The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Astal3
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The problem of evil is a false argument

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Astal3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 58909
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

The problem of evil argument states that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect at once and rests on the following:

If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
Evil exists.
If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Therefore, God doesn't exist.

First round is acceptance
Astal3

Con

I accept your challenge my friend. I wish you the best of luck and lets play ball.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

The following problems exists in this argument:

1. The argument assumes that God's existence is dependent on his actions which is false. God made everything, therefore everything is subject to his rules and order. Job knew God is just and wrestled with his character, but not once was his existence questioned.

2. It does not follow that god's existence shows he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect. We as Christians get that from his Word.

3. Definitions - God's concept of good and evil are based on the Torah and some of these definitions simply do not work in the way we think of them, so we should proceed with caution.

4. God's will - Just because God has the desire to eliminate all evil, doesn't imply that he should eliminate it in the way that we humans want him to. After all, it is God's will and plan to 1 day rid the world of evil.

5. Evil exists but according to the book of Job, he overcame the power of evil through faith in God, proving the ineffectiveness of evil, thus God essentially did "eliminate" evil and brought back Job's blessings tenfold.

In conclusion, God is still omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
Astal3

Con

Definitions of god
1) (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2) (god) (In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity:
3) (god) An adored, admired, or influential person:
he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.
4) " In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, while in deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. In atheism, God is purported not to exist, while deemed unknown or unknowable within the context of agnosticism. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".

There is no one single accepted definition of what god is and in some forms god is just simply a greater being with power (Deities). Many times the god in question is capable of doing both good and evil things according to human morals. Such circumstance often exist within paganism notably within both Greek and Roman Mythology. Therefore the term god in itself is neither inherently good or evil.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.allabouthistory.org...

Rebuttal I
"The argument assumes that God's existence is dependent on his actions which is false. God made everything, therefore everything is subject to his rules and order. Job knew God is just and wrestled with his character, but not once was his existence questioned." Gods existence is questionable and as i stated above his state of existence is further questioned among various religions. God is an ideal based on belief not fact and therefore cannot be applied under any universal truths or statements. An example of this is theism vs deism. You take the theism approach which by your beliefs god is the creator and ruler and you are right within your belief. On the other hand you have deism which states that a god(s) created the universe but do not have absolute control. Which would make the morals and conduct they set only relevant to what that god created. There are of course other beliefs but two is all that is required to prove my point. You have stated circumstantial evidence dependent on your belief. Within the confines of your argument evil is still and argument. The argument is obviously not that it exists but why God hasn't banished it. Outside of your belief there is the argument of what evil actual is.

2. "It does not follow that god's existence shows he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect. We as Christians get that from his Word." This statement in itself contradicts your argument. The very existence of a god doesn't prove anything of its character, which includes its codes of morality: But only when applied to your belief is it perfect. Your belief is one of many and is not universally accepted therefore it does not prove your argument that the argument of evil is false( or in illusion).

3. "Definitions - God's concept of good and evil are based on the Torah and some of these definitions simply do not work in the way we think of them, so we should proceed with caution." The concepts of god you are referring to is circumstantial to the Torah and not everything else. Therefore it is a philosophical theory and doesn't prove that there is no argument of evil.

4. "God's will - Just because God has the desire to eliminate all evil, doesn't imply that he should eliminate it in the way that we humans want him to. After all, it is God's will and plan to 1 day rid the world of evil." The statement shows that humans don't have the same view of evil as god and therefore proves there is an argument for evil and what it really is. If they knew exactly what it was then the statement "Just because God has the desire to eliminate all evil, doesn't imply that he should eliminate it in the way that we humans want him to". Would be UN-applicable, due to the fact that we would have the exact same understanding of evil and would want god to rid of it the same way god wants to.

5. "Evil exists but according to the book of Job, he overcame the power of evil through faith in God, proving the ineffectiveness of evil, thus God essentially did "eliminate" evil and brought back Job's blessings tenfold." The presence of many different faiths provides evidence that there is no universal evil. Therefore to say that there is no argument for evil is false.

6) "In conclusion, God is still omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect." This statement is only true within the parameters of your belief and therefore refutes the statement "The problem of evil is a false argument".
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

By asking "which God do we pick?" You've already proved the ineffectiveness of the argument for evil. not everyone believes there is one God or that he is omnipotent, omniscient, or that a God exists. The problem of evil argument would not work on Buddhism or Hinduism, it wouldn't even work theism (a belief which states God doesn't act on the world) only on a religion with a monotheistic concept (namely Christianity).

Rebuttals:

1. My opponent drifts away to the discussion of God's existence, not on my argument, but i will explain why it doesn't work later.

2. For the sake of the discussion, we will use my belief.

3. I never said there was no argument of evil, but that it isn't a valid argument.

4. "The statement shows that humans don't have the same view of evil as god and therefore proves there is an argument for evil and what it really is. If they knew exactly what it was then the statement "Just because God has the desire to eliminate all evil, doesn't imply that he should eliminate it in the way that we humans want him to". Would be UN-applicable, due to the fact that we would have the exact same understanding of evil and would want god to rid of it the same way god wants to."

This assumes that humans and God's will is the same, it isn't. Job never sought to argue with God on his rights to life and a world full of evil. Job is a great man of faithfulness whom after God questioned said this

Job 42:1-3

"I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
3 You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?"
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."

Poetically, God was attempting to compare his infinite knowledge of the creation to his causing of evil, but notice that Job did not demand his own human will to be fulfilled, rather he said

"Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes."

This refutes your claim and demonstrates that humans should submit to the will of God, even though it's not always easy to understand.

5. We already established we're using the Christian concept of faith, whatever concept of evil you introduce (disease, pestilences, robberies, etc.) Job overcame them.

6. In conclusion, there is no contradiction within the character of God.
Astal3

Con

Rebuttals II
"By asking "which God do we pick?" You've already proved the ineffectiveness of the argument for evil. not everyone believes there is one God or that he is omnipotent, omniscient, or that a God exists. The problem of evil argument would not work on Buddhism or Hinduism, it wouldn't even work theism (a belief which states God doesn't act on the world) only on a religion with a monotheistic concept (namely Christianity)." - {Let me narrow it down}, "The problem of evil argument would not work on Buddhism or Hinduism, it wouldn't even work theism (a belief which states God doesn't act on the world) only on a religion with a monotheistic concept (namely Christianity)."{ Now let me restate the original argument} "The problem of evil is a false argument". Con's position had collapsed in upon itself and he now agrees that the original statement he supports is false.

1. "My opponent drifts away to the discussion of God's existence, not on my argument, but i will explain why it doesn't work later." Your argument is not only based on gods existence but is narrowly focused on just your faith out of many. The discussion of gods existence is the main relevance not only to your position but the whole debate. If he did exist as a fact and your faith was the universally accepted faith then the original statement would be true, but reality states otherwise.

2. "For the sake of the discussion, we will use my belief." - The argument is "the problem of evil is a false argument" not "the problem of evil is a false argument in Christianity". My opponent is attempting to go against the true debate and argue a circumstance of the debate to prove his points. Even if the argument was the latter example, it is only the opinion of you, there are numerous christian faiths and no one interprets the bible or the Qua-ran or any religious book the same way.

3. "I never said there was no argument of evil, but that it isn't a valid argument." - The very statement that we are debating suggests otherwise. Plus if it isn't valid that technically means that there isn't an argument, Because the argument being made is false.

4."This assumes that humans and God's will is the same, it isn't. Job never sought to argue with God on his rights to life and a world full of evil. Job is a great man of faithfulness whom after God questioned said this

Job 42:1-3

"I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
3 You asked, "Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?"
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know."

Poetically, God was attempting to compare his infinite knowledge of the creation to his causing of evil, but notice that Job did not demand his own human will to be fulfilled, rather he said

"Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes."

This refutes your claim and demonstrates that humans should submit to the will of God, even though it's not always easy to understand."

- If you do not understand something that is called blind faith. Blind faith is not based in logic. Just because you blindly believe in something doesn't mean there isn't an argument against it. It means you choose to ignore logic and [unquestioningly] accept whatever someone or something else tells you.

5. "We already established we're using the Christian concept of faith, whatever concept of evil you introduce (disease, pestilences, robberies, etc.) Job overcame them."- You established that the original statement that we are debating doesn't establish anything it is a blanket statement.

Here is a definition of the word disease
"a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body resulting from the effect of genetic or developmental errors, infection, poisons, nutritional deficiency or imbalance, toxicity, or unfavorable environmental factors; illness; sickness; ailment."- There is no mention of the word evil in this definition, your belief is the only one putting any negative moral value to the term disease. This same logic can be applied with anything.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

6. "In conclusion, there is no contradiction within the character of God."- The concept of god itself is a contradiction. As I established earlier the mere existence of god does not prove anything of his moral character. so this statement is a contradiction and is dependent on your belief.

Conclusion
My opponent continuously ignores the parameters of his own argument. The only points he argues only hold value in his own belief and is arguably even untrue within his own belief. He continuously ignores the very relevant factor of other beliefs and the difference between opinion and fact.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

No where does it imply that the original statement is false as we agreed to it since the beginning. Even you agreed to it during Round 2. Christianity is being examined and i refuted the argument of evil being valid.

1 and 2. Con tries to make the argument hard to define by refusing to pick one definition of God, arguing there are many concepts of God which implies that the argument can't really follow from a certain set of axioms.

3. Con seems to agree with me, but doesn't provide solid reasoning to back up his claims.

4. "- If you do not understand something that is called blind faith. Blind faith is not based in logic. Just because you blindly believe in something doesn't mean there isn't an argument against it. It means you choose to ignore logic and [unquestioningly] accept whatever someone or something else tells you."

It's based on logic, God's logic in the world around you. It's not "blind faith" if God simply explains that our knowledge of why things happen is limited compare to his. Since we're debating the nature of God, we are to logically base our conclusions that we glean from him and not from our own.

5. By implications, you agree that God allowing evil (namely diseases, wars, natural disasters, rape, murder, etc.) has some connection to moral values or otherwise, you wouldn't be having this debate.
Astal3

Con

This is pros entire opening statement

The following problems exists in this argument:

1. The argument assumes that God's existence is dependent on his actions which is false. God made everything, therefore everything is subject to his rules and order. Job knew God is just and wrestled with his character, but not once was his existence questioned.

2. It does not follow that god's existence shows he is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect. We as Christians get that from his Word.

3. Definitions - God's concept of good and evil are based on the Torah and some of these definitions simply do not work in the way we think of them, so we should proceed with caution.

4. God's will - Just because God has the desire to eliminate all evil, doesn't imply that he should eliminate it in the way that we humans want him to. After all, it is God's will and plan to 1 day rid the world of evil.

5. Evil exists but according to the book of Job, he overcame the power of evil through faith in God, proving the ineffectiveness of evil, thus God essentially did "eliminate" evil and brought back Job's blessings tenfold.

In conclusion, God is still omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect

Rebuttal
Note that nowhere in his opening statement does he say that Christianity is what we are arguing. He only uses a reference to the book of job. So this argument is assumed to include everything not just the christian faith. My opponent also failed to state what god he is arguing and only provided his belief on one god. So it is assumed that the statement should be applied to all gods. Only once I pointed out the fallacy of the blanket statement has pro established the rule that this debate is solely in Christianity. Since he neither stated this in the opening round no the acceptance round his parameter is void and he must follow the parameter of the debate (Which he set himself).

1) All evidence that pro has provided is circumstantial and is based in belief not fact.
2) Pro has failed to provide evidence pertaining to the debate as a whole and has only provided circumstantial evidence based on his faith while simply rejecting the fact and beliefs of other faiths.

I will provide definitions of evil

1."morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life."
2."harmful; injurious"
3."characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days."
4."due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation."
Note that the only common theme in every definition is morality and morals themselves are a philosophical issue not just a religious issue. Evil is not solely a christian theme and cannot be applied as such.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

I will also provide definitions of philosophy
1."the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."
2."any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study."
3."a particular system of thought based on such study or investigation: the philosophy of Spinoza."
4."the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science."
5."a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." (Perhaps the best and most broad definition)
Philosophy itself is not a religious construct as neither is the term evil. To claim that it is is not only false but is cherry picking a very small part out of a very big picture.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Conclusion
Pro continues to use circumstantial evidence and has yet to prove that any argument of the problem of evil is false.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

In Round 2, i specified that it is Christianity which we are discussing.

Christianity is a belief-system which has facts to back them up, but not for this discussion.

I will now list some closing points:

Free will exists, meaning that God allows people to choose what to do. Notice how Satan caused Job's suffering, not God. Adam and Eve caused their own suffering by eating of the tree of knowledge. Good and evil exist because of free will. If God made all humans good, he would also be committing evil as it would be the same as forcing you against your will to do evil as people do at times. Evil exists because people incline towards it. We are also responsible for the evil that happens in the world.

The argument only focuses on 2 options "either he stops evil or he doesn't and isn't all powerful." What if he doesn't want to stop evil yet?

Evil can bring benefits in circumstances such as building better character.

I reach my conclusion.
Astal3

Con

Might I note that round two is a bit late to specify a new parameter especially after I stated the full scale of what the title of this debate encompasses. We are not arguing if the problem of evil is a false argument in Christianity we are arguing the problem of evil is a false argument in general.

My opponent has failed to follow the parameters of the argument and only offers his own views as evidence. Even within the parameters of the argument he was trying to argue he offered no proof besides his own opinions

I have provided sufficient evidence that both god and the concept of evil are in question and are not generally accepted and the argument of "The problem of evil is a false argument" is infact a false argument itself in most any context you apply it.

Since my opponent failed to uphold the bop and the his absence of non biased evidence I urge you to vote against the motion.

I thank my opponent for creating this debate I have enjoyed it.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TheUnknown1997 2 years ago
TheUnknown1997
I enjoy your argument, you're very good with conveying your points and I agree with your side, well done :)
Posted by Astal3 2 years ago
Astal3
I'm just waiting for him to post his next argument so we can get on the road with this debate :p
Posted by TheUnknown1997 2 years ago
TheUnknown1997
I don't understand,this argument eludes the whole basic fact that God created Free will. So God is omnipotent, however he has promised not to use his power to force us into a decision, so if we choose to make bad choices, he decides not to change that. He is Omniscient meaning he has knowledge of evil, but cannot involve himself without destroying free-will. Genesis explains that Evil was introduced when Eve and Adam made the choice of their own free will, and they ate the fruit of knowledge, thus learning how to lie, steal and giving Satan a root that he could use to manipulate them. God is Morally perfect as he was unable to mix with his people in the Old Testament without the leaders making a sacrifice to wash away any evil-doings they had committed, because God is the opposite of evil, and thus hates it and refuses to mix with it. Which is the reason he sent his son to die so that animal sacrifices would no longer need to be made, people would be permanently washed clean... It all comes down to Free will.
Posted by Think.Deeper 2 years ago
Think.Deeper
Do you know why intelligent thinking non christians are so solid on their
arguments? It is because they allow themselves to reason and their
decisions are not based on fear of going to hell or being hurt by an
invisible God who they cannot defend themself against. Their way of
debating is so refreshing. Thank you.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
ArcTimes: Not really. You overlook the possibility that there is a REASON for evil, hence the reason why, as the Bible clearly states, He created it. I firmly believe that we are here for one purpose... to learn selfless love. Love by its very nature can not be forced, it MUST be freely given or else it is not love. So God could not create us already "loving" Him...that would be a contradiction. I believe we are here for the task of learning how to truly love. To do that we had to be given the complete free will to do any and all evil even though that leads away from Love and from God, because it is ONLY if we have the freedom to do evil that we also have the complete freedom to reject that evil and to do the good that leads towards love and God. This also explains why direct knowledge of God's existence is denied us, as such knowledge would completely interfere with the freedom of choice. If you absolutely knew that the police had staked out the bank you were planning to rob, would you do it? Does the fact that you didn't rob that bank make you a "good" citizen?
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
It's not about an specific god.
Any god with those traits are affected by the problem of evil.
Posted by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Allah also has those traits as well as YHWH, which God?
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
lol but the problem of evil only question the existence of god with the charactersitics of omnipotence, omniscience and imnibenevolence.
It's not about all kind of gods you can imagine. So you can't say that the argument "is false".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Truth_seekerAstal3Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: So there are a lot of problems with how this debate was structured that led to it being a pretty confusing mess, with both sides essentially arguing past each other. I don't think I ever saw any direct rebuttal. I think the blame lies squarely with Pro here, since it was his debate to specify, and he did so late. That's the reason for the conduct point. However, even if I buy his specification that it must be Christianity, I'm not going to buy that it's specifically Pro's faith we're arguing here. This debate is not just about your views and whether the problem of evil presents a concern to them. It's about whether it presents a problem for more generalized views of Christianity, and I don't think Pro adequately defends that, instead just trying to keep things vague and arguing that Job shows that we have conquered evil. This really doesn't address the issues of evil in the present day, which everyone seems to agree still exist. So long as those remain a problem, I vote Con.