The Instigator
Umasi93
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Puck
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

The existence of evil seems to be incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent and caring God.

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
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: 6/29/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,338 times Debate No: 4546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (12)

 

Umasi93

Con

If god is real then he created evil not just as a test for mans loyalty to him but also as an opposite to define what one must do in life and what one shouldn't.

without evil their cant be good and without yin their cant be yang.
Puck

Pro

"If god is real then he created evil not just as a test for mans loyalty to him but also as an opposite to define what one must do in life and what one shouldn't.
without evil their cant be good and without yin their cant be yang."

Resolution: Evil is incompatible with an omnipotent caring god.

===============================================================================

My opponent's god's properties: (i) omnipotence (ii) benevolence (caring) (iii) omnipotent benevolence required to be moral perfectness (good).

An all powerful being who is caring must be all powerfully caring. Caring is a moral attribute therefore said god must be morally perfect.

If (i), (ii), or (iii) can be shown to fail, then existence fails (and my opponents argument), equally if evil can be shown to be incompatible with (i), (ii) or (iii) then my opponents argument again fails.

Since I am not omniscient and (assuming existence) God is or at least at a higher level (requirement for omnipotence), then first of all, my understanding of evil cannot epistemically said to be the same as God's. Therefore, I (anyone) cannot say with certainty what evil really is within the context of even just (i). If I could somehow maintain an epistemic knowledge that my understanding of evil was the same as God's, then since (iii) entails that (ii) leads towards morally perfect conclusions (because it is based off of moral perfection), then this would still lead one be unable to assume which value statements would have to be derived from morally perfect groundings. i.e. Knowing which moral groundings are absolute does not tell us, with direct apparentness, which value statements we can derive from moral groundings.

Knowing what is good/evil and what actions are applied to either moral 'side' is problematic. How can a morally perfect being "test" fairly when the matter of the test itself is uncertain? If said testing is unfair then god in question cannot be (iii) and therefore does not exist.

===============================================================================

(i)evil occurs which does not lead to greater good
(ii)using evil to test faith is not always moral
(iii)From (i and ii) some evil is neither good or moral
(iv)God is the source of evil
(v)From (iii and iv) God is neither good or moral
(vi)Therefore a morally perfect god does not exist.

Premise (i)and (ii) can be seen in acts which can be defined as greater evils both natural and human caused. A rape is a greater evil actioned upon one person to another. Arguably the victim receives no benefit short or long term from the act, like wise (ii) natural evils such as an earthquake may cause 'instant' fatalities where ones faith has no chance to be tested thus usage of evil is at best pointless and morally negligent. Premise (iv) is compliant with my opponents opening statement, as God is the source of evil (v) and evil is incompatible with moral perfectness my opponents god cannot exist.

===============================================================================

Against omnipotence:
Can God make triangles that are round?
or
Can God make circles that have 4 equal sides
at 90 degree angles to each other?
or
Can God kill Godself?

Clearly God is unable to create properties that violate any innate properties and definition of an object. Claims this common argument is a demand for God to work ontological nonsense and therefore irrelevant ignores the point of the contradictions themself. If God is not more powerful as any natural law it supposedly created then it fails any claim of omnipotence.

Therefore an omnipotent god cannot exist.

===============================================================================

(a)Good cannot exist without evil i.e. for man to do well and be properly tested then one must have evil.

It is true that in the absence of non-blue we wouldn't really notice as something distinct that can be named, but it is not true that blue can not exist without non-blue. Similarly, in the absence of suffering/evil, we might not be in a position to label pleasure/good, but it is not true that pleasure/good cannot exist without suffering/evil.

(b)Or Evil is a necessary contrast to good.

First, the idea is that we cannot experience pleasure without experiencing pain, seems clearly false. The experience of good is likewise discrete from evil. Even if evil is requisite as an epistemic contrast to good, surely there is more evil than is necessary to achieve this purpose.
The nature of a 'testing God' is called into question here. If (a) is true then God does not require evil for people to do good, regardless of any knowledge of its opposite. If (b) is true then likewise evil becomes unnecessary and any God who employs evil as a tool is questionably immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
Umasi93

Con

Umasi93 forfeited this round.
Puck

Pro

I can't debate against a forfeit, Umasi93. It goes against the whole 'let's debate challenge thing you did.' :P
Debate Round No. 2
Umasi93

Con

Umasi93 forfeited this round.
Puck

Pro

Forfeits are no fun at all. It means I have to make up things to fulfill character limits.

(\_/)
(o.o)
(> <)

Vote for the sickly bunny!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
I'm voting for the guy killing bunnies

(\_/)
(o.o)
(> <)

forfeits make me mad 2.

It makes for an easier win though, so without the bad of forfeits, there is no good of an easy win ;)
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
edit: "commonly seen is evidential" 'in'
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"naturally occuring evil" refers to 'acts of god', those natural events designed to test faith i.e. caused by god, as my opponent was arguing. It's a theodicy commonly seen is evidential arguments from evil. Just covering my bases. ;)
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
I'm voting for the bunny, but I do want to say something to Puck: there is no naturally occurring evil. Evil requires a conscious choice. Earthquakes don't choose to cause harm. Someone somewhere must intend to cause harm in order for it to be evil. I'm not saying evil doesn't exist, but it has to have a motive, otherwise it's just bad luck.
Posted by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
How very interesting. I just started a debate yesterday on this very subject. I'm voting for the sickly bunny. lol
Posted by Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
PEN!S PEN!S PEN!S PEN!S PEN!S
Posted by Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
Mmhmm "bad things shouldn't be happening because a infinitely powerful god that cares for us is watching over us." in other words.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Just so I am clear, the resolution is:
Evil is incompatible with an omnipotent caring god.
Posted by Umasi93 8 years ago
Umasi93
All I want is a good debate. :]
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Thanks for the challenge, Umasi93. This should be fun :)
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
Umasi93PuckTied
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 Im_always_right 8 years ago
Im_always_right
Umasi93PuckTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
Umasi93PuckTied
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 Dave916 8 years ago
Dave916
Umasi93PuckTied
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 Paradox 8 years ago
Paradox
Umasi93PuckTied
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 Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Umasi93PuckTied
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 jimlanthrou 8 years ago
jimlanthrou
Umasi93PuckTied
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 Ironhead56 8 years ago
Ironhead56
Umasi93PuckTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Umasi93PuckTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
Umasi93PuckTied
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