Instigator / Pro
4
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1532

The Problem of Evil

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Nemiroff
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Description

Topic

Resolved: The Problem of Evil is a sound argument against an omnibenevolent and all-powerful God.

Definitions

The Problem of Evil:

If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.exist
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.

Evil: In this context, there are 2 types of evil I want to talk about: moral evils and natural evils. Evil is that which causes significant and unnecessary harm.

Structure
R1: Opening Statements
R2: Rebuttals
R3: Defense
R4: Summary/Close

Rules
1. No k's
2. No trolling
3. Cite all your sources within the text of the debate either as a hyperlink or as a full URL.

-->
@ethang5

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Not Removed]

>Points Awarded: 3 points awarded to Nemiroff

>Reason for Decision: "Pro seems to have based his argument on his assumptions of how God should be. That is not grounds for a logical case against God. Pro's foundational claim is that the existence of evil is impossible if God exists. But his reason for this belief is based on his personal taste, not logic.
Con makes a convincing argument that there is no inherent contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God, and he offers several examples of such a situation when he says...
"My stance is that there is no contradiction. A good god may logically make 2 choices: 1. Free will, the result of which was moral evil. And 2. A knowable reality that is stable, with knowable rules, which resulted in natural evil."
Pro never overcomes these credible possibilities and thus con's argument does establish that a good God can be compatible with the existence of evil."

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter has proffered a borderline vote. It is by no means a comprehensive evaluation of the debate, but it doesn't explicitly violate the Voting Guidelines to my mind.
************************************************************************

-->
@WhoPutYouOnThePlanet

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WhoPutYouOnThePlanet // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: [7 points awarded to Virtuoso]

>Reason for Decision:"Pro clearly has a more sound argument"

>Reason for Mod Action: a) The voter is not eligible to vote per the Voting Guidelines because he has not completed 2 debates nor has he made 100 forum posts. b) The RFD does not adhere to the minimum standards used to award points in any category (i.e. arguments, S&G, etc.) For more information, please consult the Voting Guidelines located in the CoC:
https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

-->
@ethang5

Also, I can only remove votes that have been reported anyway, so I couldn't remove it even if I wanted to.

-->
@ethang5

Per the Voting Guidelines, you had to summarize Con's and Pro's argument. If you explained how Con justified his stance by positing that god's actions aren't immoral, but granting free will to humans brings about evil (which was his central contention), then your vote would be justified. Your new vote essentially meets this standard to my mind, so there is nothing to worry about. Thank you for changing it.

P.S. If you have a question about a mod decision, please list me as a receiver or PM me so that I can remedy a problem if I made a mistake or if you have a pertinent question.

The voter's recollection of Con's arguments was nebulous. What are the "several examples" presented in Con's case that disprove's Pro's premise?

That would require me repost the argument itself! Basically you are asking I argue con's case again.

Pro said God is incompatible with evil, but show no logical reason why this had to be so.

-->
@ethang5

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: ethang5 // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 5 points awarded to Nemiroff

>Reason for Decision:
"Pro seem to have based his argument on his assumptions of how God should be. That is not grounds for a logical case against God. Pro's foundational claim is that the existence of evil is impossible if God exists. But his reason for this belief is based on his personal taste, not logic.
Con makes a convincing argument that there is no inherent contradiction between the existence of evil and the existence of God, and he offers several examples of such a situation."

>Reason for Mod Action: a) The voter failed to justify the S&G and conduct points. b) The voter's recollection of Con's arguments was nebulous. What are the "several examples" presented in Con's case that disprove's Pro's premise? Why are the Con arguments incontrovertible in the context of the debate? Remember, the primary arguments need to be addressed in the RFD per the Voting Guidelines:
"In order to award argument points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
************************************************************************

-->
@crossed

Apples dont have ingredients. Apples are an ingredient. What % of an apple is pectin?

Apples rot. Do you think that is because of good germs? Will a rotting apple be healthy for you to eat? What does it mean to rot?

-->
@Nemiroff

pectin is a key ingredient in apple's.
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-apple-pectin.htm

Inanimate objects can not choose between good and bad.

If a gun kills a bad Adolf Hitler and not a good small child.

it was not the gun who made the choice to kill the bad Hitler and not the good child. But the gunner

If the apple feeds the good germs and not the bad.

It was not the apple who made the choice to feed the good germs and not the bad germs.But the creator who designed the apple to do that.

-->
@crossed

Im not talking about pectin, im talking about the apple. The apple is a lot more than just pectin and itnis delicious to many germs, good and bad. That is why apples rot, all kinds of germs are having a feast. Dont eat a rotting apple.

-->
@Nemiroff

"All germs feed on the same sugars. The apple does not select between germs. What are you talking about?"

" Pectin is the key ingredient that encourages growth of good bacteria and reduces "bad" bacteria"
https://ignitenutrition.ca/blog/apple-cider-vinegar-for-gut-health/

I am saying god selected the germs.Because you have to be an intelligent being to have knowledge of good and evil.The apple can not select to feed the good germs but not the bad germs.Only an intelligent being can do that.So god created the apple to feed good germs but not the bad germs.

-->
@Nemiroff

"As you say all germs feed on sugar."

Why does it only feed the good germs and not the bad germs.

How can the creator be intelligent and able to select between good germs and bad germs.How can it have knowledge of good and evil.Only an intelligent being can have knowledge.This is one of the requirements i have to prove that the creator is intelligent.

" Pectin is the key ingredient that encourages growth of good bacteria and reduces "bad" bacteria"

https://ignitenutrition.ca/blog/apple-cider-vinegar-for-gut-health/

The creator has knowledge.Thus the creator is intelligent.This meets one of the criteria of intelligence knowledge and thinking

-->
@crossed

All germs feed on the same sugars. The apple does not select between germs. What are you talking about?

Comment part 2

only an intelligent being can tell the difference between good and bad germs so god must have did it.

An apple can not choose to fall on a bad person head and not a good person head.

The intelligent being that is throwing the rock can.

The apple feeds the good germs and not the bad.

The intelligent being must have created the apple to help the good germs and not the bad. Because an laminate object can not have knowledge of good and evil.

-->
@David

I wonder how my god created morality debate's would fit in this .Because The creator would have to have knowledge of good and evil when he created the universe.The creator is intelligent he can tell the difference between good and evil.

The apple feeds the good germs not the bad germs.

The immune system helps good germs but not the bad germs.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1374/god-created-morality

Only an intelligent being can tell the difference between good and bad. Literally no one knew the difference between good and bad beside god until Adam ate from forbid an fruit from tree of knowledge of good and evil

-->
@David

Im essentially arguing that this is the best of all possible worlds. Or potentially i may switch to this is becoming, through natural and social evolution, the best of all possible worlds. Although the outcome depends on human choice, the reason it is the best possible outcome is because of the existence of human choice, and the ability to grow.