god is evil or uncaring
Debate Rounds (3)
It seems obvious we are presuming God to exist here. I"m fine with that. One thing the judges should keep in mind while judging the debate is that pro owns the bulk of the burden of proof. He is asserting that a God powerful enough to create the universe is knowable enough to be able to gauge whether he is evil, or whether God in his infinite wisdom, who created every single detail of the universe down to the tiniest grain of sand is uncaring of inhabitants much more complex. These are some huge claims, and he needs to back them up.
The Problem of Evil
My opponent is arguing what is known as "The Problem of Evil". The Problem of evil can be summarized;
1.If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2.If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3.If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4.If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
6.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.
7.Therefore, God doesn"t exist. 
I think one of the biggest problems with this argument is the assumption that God should create some sort of hedonistic paradise for his creations. Why should God do this? Why not create a world where his creations are subject to actual trials to refine and test his/her character, and morality. Is a hedonistic paradise even something we would want? I"m sure I"ll get some of the details of this story wrong, but when I was a kid I watched an episode of The Twilight Zone. In the episode a gentleman dies and finds himself in heaven. The gentleman was a gambler, and the first thing he did was sit in front of a slot machine and pull the lever. The guy hits the jackpot and gets extremely excited, jumping for joy. The next pull the same thing happens, but with slightly less excitement. He pulls it many more times, and wins the jackpot every time. All of the joy is sucked out of the game, and now he is miserable playing it. He tells the Angel sitting next to him, that he doesn"t like heaven. He asks the angel to send him to the other place. The angel smiles and says "but you are in the other place". The story illustrates how suffering a little here and there is necessary to appreciate greater joy.
Theologian Alvin Plantinga says: "A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good."
Most people would agree that world with freewill is superior to a world without one. Only an evil God would preclude its creation from having freewill. It is better that we choose good, and some natural consequences are built in for choosing bad, but we cannot actually be good if we can"t choose bad. The same lack of choice that prevents us from being evil, would also prevent us from being good.
My opponent might criticize the freewill defense for not accounting for natural evil, but there are several other options that do.
1)I"ve already mentioned one in the Twilight Zone reference why some natural evil would exist. God wants to shape our character. Without natural evil we"d face less tests of our character. Without them, some of us would face no tests or character strengthening exercises.
2)A just world requires natural laws. Natural consistent laws will have both positive and negative attributes based on their hard consistency. Without natural laws, we could not be moral agents. Without knowing for a fact we can expect the sun to rise or the stars to remain the same in the sky, we cannot make moral choices, because we would not know the consequences of our actions. Natural laws cannot exist without some unpleasant and consequences from their consistency. The same fire that heats our homes, can occur from a lightning strike and take out some wilderness with innocent people setting up camp.
3)If we believe in a supreme being, than it is not out of the realm of possibility to believe in other supernatural agents. Perhaps some or all of these supernatural agents will have freewill for the same reason humans do. If these supernatural agents also have freewill, we can expect that sometimes they will do evil. Sometimes they"ll cause a hurricane to pop up, or a village to flood.
The Ontological Argument
As follows based on modal logic;
P1-It is possible a greatest possible being exists. There are no logical absurdities here or contradictions. If my opponent can prove this premise wrong then the whole argument falls apart.
P2-Necessarily, if a greatest possible being exists he must be omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent. If it wasn't omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent than a greater possible being could exist in some possible worlds.
P3-If the concept of the greatest possible being is coherent it exists in some possible worlds.
P4-If a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds it exists in all possible worlds. It exists in all possible worlds because it is a necessary truth and not a contingent truth.
P5-If the greatest possible being exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world.
P6-The greatest possible being exists and by definition is God. It is omniscient and omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.
The argument is logically valid, and it"s also sound. Each premise builds on the previous one, and is absolutely true. Even if my other arguments fail (they won"t), this argument stands alone and wins the debate for me.
Concerning the uncaring portion of the debate. My opponent has provided no evidence of it, and I have nothing to rebut. I have given plenty to consider as to why God is benevolent, or and why evil exists. Please vote Wylted.
1.The problem of evil/free will defense
My opponent brought up that god is omnipresent and omnipotent and makes us go through misery to build up moral character and appreciate life more. That if we lived in a hedonistic society we would be miserable from the meaninglessness. The problem is it is still god that is causing the suffering because god not only caused that suffering but also gave us the our human nature. Which made us greedy and shallow. He could've made us only able to feel love and joy. Would our lives be and more or less meaningful? Also, if god knows what we would do and how we will react then it is meaningless and as such would not be worth a deity's time.
a)What is the point of receiving "moral tests" if god knows what is going to happen?
b)This implies that "god" is more like mother nature. But, this means that it is neutral and nullifies the argument about "moral tests".
c)God has horrible "moral agents" if he doesn't know if they'll do bad or good. Which also goes against free will if god is interfering.
This is the weakest one of them all. Simply adding existence to the definition of a thing does not congour it into existence. Sure the concept exists but that doesn't prove it exists outside of it's concept. Take for example the realicorn, it's like a unicorn but it exists. If you know and understand what a realicorn, then it must exist. Because if it exists in that world, it exists on all worlds. See both are stupid. Also, it doesn't disprove that god is evil or not. It's all really just begging the question.
God is dead, vote for me.
1. If God obly made us feel love or joy it takes away our free will to feel otgwr emotions. Duh SMH. Also without pain there would be nothing to weigh joy against to even know it is good.
An omniscient God in a freewill scenario knows every possible future, but given that his creations have freewill, would not know what decisions they would make, necessarily.
2.I'm not even sure what my opponent is saying here. Maybe his reading comprehension skills are so low it prevents him from understanding what I wrote, so he puts random crap. I'll just answer C. U mean seriohsly WTF is he talking about?
C) no supernatural entities can have free will just like humans in that scenario. This has nothing to do with interference by God. I hope I answered that vorrectly because ut was mostly rubbish and hard to figure out what you meant.
3. WTF? Thua guy just seriously googled a rebuttal for the Ontological argument. The worse part is that he googled a rebuttal to the wrong Ontological argument. I gave the modal Ontological argument guven in Godel's proof fro the 1970s, not the one from the 13th crntury. This is a dropped argument on his part. I provided premises, and did not define God into existence.
Whatever my opponent is so bad this 5 minute rebuttal will do.
You change it The definition of god so that it's all loving. The argument here is that by definition god is loving. You have to understand that changing the definition of something doesn't prove a point, because my argument wasn't "an all loving god is evil". But, that a god (if he did exist) was evil.
A point my opponent made in round one was that the burden of proof was one me. So i have decide to use the Christian god as an example. I apologize earlier, but this the Christian god is the most popular one.
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
As we see here god created evil, he created the hurricanes and droughts. He created diseases and the lighting strikes, as you said earlier, that desertores homes. What purpose do these have? To test someone if they are desperate to believe in a god that won't help them anyway? Sure maybe a few people will live and devote their lives to god even more, but a lot more will die (depending on how bad the disease or disaster is). Without knowing why. Does god reward these people in anyway? And if so wouldn't it be a hedonistic paradise? Which could only last so long before it would be boring. Also, because created human nature, which is inherently evil, is he not responsible? Because we already know he could easily prevent it with a snap of his fingers.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.