Instigator / Pro
8
1644
rating
64
debates
65.63%
won
Topic
#2703

The Problem of Evil Makes it Unreasonable to Believe in the Christian God

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Fruit_Inspector
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

Unreasonable: exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation

I am a hard-core atheist due to the problem of Evil (The epistemic question posed by evil is whether the world contains undesirable states of affairs that provide the basis for an argument that makes it unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.)

I cannot get by the idea that some supreme creator with incredible power and good willingly caused so much suffering and problems in the world. Some believers claim "God is the final standard of good, and all that God is and does is worthy of approval." -- Systematic Theology. I find this incredibly worrisome given the real life practical events -- even if "final good" can be claimed to be symbolic rather than literal.

I invite any religious believers to change my mind, my idea that the problem of evil in the world disproves God.

Burden of proof is shared.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

PRO uses his own perception of "God" to disprove the existence of the Christian God. He is unsuccessful because CON shows why PROs' arguments are subjective. If CON can prove that one way of looking at the Christian God justifies the existence of evil, then PRO is defeated. CON does exactly that, by showing why theology has already answered those questions. The real problem is whether or not Undefeatable is willing to ACCEPT that view of God, which is subjective. PRO commits the fallacy of applying subjective arguments against an objective God - thus, there is no way to vote but to accept that Christianity has answered the questions for centuries.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

In short: In light of con's analysis, pro was unable to maintain BoP. While pro was able to make a case for it being preferable if God were different than con presented him, he was not able to hold onto a case that belief in such a being was exceeding the bounds of reason (heck, multiple times he called God horrible, instead of sticking to the evidence denying the existence of said being).

1. "Greater Good" VS Sinning Repentance
Pro finds a contradiction with repentance and related double standards (while I'm read up on Kant, the average voter likely has not, so a little bit of sourcing would have been good here).

2. Natural Evils and Absurd Universe
Pro kinda rambles here. Issues of other planets seem far from the topic, lions and prey species I kinda get, but the end is a near concession ("These natural evils seem terrible to me, and lead me to conclude that the God must be evil"...).

3. In the beginning
This gets into assertions about creationism, pro counters kinda weakly... Honestly, this contention is drifting off topic from the problem of evil.

4. Tree of Knowledge
Con blames Adam for the negatives in our lives, and pro blames determinism.

5. But what of human suffering?
Con blames us being punished for our individual sins for the negatives in our lives. Pro goes onto a bit of a rant about animals (which in context to con's case, he explicitly said animals lack the Imago Dai, so don't matter), before hitting a good point on the disparity in suffering experienced by different humans regardless of their levels of sin (but brings heaven into it, which is stabbing his own case in the foot). Con counters that nothing in the bible suggests God is a utilitarian or a Kantian.

6. How have we fallen short?
Con talks of thought crime being biblically equal to real crime, and pro calls God a terrible entity.

7. Q&A
Glad answers were given, but no real surprises here.

...

Sources: Lean toward con, but not by enough to warrant the points.

S&G: Both were fine.

Conduct: Both were fine.

...

Feedback:
Pro, you need a more detailed setup. Your case against God is dependent on God being all good, but you did not pre-define God as that. In a debate God fails to live up to utilitarian standards, you would win. Similarly the problem of evil causes doubt. However, you need more to show if the problem of evil itself (as opposed to say evolution) makes it unreasonable to believe in God.
Con, if you had to do any research, I suggest sharing links related to the study of different concepts. With more than just the bible itself, you could have claimed the source point.