The Instigator
jcj97
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DarthVitiosus
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The existence of evil proves God must exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 1 vote the winner is...
DarthVitiosus
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,068 times Debate No: 66484
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

jcj97

Pro

I will prove that the existence of evil does not disprove God's existence, but rather proves that he does exist.

My opponent will attempt to prove the contrary, that the existence of evil proves God does not exist.

The definition of God used in this argument is a good, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being.

I would like to hear my opponent's definition of evil.
DarthVitiosus

Con

DEFINITIONS & ASSOCIATIONS:
Evil: "Profoundly immoral and wicked[1]"

[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

INTRODUCTION & PREMISES:
I as Con will refute my opponent's claim that the existence of evil proves God exist. My opponent has the burden of proof since he is affirming the resolution. Therefore, Pro must show us that without a doubt that the existence of evil proves the existence of god.

ARGUMENTS:
#1. The existence of evil does not corroborate the existence of God.
Evil is an adjective which can be applied relative to each individual. For example, my opponent and I may find human trafficking to be "evil"(I hope he does) but does the trafficker consider what he is doing "evil[1]?" In the United States. people will often consider the enslavement of Africans "evil[2]." Did the slave owners themselves who owned slaves consider themselves "evil?" After all, let us not forget many of America's founding fathers owned slaves[3]. People often consider the NASDP and Hitler to be evil. But how many of their German supporters actually considered them "evil[4]?"

[1]http://www.fbi.gov...
[2]http://www.history.com...
[3]http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[4]http://www.johndclare.net...

In all of the cases of alleged "evil," there were two parties both which are homosapien. One side says someone is "evil" and the other side is the side that is deemed "evil." If "evil" is presented to us both voices of human beings, how does the concept of evil have to do prove the existence of god?
Debate Round No. 1
jcj97

Pro

If I were to boil down my opponent's objection, it is simply, "evil is subjective so how can it prove anything?"

That is true. The opinion of whether something is right or wrong varies from person to person, society to society, but still nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong. Sure, they may believe that they can steal from others, but if you were to steal from them, or harm them, or treat them negatively in any way, they would surely say you were wrong for doing so.

As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law, they are correct, many German soldiers had no problem with murdering Jews, but when Russians raped their women, they viewed that as wrong, or evil. Southern plantation owners may have viewed their cruel treatment of slaves as ok, but if someone stole one of their slaves, they viewed that as wrong. Both people groups committed action which we would declare heinous, but they approved of, but both groups still believed certain things were wrong.

I challenge my opponent to find one society in all of world history that has no concept of right and wrong, or good and evil.
DarthVitiosus

Con

ARGUMENTS:
"Sure, they may believe that they can steal from others, but if you were to steal from them, or harm them, or treat them negatively in any way, they would surely say you were wrong for doing so."

"Southern plantation owners may have viewed their cruel treatment of slaves as ok, but if someone stole one of their slaves, they viewed that as wrong. Both people groups committed action which we would declare heinous, but they approved of, but both groups still believed certain things were wrong."

My opponent has just eviscerated his own case that the "existence of evil proves God exists." My opponent has just shown it is "we," the homosapiens who determines what is "right" or "wrong." Not once, has my opponent proven how God has deemed what is "evil" and what is "good." My opponent has shown according to his very reasoning, that "we" selectively choose what is "right" and "wrong."

"As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law, they are correct, many German soldiers had no problem with murdering Jews, but when Russians raped their women, they viewed that as wrong, or evil. "
Caught in LIE #01. Where am I comparing anyone to the Nazis? A petty attempt at distraction and a failure at understanding Godwin's Law.

"I challenge my opponent to find one society in all of world history that has no concept of right and wrong, or good and evil."

I don't have to prove anything related to the concept of "right" or wrong" because I never asserted nor denied the concept. I only questioned it.


LIE BY PRO:
"As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law"
Godwin's Law: "Godwin's law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—R03; that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.[1]"

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
jcj97

Pro

"My opponent has just shown it is 'we,' the homosapiens who determines what is 'right' or 'wrong.'"
That is incorrect. What I did prove is that all civilizations believe in evil, though their perception of it differs. This does not mean that we determine right & wrong.

"Where am I comparing anyone to the Nazis?"
My mistake. That was not a fulfilment of Godwin's Law, since there was no comparison being made, but my point remains. Even Nazi Germany believed in evil.

The Logical Argument for the Existence of God from the Existence of Evil:

  • If it is recognizable that evil does exist (even if your definition of it is different that the person next to you) then we are aware that the world is not the way that it should be.
  • If the world is not the way that it should be, then there must be a way the world ought to be.
  • If there is a way the world ought to be, there must have been an original "design plan".
  • If there was a "design plan" there must be a designer.
  • If there is a designer, he/she/it must be all-powerful, for it created the world, and all-good, for evil is a departure from his/her/its plan.
  • If a being is all-powerful, or omnipotent, and all-good, or omnibenevolent, then it must be God.
  • It is recognizable that evil exists.
  • Therefore God must exist.
DarthVitiosus

Con

"That is incorrect. What I did prove is that all civilizations believe in evil, though their perception of it differs. This does not mean that we determine right & wrong."

Is civilization not made up of homosapiens?

Also my opponent has not proven all civilizations believe in "evil." My opponent has only shown the concept of "evil" exists in some societies, not all. This is fallacious to say the least to suggest all civilizations believe in "evil." He himself has made the claim " all civilizations believe in evil." Therefore he must prove that all civilizations believe in it. It is not my responsibility to to find a civilization that does not believe in evil. My opponent made the claim, he must prove it.

"If it is recognizable that evil does exist (even if your definition of it is different that the person next to you) then we are aware that the world is not the way that it should be."

The world is not the way is should be? That is exclusively of my opponent's opinion. My opponent has previously shown that the concept of evil prevails among us in some civilizations. This means evil is a normality not an abnormality if it exists in some civilizations as my opponent has shown. Therefore, there is no other way the world "should be" since the concept of evil is a normality, not an abnormality. Essentially meaning, civilizations without evil are abnormal not normal according to my opponent's reasoning.
Debate Round No. 3
jcj97

Pro

I don't see how you have proven or disproved any of the premises in my argument, therefore I have little to say.
DarthVitiosus

Con

My opponent has no substantiated premise. It seems like he has given up, Vote Con. I will spend this round killing all of his arguments that were based on nothing.Please enjoy.

#1. "That is true. The opinion of whether something is right or wrong varies from person to person, society to society, but still nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong......but if you were to steal from them, or harm them, or treat them negatively in any way, they would surely say you were wrong for doing so."

Has my opponent studied every single individual in human history? How does he know that "nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong?" Did my opponent provide any evidence? No, this was a baseless assumption. My opponent did not even offer us a single study or any stats related to this. Even if he did I would refute it. My opponent did not support what he said with any evidence whatsoever.

#2."As my opponent has already fulfilled Godwin's Law"

I refuted this in Round 2, it was an inappropriate use of Godwin's Law.

#3."German soldiers had no problem with murdering Jews, but when Russians raped their women, they viewed that as wrong, or evil."

This is an unsubstantiated claim. How does Pro know that the German soldiers who killed Jews were upset when Russians raped "their" women?

#4."Southern plantation owners may have viewed their cruel treatment of slaves as ok, but if someone stole one of their slaves, they viewed that as wrong."

How does my opponent know all Southern plantation owners felt this way? Pro didn't even show us how one single slave owner felt this way either. This is a generalization and based on nothing.

#5."Both people groups committed action which we would declare heinous, but they approved of, but both groups still believed certain things were wrong."

Who is "we?" I never stated my opinions one way or the other. Also how does Pro know they "believed certain things were wrong?" He doesn't know, he has just assumed.

#6. "I challenge my opponent to find one society in all of world history that has no concept of right and wrong, or good and evil."

Not my claim to defend, I did not assert all civilizations believed in evil nor did I make such a generalization. My opponent claimed "evil" existed in all civilizations, therefore he must prove it. My opponent has the burden of proof, not I[1]. It is clear he has not intention of proving it. I would even state emphatically that he does not have the capacity to prove it as well.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...

#8. "Even Nazi Germany belived in evil"

You have not proved that Nazi Germany believed in evil.

#9. "What I did prove is that all civilizations believe in evil"
No, you did not prove that all civilizations believe in evil. You have only shown 2 segments of civilizations believe in "evil," he Antebellum South and German soldiers. Essentially, my opponent showed 2 examples and extradited these examples on all societies. How does 2 segements of 2 civilizations equate to all civilizations having evil? It doesn't. My opponent has committed a hasty generalization fallacy[2].

[2]http://www.nizkor.org...


#10."If it is recognizable that evil does exist (even if your definition of it is different that the person next to you) then we are aware that the world is not the way that it should be."

Pro has not shown one iota of evidence that substantiates the existence of "evil." My opponent has not substantiated what the "we" either in his claim. pro has not proven what the world should be or not be.


I have clearly exposed Pro for wasting our time. Why do I say that you wonder? Notice, not a single one of Pro's arguments are substantiated by any evidence. We are left with baseless assumptions. Far as I am concerned, we should be discussing if the dream Pro had last not was true. Why? It is simple, he is the only person who can see the dream, we can not. None of Pro's claims can be verified. I have negated each one of his claims for trying to push his assumptions onto the readers and I.

My opponent offered us assumptions all the rounds he argued and I have offered nothing but refutations and throwing out his fallacious claims. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
jcj97

Pro

I apologize for my minimal response. I was traveling and ran out of time to reply. I had 10 seconds to post a response, but I will reply to my opponent with much greater detail this round.


Reply to #1 “How does [my opponent] know that ‘nearly every person believes that stealing from them is wrong?’”


The non-Christian German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, gives proof for this point in this article http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com...;


Reply to #2 “I refuted this in Round 2, it was an inappropriate use of Godwin's Law”


I already addressed this and admitted my mistake.


Reply to #3 “How does Pro know that the German soldiers who killed Jews were upset when Russians raped ‘their’ women?”


This is one of many historic articles discussing this fact. http://en.wikipedia.org...;


Reply to #4 “How does my opponent know all Southern plantation owners felt [that stealing their slaves was wrong]?”


This statement is based purely on history. See http://www.history.com... or http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...


Reply to #5 “I never stated my opinions one way or the other. Also how does Pro know they ‘believed certain things were wrong?’”


My opponent did state their opinion though in Round 1 when they said, “my opponent and I may find human trafficking to be "evil"(I hope he does)”. As for how I know they believe things were wrong, see replies 3 & 4.


Reply to #6 “My opponent claimed "evil" existed in all civilizations, therefore he must prove it.”


Evil is defined by Merriam-Webster as “morally bad, or causing harm or injury to someone” (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Since one can cause harm or injury, no matter where or when they are, then, by definition, evil exists in all civilizations.


Reply to #8 (There was no #7) “You have not proved that Nazi Germany believed in evil.”


See reply #3


Reply to #9 “you did not prove that all civilizations believe in evil.”


See reply #6


Reply to #10 "Pro has not shown one iota of evidence that substantiates the existence of ‘evil.’”


As demonstrated in reply #6, evil exists by definition.


Please keep this discussion professional. Misspellings, poor grammar and asking for votes does not add to your argument. My intent is strictly to gain information for a paper I am writing, not to win an internet debate.



DarthVitiosus

Con

REBUTTALS:
"The non-Christian German Philosopher, Immanuel Kant, gives proof for this point in this article"

This is an appeal to authority fallacy[1]. Pro just claims Immanuel Kant is right without any explanation. Immanuel Kant does not list the belief in evil in every society. Therefore, Pro's point remains refuted.

[1]http://www.nizkor.org...

"This is one of many historic articles discussing this fact. "

Pro, doesn't seem to understand, what evidence does Pro have that the Germans who killed Jews were upset when Russians raped German evidence? My opponent did not provide any proof or an explanation. Instead we are left with a wikipedia article that remains unexplained. Therefore, Pro has offered another appeal to authority fallacy[1].

"This statement is based purely on history."

Again, another appeal to authority fallacy on the part of Pro[1]. On top of that Pro doesn't answer my question. "How does my opponent know all Southern plantation owners felt [that stealing their slaves was wrong]?" Key word is "all."

"My opponent did state their opinion though in Round 1 when they said, “my opponent and I may find human trafficking to be "evil"(I hope he does)”. As for how I know they believe things were wrong, see replies 3 & 4."

This is an outright lie. I only stated my opinion on human trafficking. I never gave an opinion on German soldiers killing Jews, Russians raping women, nor did I give an opinion on slave owners. My opponent is lying here because I was responding to his Round 2 statement(see below). Again, the last sentence y Pro is another appeal to authority fallacy.

Pro's Round 2 statement:
"Many German soldiers had no problem with murdering Jews, but when Russians raped their women, they viewed that as wrong, or evil. Southern plantation owners may have viewed their cruel treatment of slaves as ok, but if someone stole one of their slaves, they viewed that as wrong. Both people groups committed action which we would declare heinous, but they approved of, but both groups still believed certain things were wrong."

"Since one can cause harm or injury, no matter where or when they are, then, by definition, evil exists in all civilizations."

Wrong, it said "morally bad" as well which Pro intentionally ignored. Pro also ignored evil is an adjective. Therefore by default, the concept of evil will be relative. The point still stands, Pro never has proved how evil exists in all civilizations.

"Please keep this discussion professional. Misspellings, poor grammar and asking for votes does not add to your argument. My intent is strictly to gain information for a paper I am writing, not to win an Internet debate."

If we observe Pro's statements above, it is clear, Pro is making a bold attempt to derail the debate with inconsequential banter. Poor arguments, fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims which are all relevant to the debate's resolution have caused Pro's downfall. Pro knows it so he attempts to throw dirt in our eyes to blind us with hollow rhetoric as a distraction. No one should be deceived.

FINAL QUESTIONS TO THE VOTERS:
Did Pro meet the resolution?
Did Pro show us any evidence that evil exists?
Did Pro show us the existence of evil proves the existence of God?
Did Pro correlate the existence of evil with the existence of God?
If Pro failed to show us a correlation between evil and God, how can he claims one causes the other?

CONCLUSION:
Pro failed to show us any evidence on how the existence of evil proves the existence of God? Pro showed us according to his own reasoning that evil is generated by humans. Therefore, Pro's case is taciturn and unresponsive to the resolution.

Vote early, Vote often, and Vote Con. Then send a friend request.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jcj97 2 years ago
jcj97
Con seemed more experienced in how to use Debate.org, but Pro, while less experienced in the technicalities of debate, seemed to have far superior arguments. Con's point that you cannot prove that EVERY civilization BELIEVED in evil was good, but moral objectivism has many holed itself. Con made many grammatical and spelling errors, repeated statements unnecessarily & had holes in his logic, while the only mistake Pro made that I noticed was the incorrect definition of Godwin's Law. Pro's opening statements were fairly week; he should have chosen the con position and argued against the argument that God doesn't exist from the existence of evil. Con never really argued anything. He only took pot shots at Pro. Pro should have paid closer attention to time and not had a 1 sentence rebuttal because of a "lack of time." I personally thought Con's begging for votes to be very unprofessional and tacky. My final thoughts are that Pro won, but needs to improve his debate skills.
Posted by DarthVitiosus 2 years ago
DarthVitiosus
Saying God exists doesn't make sense. If you say something exists, you must able to prove it. No one denied God's existence here because it simply impossible to prove a negative.

Simply put as Carl Sagan once said "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." If you say something exists you must provide the evidence to support such a claim. It is not the other way around for me to provide evidence of god not existing.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Insisting that God had to have been flawed, that God can't exist, etc. , doesn't make sense.

It is said that God, being perfect, (perfectly good), couldn't have created "evil"
& since God created everything that exists, "evil" cannot exist.
There is, of course, no way that God could "retreat from" his creation.
Isn't God considered to be Omnipresent, Everywhere at all times?

It can be easily shown that "evil" can't possibly exist.
There isn't any Dualistic universe.
In his Basic 1950 book on Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard described
what he called "The Gradient Scale" .
Nothing is "evil" but some things are More Good, & some things are Less Good.
Posted by jcj97 2 years ago
jcj97
vi_spex: I don't understand what you mean by "any god you can mention is information"? & how would you argue that evil is an emotional attachment to god?

peacenow: I did define God in the argument though?
Posted by Solomon_Orlando 2 years ago
Solomon_Orlando
I'll accept.
Posted by gotinogaden 2 years ago
gotinogaden
The existence of evil is not in and of itself an evidence for God's non-existence; it could indicate that God has decided to retreat from his own creation. The issue here is that you are just presupposing that God is wholly good, and i don't think we have been given good reasons to think it so. I would love to further the debate!
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
any god you can mention is information
Posted by peacenow 2 years ago
peacenow
This debate is meaningless until "god" is defined
Posted by StrategicPositions 2 years ago
StrategicPositions
I would debate this with you gladly but for some reason it says that your rank does not allow me to debate with you.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Surrealism
I'd love to accept this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
jcj97DarthVitiosusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never makes a strong enough case to support the proposition. He concedes several points related to perspective of evil actions. Subjective evil undermines the claim that evil is even evil. Pro's "proof" in round 3 falls well short of proving the existence of god. Simple response is "would an all natural world have suffering?" Seems reasonable to conclude it would. Therefore, how does suffering demonstrate a god exists? Con makes valid points and as generally stronger arguments.