but that doesn't mean it:
-Is of good conduct to do so
-Can be done with such a controversial topic
-Can just be passed off without acceptance. It is unfair to try and pass of a B.o.P when you are asserting something.
I.e. Prove God exists.
Prove he doesn't.
Argument ad infinitum.

//Are you content?//
Sure, why not.

//--->This topic is not controversial relative to most mainstream debate topics.//
I'm sure many others aside from myself would beg to differ.
Debate Round No. 3
Zetsubou

Con

>>>>This debate has been very much a disappointment<<<<

/////"You just stated that an omnibenevolent god is, by definition, always fair. So, if it is always fair, it should be fair to everyone, in everyone's eyes, instead of just one being."

That impossible, you can't make something fair for everyone. It's like making a single colour leaf both red and blue. 'fair' is different to everyone. It is relative. Reread round 2. Fair to me and you is not the same as fair to god or someone is Mecca. It's really that simple. By calling something fair you're giving it value, value from who? One self. If I shot person A and give $20 to person B what makes it unfair? Because killing someone is bad and giving money is good? Says who? Morality. Under Moral Relativism, morals are subjective. Some bipolar Sociopath might find murder salvation. [Eg. Heaven's Gate]

/////"You just told me to prove a negative. The B.o.P is upon you to prove that God does have a moral code separate from us, since you are the one asserting he does. You can;t just say prove that he doesn't; that is fail. You have the B.o.P and you cannot just try and pass it on. It is logically upon you."

I don't have the burden of proof. Learn your logical fallacies. This is a negative proof fallacy or 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' argument from ignorance ON YOUR PART.

You're saying God has 'X'.

I'm saying God doesn't have 'X', prove he does.
Who has the burden? Who? You, it's your assertion! You're mistaking the instigator of the assertion as the instigator of the debate/topic.

How do you know that God finds anything lovely, evil, indifferent? You don't know. There's no way you can know. Christians have the bible to tel whats good or bad not what's fair(in gods eyes). I'm not saying: "god loves 'X'" I'm saying: "you don't know god 'X'.

////And you are the one -asserting- it isn't. The B.o.P is upon you.

As above.

//His morality might be better than ours, after all he's omniscience and you're not.//

//I think you mean omni benevolent. And you used the wrong form of omniscient right there.

All knowing - Omniscience [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
Also, "omnibenevolent" is one word.

>>"pencil dropping analogy"<<

"Actually, there will be neutral actions left. For instance, a good act would be to pick up a pencil someone dropped. A neutral act would be to not help, but not hurt either.
...
Wrong.
Neutrality would be a zero, and good acts would rank higher than zero.
See my pencil dropping analogy above.
Neutral acts, you neither help nor hinder.
Good acts, you help.
Bad acts, you hinder.
Nothing too confusing there."

We removed the ability to hinder. What is left is support and non action/neutrality. Support to emotion is subjective. If there's no ability to be hindered one won't even consider the possibility of being hindered. Your analogy still assumes things that hinders still exists. The mind set shifts. What is good is negated because there's no counterpart that gives it value. It is similar with light and the dark. See it from other Theologians below.

CS Lewis:
"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies"

St Augustine:
"And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present—namely, the diseases and wounds—go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils—that is, privations of the good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else."

->On the Burden of Proof<-
////-Is of good conduct to do so

I said it in the first round; bad conduct is if I changed my mind mid-debate causing you a hindrance and change of style, you accept my rules, my debate. How can I debate you if I have incomplete knowledge of your P.o.E, which you could so easily shift? It's not an attack on conduct.

////-Can be done with such a controversial topic

Non sequitur, what has the controversial topic have to do with my debate style?

////-Can just be passed off without acceptance. It is unfair to try and pass of a B.o.P when you are asserting something.
I.e. Prove God exists.
Prove he doesn't.
Argument ad infinitum.

I don't think you know what an Argument from ignorance is. I'M NOT MAKING THE ASSERTION. Take this hypothetical situation:

Ragnar Rahl challenges GodSands. He's INSTIGATING a debate on god existence with GodSands.

Ragnar Rahl says: Prove God exists.
God Sands says: Prove he doesn't, you made the claim you back it up, Argumentum ad infinitum.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing.

Again, how do you know that God finds anything lovely, evil, indifferent?

////--->This topic is not controversial relative to most mainstream debate topics.//
///I'm sure many others aside from myself would beg to differ.
Want to debate it?

Pro's argument against my main argument is well... see it for yourself, Vote Con.
Atheism

Pro

Atheism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
zets: why would you want to worship a god that believed that rape was a-ok? lol
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Actually I'd love to grow a beard like that, but alas I am not permitted to do so!
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
As ill suited as it might be I can sleep at night knowing that I have a bright future, not in depression and don't look like this: http://ddofans.com... and most of all I don't spend my afternoon talking to a 14 year old kid about hows he's ill suited for a website.

Sucks to be you.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL in the Dungeon!!
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Maybe you should ask yourself why you are on a site that is so ill suited for you? You can't learn anything, you can't teach anyone anything, you don't add to this site in any way whatsover. Goodbye.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
I'm not continuing this here.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Then leave.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
l can't be asked anymore.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
"Fine, it wasn't an explicit relinquishment of my Burden of proof"

That is what I have been saying and what you have been denying. Thank you for the massive u-turn.

" but if Pro complied I could fulfill my part in the debate, he didn't."

However you have stated that, "Fine, it wasn't an explicit relinquishment of my Burden of proof". Maybe if you had yourself clear then Pro could have complied. You did not, your whine in invalidated.

" You're screaming dishonestly to fulfill your own prejudice."

Prejudice is where you pre-Judge without the facts.

" Did Pro or did Pro not comply to my instruction? It's a simple question."

Again you state that,
Fine, it wasn't an explicit relinquishment of my Burden of proof

You can not fault pro for failing to abide by instructions you have failed to state.

"For me to form my argument I at least need Pro to comply with a single instruction."

Again you state that,
"Fine, it wasn't an explicit relinquishment of my Burden of proof"

You did not make the instruction clear.

" I cannot be liable of false conduct if my opponent cannot follow his responsibility to follow the instigators terms and commands."

Okay again, "Fine, it wasn't an explicit relinquishment of my Burden of proof". Pro can not be held accountable for failing to abide by secret terms.

"I'm quite sure you know what I mean so I say again: Grow up."

I did not consider that dishonesty, tantrums and poor English are signs of maturity. You need to seriously consider why you are on this site, DATCMOTO contributes more.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
wow, 6... meh.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
ZetsubouAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
ZetsubouAtheismTied
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:13 
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
ZetsubouAtheismTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60