The Instigator
Hematite12
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
demonlord343
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

There is an omnibenevolent god/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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Hematite12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 46549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

Hematite12

Con

First off, this will be my first debate, although I have followed others! Please bear with me if I don't use proper form :)

BoP: Shared

Definitions:

God/god- an entity that is omniscient and omnipotent

Omnibenevolent- the agent has acted/acts/will act as morally as possible in every situation

Gratuitous- the event lacks a consequence that, in its goodness, surpasses the evil of the event and thereby lends purpose to the event

The definition of omnibenevolence is subject to change if Pro wants to revise it, however I will make my opening argument using this definition.

Opening Statements:

I will argue that there is gratuitous evil, and that this fact negates the possibility of the existence of an entity that is both a god and omnibenevolent. There may be a god, and there may be an omnibenevolent entity, but not an omnibenevolent god.

Examples of gratuitous evil are natural disasters. For example, the Yellow River flood in China in 1931 killed somewhere between 3.7 and 4 million people. Natural disasters like these kill innocent people without warning and destroy families. A recent film in 2012 called "The Impossible" recounts some of the horrors and suffering brought about by the tsunami in Thailand.

If we accept that suffering is an evil, and is only justified if it is in response to equal or greater suffering (that is, the attempt to assassinate Hitler was justified on account of his abominable actions), then suffering caused by natural disasters is gratuitous. There is no higher good that they bring about; it is merely the suffering of people who are mostly innocent.

Lastly, an entity that posesses the qualities of a god, that is, omniscience and omnipotence, and is also omnibenevolent, would prevent gratuitous evil. Since they are omniscient, they would know about the event. Omnipotence would allow them to interfere in whatever way they chose. Omnibenevolence would have them intervene to stop the evil, in the same way that a bystander to a murder who has the power to stop it is immoral if they ignore the murder.

I look forward to a good debate, my first one! Thanks
demonlord343

Pro

Greetings! Since this is a three rounder, Im gonna say you want me to start immediately yea? If so, then lets begin.
A god will not prevent evil. He will not also produce good. This would cause an unbalance amongst the universe. And yes, there is a balance. It is all around you. This would be something a wise and very moral God would do. We can not learn from anything if everything is handed to us. If he made our lives perfect in every way, would be the point of our existence? What would be the point behind all the free will we have (supposed free will, but thats another debate for another time)? Yes, natural disasters are bad and they kill people. But the people that are left rise above it. They become better people that way... Sure the genocide from the storm is bad. Its what people do with it that helps us become morally better. Now, about the balance that exists.. I believe that they are a product of my personal definition of true universal karma. A universal balance that keeps it balanced as a whole. Bad things that come from bad luck are karma. Sometimes, people murder, and never get caught. Sometimes people molest and rape, unscathed. And they lead good lives.. this is why the balance is universal. Because it all must be balanced in one way or another.
Debate Round No. 1
Hematite12

Con

As my rebuttal, I will point out two flaws I see with that argument.

1) It seems highly unlikely that the good and evil in the world will ultimately equal each other, as your argument would imply. For the balance to be maintained, there would have to be an equal quantity of goodness in events and badness in events, but I see no reason to think that this is the case. I doubt that the learning and strengthening that results in the people who are lucky enough to survive faults of nature even comes close to making up for the badness of the events. I don't claim that this invalidates universal karma, but it seems highly unlikely nonetheless.

2) Secondly: is this universal karma just? Even if we suppose that sum quantity of good and evil do ultimately equal each other in the universe, do the good and evil evenly distribute themselves among humans? The answer is clearly no: some people are lucky enough to be intelligent and successful, and lead happy lives, while other people starve to death or are born with crippling disorders and disabilities. While good and evil may equal each other cosmologically, it seems ridiculous to claim that they are given equally to all people. If they are not given equally, then it is just as much a problem, an evil in itself that it would not be characteristic of an omnibenevolent deity to allow. In short, life isn't fair to different people, and this is unjust and evil.
demonlord343

Pro

Hello, my rebuttal.
If you believe and are going to theorize an universal karma, you must also count evil and good happening beyond humans. We are not the only source of good and evil in the entire universe. Thus, you can not use the world as the universe. For they are two completely separate and different beings. No, im not going to go on a rant about how aliens exist. That is a different debate. And trust me, there are balances to even hurricanes, or tsunamis (check my grammar and spelling on the plural form, sorry too lazy at this time of night to look it up :P ). In an example, a charity. Sometimes, they are huge benefits to millions, sometimes billions of people. The good is there. You just have to look for it. There is a same amount of good and evil. You;re argument actually gives some evidence, if I may quote, "some people are lucky enough to be intelligent and successful, and lead happy lives, while other people starve to death or are born with crippling disorders and disabilities." That is a perfect example of universal karma. It can either help you or not. It may not seem just, but it is balanced. And that is what makes it good. The fact that it keeps everything in check. So we can learn as humans. I shall use examples from your argument. The mentally ill lead to the charity that helped the individual and his/her family and also started research to discover a cure. And along the way, we also learned a few things about the brain to change the world. The starving, led to the inspired individual to open a homeless shelter to help people who have nowhere to go. The evil inspires good. Just as good can inspire evil. The husband that sacrificed her life to save her daughter inspired him to leave her. Thank you for having me. Ill cya in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
Hematite12

Con

It appears that you responded to my first point, but not really my second. In response to what you said: I still fail to see where the supposed equal good is that arose out of things like the Holocaust and rape in the modern day, for instance. Also, you said:

"The mentally ill lead to the charity that helped the individual and his/her family and also started research to discover a cure. And along the way, we also learned a few things about the brain to change the world. The starving, led to the inspired individual to open a homeless shelter to help people who have nowhere to go."

These are examples of people with problems fixing the same problems. A good world wouldn't have mental illnesses in the first place. The fact that their existence leads to us preventing them in the future is not sufficient good- the point is, we shouldn't have had to worry about mental illnesses in the first place. People starving being inspired to help other people starving, again, does not justify the very fact that there even were starving people. If I invent a bioweapon and use it to destroy a large portion of humanity, I don't say that the good of people being prepared for that bioweapon being used in the future in any way equalled the evil that the weapon itself wrought. I think this situation also contains an amount of irony: I could say "See what I've done for you guys? I've killed you with a bioweapon so you won't be killed by a bioweapon!" Sure, they may be inspired to prevent another such attack, but the attack shouldn't even have happened in the first place!

Lastly, I don't think you really addressed my second point of why it's OK that goodness and evilness are not even remotely distributed equally. You said:

"That is a perfect example of universal karma. It can either help you or not. It may not seem just, but it is balanced."

I think an argument still needs to be provided as to why the unjustness of the system apparently has nothing to do with the overall success of the system. We are taught as children to share with those who don't have the same things that we have; in fact, there is research that shows that children have an innate sense of fairness that develops, even independently of prompting or teaching. I simply cannot accept that an omnibenevolent deity would allow such cruelties to happen to some while others are happy and successful.

Thanks for the debate! I look forward to your final comments.
demonlord343

Pro

You make the argument with my quote on how that is a situation were people are fixing problems. This is true, however in its context as you use it, is not correct. A man can commit a crime on another such as robbery, and this would be evil by you, if I am to be presuming your views correctly? Well, isn't that someone causing a problem? And not evil? If someone were to rape someone, scarring their mind, (also leading to the possibility of mental illness arising once again), arent they just causing problems? I still view this as evil. Along with all the good of people fixing problems. And why this system exists is to allow us to have free will. The ability for us to make choices, no matter how small they may be. When something has free will, it can do both good and evil, but some of these choices can be neutral. For an example, you like choosing what you eat for breakfast? What you wear? What you say? These choices need to be balanced. It may not be just, but in the end, the universe stays balanced, so we as people can make choices. And wanting a good world, is not having a God be omnibenevolent. Because a good world is a choiceless world. No decisions are made. Everything is just good. When the second a decision is made we become corrupt. And for your example withe the bioweapon, the bioweapon led to research in subatomics, which allowed new ways of producing power to be developed, which removed gasoline usage, thus making a much greener planet. Everything happens for a reason... Thank you for having me here. You made a really good debate. This has been fun! Cya 'round.. (P.S. make your argument times longer.. i really crammed to get this in)
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
"1. The system is good because it is based off choices, and if there was a world filled with good and just good, then the choices we will make will only be good ones. Thus, we learn nothing."

This is actually starting to be funny. Once again: natural disasters and genetic disorders, for instance, are not based on choices. The necessity of choice is not a justification for these.

"2. Examples of gratuitous good is a miracle like the car accident."

That's not even what gratuitous means, and I never asked if there were "gratuitous goods". You still fail to address the fact that there are children who die at a young age with a seizure, whereas others are born perfectly healthy. I don't care if a car accident didn't go as badly as it could have. That has literally NOTHING to do with the unjustness that is NOT caused by choice. (I'll just repeat this until you understand?)

"3. I chose to use those examples because they are easily comparable to a balance that you can see. But if you wish to have a much bigger thing than a natural disaster, which is a force of destruction, then a good counter would be creation, would it not? Look at the vast amount of creation that occurred, occurs, and will occur."

Again, the fact that things are created does not solve the problem of justice.

"4. Its only wasting your time when you refuse to understand my answers and how they work as a rebuttal. The answers that i provide you must use to your imagination, and if i have to present every single balance in the universe, then whose time am I wasting again?"

I never asked you to provide "every single balance".

"5. The karma is good and just and fair, but they do not need to be by your morals. They need to only be right to the God that made them. You judging what is evil and what is not may not be the same views as the omnibenevolent God."

I don't care what the views of the deity are. Hitler could have viewed what he did as good; I don't give a flying frick whether he
Posted by demonlord343 3 years ago
demonlord343
Fine, since you can not hunt them down I will restate all of them in condescending order for you.

1. The system is good because it is based off choices, and if there was a world filled with good and just good, then the choices we will make will only be good ones. Thus, we learn nothing.

2. Examples of gratuitous good is a miracle like the car accident.

3. I chose to use those examples because they are easily comparable to a balance that you can see. But if you wish to have a much bigger thing than a natural disaster, which is a force of destruction, then a good counter would be creation, would it not? Look at the vast amount of creation that occurred, occurs, and will occur.
4. Its only wasting your time when you refuse to understand my answers and how they work as a rebuttal. The answers that i provide you must use to your imagination, and if i have to present every single balance in the universe, then whose time am I wasting again?
5. The karma is good and just and fair, but they do not need to be by your morals. They need to only be right to the God that made them. You judging what is evil and what is not may not be the same views as the omnibenevolent God.
6. You feel....like...the one....who cant... get the point across? Ummmmm... that is how i feel...
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
You haven't answered my questions actually, and I've posted them many times, which shows that you are not honestly reading what I am saying. If you want to actually prove you've been reading, then answer them. To repeat:

"How is a system good if the people receive vastly different amounts of goodness and evilness?"

You responded by citing an anecdote of a person being punished for a bad choice. This is not the kind of evil I was talking about, and you would know this if you read my opening post:

"Examples of gratuitous evil are natural disasters."

Natural disasters are not the same thing as your car accident anecdote, because they are NOT caused by choice. I really can't believe I even have to explain this again.

You are cherrypicking various parts of my argument and taking them out of context. You respond to my question of justice without remembering that I am talking about evils not caused by choice.

And also, I am very civil. But I don't enjoy wasting my time debating with someone who isn't honestly trying to understand what I am saying and would rather notice one specific thing that they can argue with if they ignore the qualifications I have very clearly set.

And the first person who voted said this:

"It seemed like Pro was trying to avoid Con's main criticism, that universal karma, if not distributed among all that are god evenly, is immoral."

I don't really know what else to say that isn't repeating what I've already clearly stated, and I'm sure if I did say it you would just ignore it anyways. I am not making any personal attacks, I just clearly can't get through to you.
Posted by demonlord343 3 years ago
demonlord343
I am more than capable of understanding. As a matter of fact, I have repeatedly answered all of your questions. Reread the rounds. Everything is in there. Dont let the argument spill into the comments. Before you comment, make sure I haven' t already answered the question... I am not going to tell you where I answered. If you still have questions, post them and be civil.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
In other words, it is not just that some people are screwed from birth while others are blessed from birth. No one chooses this to be the case. Same with natural disasters. Natural disasters are no one's fault, but they make some suffer while others never have to deal with them.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
With all due respect, are you incapable of understanding my argument?

I specifically said: "All the evils I brought up were impersonal- that is, natural disasters and genetic disorders primarily."

I'm not talking about someone who speeded and got punished for it. Yes, that is a necessary ramification of choice.

The POINT is, for instance: some people are born intelligent, others with crippling disorders. NO ONE chooses, this is not a necessary thing that must happen for choice/free will to hold together.

Please read next time.
Posted by demonlord343 3 years ago
demonlord343
I directly answered that in my last round. Its so we can make choices. Now, if you want a good thing from nature, take this up for a spin. My mother was in a car accident. She was speeding, at about 80 mph. She turned on a slippery road a little to sharply, and began to roll.. She wasnt even wearing her seatbelt. The car was absolutely destroyed. She came out with a couple of bruises.. and thus was let out of the hospital the same day... That is why i believe in universal karma. Because sometimes, nature and luck can be good just as much as bad.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Also, you never responded to my point of justice. How is a system good if the people receive vastly different amounts of goodness and evilness?
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Well the problem is that you only addressed evils caused by choices in your last response.

Every single evil I mentioned was not by choice. For some reason you kept bringing up rape, although I never once mentioned the existence of rape to support my argument. All the evils I brought up were impersonal- that is, natural disasters and genetic disorders primarily.

To any voters, please keep in mind that he evaded my argument in this way, not addressing the existence of impersonal evils ultimately but only the existence of chosen evils, which I never denied had a justification. Rape is not a gratuitous evil, because, as you said, it exists for the sake of the preservation of free will, and for this reason I never mentioned rape or similar acts.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
Uh, I'm guessing you meant to post that under a different debate? This debate hasn't even started lol
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Hematite12demonlord343Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was organized and systematic, which helped his arguments a lot. He refuted everything Pro sent his way. S & G was equal, as well as conduct, and no sources were used.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Hematite12demonlord343Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed like Pro was trying to avoid Con's main criticism, that universal karma, if not distributed among all that are god evenly, is immoral. Con effectively showed how this system would equal a not benevolent god/God. Both sides did great, and it was really fun to read.