THBT: All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
Wikipedia advises: The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
Rules:
No unnecessary/intentional forfeits
Stay within the parameters of the debate
- Preface
- Interpretation of the burden of proof {BoP}
- A1. the subjectivity of evil
- A2. the necessity of evil for goodness
- A3. the existence of good and evil
- A4. The cause of evil
- A5. Good and evil, real and unreal
- Crystallization
"The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God."
- I have demonstrated a rather consistent philosophy, a philosophy where goodness can have an objective essence within the body of God. Evil remains a false illusion which doesn't actually exist at all. Therefore God cannot partake in any sorts of evil or create any evil, as it doesn't exist.
- Prove the existence of some sort of objective morality of which bounds the being of God (a hard task, considering he's infinite)
- Prove my argument to be internally contradictory
- The problem of evil assumes Gods existence and then applies a reductio ad absurdum. The assumption in God also assumes a deontological moral theory, wherein right and wrong are objective. Thus, for the sake of the argument, an assumption in a real right and wrong is valid.
- PRO theorises
- Evil is mind dependant.
- However, this line of thinking can be revered to good - CON can argue that good is mind dependent and by extension unidentifiable, creating a nihilistic world which is in turn incompatible with God. For one to refute the problem of evil, which requires the atheist to first grant God's existence, and then subsequently take away moral values after the atheists cumbersome concession is akin to playing soccer with the goals or ball.
- Thus, the subjectivity of evil cuts at PRO. Without moral values, God cannot be all loving and infinitely just and moral etc, thus the argument undermines the very thing it attempts to prove.
- PRO holds
- Evil is necessary for the good.
- This is clearly not the case.
- God is good yet not evil.
- People in heaven are good and presumably not evil - it would be very odd to claim that Holocausts and rapes occur in heaven, or even that people would ponder such things.
- Jesus was allegedly good yet not evil.
- The creation of a good being who lacks evil is clearly possible.
- Furthermore, PRO conflates evil with gratuitous evil - they must explain why the Holocaust was necessary to create good (that is there is no possible way that any "good" from the Holocaust could have been instantiated without the murder of 14 million people).
- A being who requires such heinous crimes to actualise their intents is either not all loving or all powerful.
- A being who actively allows such act for the sake of creating the best possible world ought not be worshipped.
- A reductio ad absurdum can be applied - it is utterly illogical to think that the moral crimes I have listed are not only good, but necessary for the creation of the best possible world.
- Never interfere if we observe someone being kidnapped, raped or murdered, for we can reason that our finite minds cannot comprehend what is God's plan.
- Abolish all criminal systems, for the criminals in prison were not acting immorally - they are acting through their desires which in turn was created, accepted and apart God's initiate to create the best possible world.
- Evil, then, is predicated on a false perception of reality and ignorance.
- Their attempted removal of "evil" as a mere illusion removes God's capacity for omnibenevolence - tautologically, there is deontological "good" and "evil" in this conversation.
- PRO's position is cut by reduction ad absurdum - there seems to be no ultimate justification for the evil we observe. To uphold their burden they must justify every single evil that exists as necessary.
- God could have logically created a world where there is no evil yet is still indicative of a benevolent creator - there is no contradiction between in having a free yet morally perfect person.
- Interpretation of Cons constructive
- Rebuttal I: misconstruing of the definition of Omni benevolence
- Rebuttal II: Expounding The subjectivity of evil
- Crystallization
- If God was omnibenevolent there would be no Gratuitous evil {which roughly translates to unnecessary evil}.
- That which is evil is that which is non-loving.
- all bachelors are unmarried men
- Omni benevolence means goodness
- It is not analytically evident that goodness is lovingness.
- Since it is not analytically evident that lovingness is goodness, Con must have a posteriori (sense experience) confirming to him that killing pandas is objectively immoral.
- Con must have met every being in the universe and come to know them to share the same moral framework as him.
- After Con has met every being in the universe, if not all of them didn't share his sentiment on morality, he has somehow come to know them all to be hypocrites, saying one thing while believing another.
- Con must prove even sadism and cruelty to be an objective evil to begin with.
- Con must let us know when an evil becomes unnecessary within all occasions.
- Proves the fires unnecessary
- why God should see this as immoral even if unnecessary
- All of cons premises have completely fell apart, con no longer has an argument at all.
- Pros arguments remain as strong as ever, if anything through the breaking of all of Cons premises, it maintains integrity stronger than before.
- Con arguing that evil is necessary for goodness is unreasoned and never demonstrated by Con to be true. What is asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
- Pros argument to the existence of objective goodness was not rebuked at all, con didnt even properly comment on it but only on Pros argument to the illusion of evil.
- Pro has a sound argument for objective goodness, while Con does not for his interpretation of evil being an objective evil.
- Con thus far has failed to fulfill his burden of proof.
- PRO has not responded to CON's critique of their five contentions. I am to take them as dropped.
- Thus, I will dedicate this round to responding to PRO's critique of my contention.
- To remind voters, the resolution of this debate is as follows THBT: All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God. It is not whether objective moral truths exists. CON must merely demonstrate that the POE, and all it's entailments, render the God hypothesis null.
- P1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE).
- P2. There are gratuitous evils in the world.
- C1. God does not exist.
- POE finds that God is incompatible with the existence of gratuitous evil, defined in a manner which avoids the stipulative definition fallacy.
- PRO (speculatively) postulates that perhaps God's conception of evil is different to ours.
- Therefore, the God hypothesis is unharmed and he still exists.
- POE finds that God is incompatible with the existence of gratuitous evil, defined in a manner which avoids the stipulative definition fallacy.
- Therefore, the God hypothesis is harmed and he does not exist.
- X. Overview
- Interpretation of the Burden of proof [ BoP]
- Contention I: misconstruing definitions
- Contention II: definitions are fallible
- Contention III Ignorance of epistemic boundaries
- Contention IV: Ignoring tautology
- Contention V: Ad hoc rescue and ontological burden
- Contention VI: False equivocation with an alien race
- Contention VII: Ignorance of moral values entails ignorance of all properties
- Crystallization
It is clear that PRO's attempt at hypothesising a definition wherein "good" is compatible with cruelty falls to both the stipulative definition fallacy and persuasive definition fallacy wherein in proposes an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view. It is clear that the most common definition ought to be adopted, and that ambiguous interpretations must be substantiated.
Con then states: Through the Munchhausen trilemma, all knowledge is found to rest ultimately on unsatisfactory proofs, namely circular (mere repetition of the stipulation in question can be used to justify any proposition), regressive (resulting in an infinite regress) and/or axiomatic (asserts X is because it just is) presuppositions. PRO attempts to cite the "unmarried bachelor" as a tautological and objective truth to contrast it from the "subjective" notion stipulated by CON, however, from the trilemma, it is clear they too presuppose the veracity of an axiomatic argument. What is the proof that "unmarried" is a necessary requisite for being a "bachelor" - PRO must argue the fallacy of ipse dixit, Latin for "he said it himself", in order to justify this.
On top of it being oddly bad faith, PRO's attempt at utilising the epistemic boundaries of human dialect cuts their own thesis.
PRO begins by asserting that "CON must prove even sadism and cruelty to be an objective evil to begin with". Such incredulity is easily nullified by virtue of tautology - that by definition, cruelty and sadism is, in most instances, conducive to evil.
"Such incredulity is easily nullified by virtue of tautology - that by definition, cruelty and sadism is, in most instances, conducive to evil."
PRO then argues that it is impossible for humans to know whether God views [acts] as evil in the way [CON] does, however, this is clearly a case of ad hoc rescue, wherein instead of accepting a conclusion for what it is, PRO instead prevaricates and posits speculation to savour their thesis.
PRO's worldview posits:
- POE finds that God is incompatible with the existence of gratuitous evil, defined in a manner which avoids the stipulative definition fallacy.
- PRO (speculatively) postulates that perhaps God's conception of evil is different to ours.
- Therefore, the God hypothesis is unharmed and he still exists.
- PRO (speculatively) postulates that perhaps God's conception of evil is different to ours.
PRO questions why it is the case values such as "murder is wrong" are objective, and postulates that their could possibly be a world wherein aliens enjoy killing and dying for a queen. Ignoring the fact that this was quite literally Britain in the 16th century, PRO conflates "objectively true" with "universally true for all beings". Consider, for example, a vaccine for humans. Clearly, these have beneficial effects for humans, that is, objectively, it is the case that they are, more often than not, beneficial for human beings. However, this is not to say that it is beneficial to all living beings. Much is the same for the case of murder - even if it were the case that some tribe truly views murder as moral, we could discard it as an individual creates moral values. Furthermore, one could still argue that the tribe is objectively wrong, and that their way of life is immoral, thus avoiding the entire problem.
PRO argues that we cannot know whether God's morality and that it is ultimately foreign to us.
"cruelty is not benevolent" can be questioned, we could extend such skepticism to attributes such as "omnipotence". We could postulate that God's notion "omnipotence" is far different from our understanding of power - his measure of potency is not through the ability to actualise things, but rather the ability to not actualise things (impotence in our language).
- Con possesses the heavier burden of proof, as demonstrated within my opening.
- Con never proved evil is real, therefore he failed to fulfil his burden of proof showing evil to be a problem at all. My syllogisms demonstrating this go completely unresponded too by Con.
- Pro fulfilled his burden of proof completely, Con never disproved my argument to the realness of good nor proved evil to exist, therefore i won on both fronts.
- Con within the last round was littered with all sorts of logical fallacies from strawmen, appeals to authority, and ad populum fallacies.
- Cons argument to the existence of evil is about as real as russells teapot.
- P1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE).
- P2. There are gratuitous evils in the world.
- C1. God does not exist.
- The existence God already presupposes that there is an objective morality
- To define "morality" in an entirely contrary way to that described in dictionaries and moral philosophies implies that PRO must first substantiate such a deviation, to avoid both the stipulate and persuasive definition fallacy.
- PRO proposes a variation of God which is unknown to us, and asks CON to disprove it, ultimately falling prey to Hitchens Razor.
- They fail to justify their deviation to ambiguous definitions (deviation in and of itself is not problematic, but the lack of substantiation is), hence falling to both the stipulative and definitional fallacy. CON's case, however, adopts layman definitions and thus is most intelligible.
- PRO has dedicated their entire debate to deconstructing CON, never once returning to their positive substantiations. Hence, their burden is not met and the resolution is negated.
R1 had the clearest arguments in this debate, with a sharp descend into fallacy accusations and semantic arguments after that, so I will only be addressing points that refer back to relevant R1 arguments.
Pro's R1 rests on two main points. A1, A3, A4 and A5 can be consolidated to the first: that "evil" does not objectively exist/is subject. The second is that good/omnibenevolence cannot exist without evil, as explained in A2. Pro goes on in the "Crystallization" to state that good objectively exists and that evil does not. " God cannot partake in any sorts of evil or create any evil, as it doesn't exist." (despite the earlier statement saying that evil is necessary for good to exist.)
Con's argument starts with a variation on the traditional criticism of the omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god: if there is a God, and he is omnibenevolent, then why does he let evil exist? In this case, Con argues that the existence of (gratuitous) evil disproves the existence of a god.
Con's second argument takes up the idea of necessary evil, evil which is "conducive to the best possible world." As Con's argument goes, Pro must take up the claim that "All the moral crimes we observe are conducive to the best possible world"
Rebuttals:
This first is the strongest counter Con makes in the entire debate. Given a world where an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God exists, an objective morality defining good and evil as determined by God also exists, as seen in Christian theology, among others. This point is never addressed by Pro, except to agree that "an objective morality exists," in direct contradiction to the majority of the rest of his arguments before and after.
The second rebuttal states examples of good existing in the absence of evil. In R2's "Crystallization" Pro states "Con arguing that evil is necessary for goodness is unreasoned and never demonstrated by Con to be true." Here he attributes his own argument of the necessity of evil (as given in A2) to Con, and calls it unreasoned.
Next, Con argues that Pro must bite the bullet of every immoral action ever to take place as being necessary for the best possible world to exist, with examples such as rape and murder, but generally applying to all of the generally accepted as immoral acts.
Next, Con argues that the idea of evil being a result of human ignorance can equally apply in any direction to aspects and actions of God, which makes this argument just as effective at dismissing any other claims about God (Con does not give examples, but one can imagine such claims as omnibenevolence coming under this same argument.)
Argument points:
Pro makes the positive claim in this debate and therefore shoulders the majority of the BoP. Furthermore, he undermined his own arguments by both agreeing with his opponent and making claims counter to previous arguments several times. Con was also able to counter the argument of subjective evil and necessary evil, which constitute the majority of Pro's direct arguments. Points to Con.
As a ancillary note, all of the tangential arguments in later rounds, such as the aliens, the trilemma, and bachelors, detracted from the overall argument in my view, especially given how many there were. Analogy has its place in debate and can often make things clearer, but I actually felt my understanding of both Pro and Con's arguments DECREASING with each round, where the opposite should be true. There was potential for a much cleaner debate where the participants didn't spend half of the time talking past each other and making semantic arguments, and I would have enjoyed writing an RFD for that debate much more.
Okay I understand now
" you can basically be certain that anything God wants he will get, and so the world as it is now must be what he wants,"
I certainly have issues with the POE argument and responding the way most people do. I don't understand why God would get what he wants? I can have sex with my wife whenever I want and whereever I want whether she likes it or not, but I don't. She isn't physically strong enough to stop me, so I can just do it, and it's not a very easy crime to prosecute and worst case scenario I end up single which also works to improve my life. I just don't do it. I don't do what I want. So I guess that would be the first issue.
The second issue is assigning too much power to the word omnipotence. Omnipotence doesn't necessarily mean being able to do anything. Christians don't believe God can do anything and often point to verses in the bible showing he can't lie. Muslims believe that God is too weak to simultaneously make himself a man while also still running the universe. The etymology of the word omnipotent would suggest that it means not all powerful but most powerful and often the Caesars would get referred to as omnipotent .
I don't think I would use any other argument against the POE, because addressing gratuitous suffering is too much fun, and I also reject the omni-benevolent label given to God, but I would definitely push for a lower definition of omnipotent based on it's etymology, I would push an argument for freewill both of people and of supernatural entities such as angels and demons (demon just being a word for angel who turned against God) , an evil spirit could explain hurricanes, earthquakes etc. I would also point out that we don't know if an evil is gratuitous without a million year timeline or even a billion year, because apparently God is in every part of the timeline at once. You are correct that these aren't arguments your typical theist would use, but I see every debate as a thought experiment. I guess I got off track. There isn't anyone other than you I would want to debate on this because most people wouldn't be able to handle my arguments. I do appreciate the discussion though as it achieves the same results as the debate but in a more casual environment
Agreed. Just to put it in really plain english, the evidential problem of evil basically just points around in reality and asks "why is this occurring". The logical problem of evil doesn't rely on evidence and looks more into the properties of God - it sees that given his traits, you can basically be certain that anything God wants he will get, and so the world as it is now must be what he wants, because if it wasn't, he could just change it.
I don't think this discussion is capable of going much further as we are approaching some agreement here (and you are already speaking above my head a bit) . I would say that there is more room for semantics on what terms like what omnipotent means and I personally would define it in a way most theists would disagree with.
That would then get into the distinction between the logical and evidential problem of evil. Whilst you are right that the logical problem of evil would have to discount God necessarily, that is not the case for the evidential problem. If we take the evidential perspective on the holocaust, then you could possibly deny that evil is afoot, though that would be extremely dubious. However, if we use the logical problem of evil, as I elaborated below, it would be possible only if you throw out the entire concept of "evil" - given Gods tri-omni properties, all things which are actual are as he wishes they are obtained, and because his will arbitrates benevolence, there is no such thing as evil at all.
forgot to tag you bones, sorry.
ultimately the problem of evil is an argument meant to disqualify the existence of the tri-omni God. The burden of proof is on the person presenting the problem of evil as a way to disqualify the existence of that God. Gratuitous evil if true does disprove a tri-omni God. It overcomes free will arguments and if any example of gratuitous evil can be shown than it disproves the tri-omni God.
So this isn't the type of debate where you would look at which scenario is more plausible. Gratuitous evil is a more plausible explanation than some far off benefit but both sides of the debate have separate burdens. The person presenting has to prove that the problem of evil disqualifies God from being tri-omni. You do that by proving gratuitous evil exists. The one arguing against the triomni God just has to present plausible explanations for why seeming gratuitous evil is not gratuitous .
So if this was a debate on whether the triomni god exists than yes that more probable explanation for POE wins, but I see it as the person arguing the POE, is arguing it as a disqualifier for the triomni God.
I wanted to do on this.
Ultimately I have two hypothesis to consider - the first is that the holocaust is necessary for obtaining some future good which outweighs the initial evil, which we haven't yet experienced and must still patiently wait for, or the holocaust was simply an instance of gratuitous evil. Whilst there is no inherent contradiction, it seems too implausible to take the first example.
1. Correct that it isn't going to come up for most theists though I lean gnostic and it's a familiar concept to gnostic though they are called hylics.
2. The separation between demon and angel would only be in whether said supernatural entity chooses to follow God as a slave or rebel.
3. So the butterfly effect is a little harder to conceptualize but essentially humanity would cause the holocaust but some gratuitous evil in the holocaust for example may prevent a deeper evil further down the line. It's more of a statement of not knowing whether a harm could be gratuitous or not unless we have as long if a timeliness to look at as God does.
I would say that you are correct. On a debate stage where you debate a Christian and his mission is to get converts than these arguments are unlikely to be seen. My interest personally is not to convince non converts but to present good arguments and these are what come to mind and ones I am mildly interested in seeing challenged in an opponent as competent as you. I will admit if I debated this live it would feel silly to stand on stage and defend the holocaust for example but I consider the POE and responses more of a thought experiment than actual attempts at being persuasive anyway
1. Philosophical zombies
Although this could resolve the POE, it would be a huge concession which I doubt any serious theist would make. The mass deception itself would call into question the benevolence of God.
2. Supernatural forces
I take it that the tri-omni God is one who can actualise any state of affair which they desire, and so the fact that such demons exist would have to be because God sought for it to be so. You can consider this in the following syllogism:
p1. Evil is defined as a contradiction to god’s nature/sin and ought not be done
p2. Then it follows that evil is that of which OUGHT not be done
p3. God allows all things to occur
p4. These things that occur are purposeful (it’s according to God’s plan)
p5. Given that these things occur purposefully, as they are in accord with God’s plan, these things ought to occur
C: There is no evil (P4 precludes evil which is defined in P2)
3. Butterfly effect
If we take this to be an explanation, then you would be forced to conceded that the holocaust is actually an all things considered good. I would be weary to do this, and would first question why the holocaust was necessary in obtaining certain goods two million years into the future, and how it is that God couldn't just have brought about the good without the gratuitous suffering.
Nothing I want to go into depth into but gratuitous evil can be solved in a few ways. For example through philosophical zombies, or through pointing out that gratuitous suffering could be the result of supernatural forces, such as demons also being allowed free will. I don't want to spend time building that argument at the moment but would be curious as to how you would respond. Also if we point to things like suffering in the holocaust we could ask whether the butterfly effect and a 2 million year time frame means the holocaust caused less suffering than a world where everything is the same but that did not occur. Just arguments of this nature
I think I've exhausted my interest in God debates, though if you want I could outline some new and better ideas I have with regards to the poe.
I think the name of the resolution could be modified a bit as well. The current title I wouldn't be proud of winning because I would want to prove that the POE is not a disqualifier for the tri-omni God.
I might be willing to do this debate with you if you decide to repeat it. I don't think your opponent had very strong arguments here and I do think I could put up a better fight.
But didn't I say in my A2 that I would reinvent it so good could exist without evil? I then showed how good can exist without evil in my A3. I don't want you to change your vote. I don't really care, but yeah. Con didn't prove evil to exist. He only proved evil to exist if you already agree that burning pandas is bad. We may all subjectively agree it's bad, but no one has ever proven it's bad in an objective manner. I think many readers will bring in way too many presuppositions within this debate, such as subjectively agreeing with con that burning pandas is morally wrong, im a moral realist in a sense and i certainly didnt buy any of cons arguments to his perception of morality being objective.
" I believe my A3 in round 1 should have shown why I think good exists (or can metaphysically exist) without evil necessarily existing, even with an omnipotent God."
A2 says the opposite though. Anyways the possibility of good without evil was one of Con's arguments as well, but they pointed out that the world we live in clearly DOES have evil.
I believe I did address the gratuitous evil argument. If you cannot show evil exists, how can you define what is "unnecessary" evil in the first place? Thank you for your vote nonetheless. Most people don't even do that much, it seems. I believe my A3 in round 1 should have shown why I think good exists (or can metaphysically exist) without evil necessarily existing, even with an omnipotent God.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con
>Reason for Decision:
The title says:
All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God.
Description says:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
It is clear that, from the description alone, omnipotence and omnibenevolence are incompatible - one means all loving and one means all powerful yet this is tautologically incompatible to our world, logic does not allow for "all loving" and "all powerful" to then allow for evils to exist, for evil is tautologically contrary to all lovingness. The instigator has created a tautolgical impossibility from the get go, and as logic dictates, impossibility is impossible to come back from, hence nothing PRO says can possibly be rendered true.
Thus, as the description describes a state of affair which is simply impossible, PRO cannot win.
>Reason for Mod Action:
...Honestly, where to start?
The voter quotes from the description where the instigator included an excerpt from Wikipedia to define what the debate is about. The voter then claims that this same quote somehow also establishes a rule that two of those terms are incompatible, despite the fact that the quote does not include the word "incompatible" and instead simply defines what the basis for argumentation is. This definition cannot reasonably be mistaken for a rule or establish a tautology that both sides must adhere to in order to proceed with the debate. Interpreting it as such adds to and twists the words in the description.
The voter also awards arguments to Con on the basis that Pro created a tautological impossibility without applying what that actually means to the debate itself. There are two sides in this debate, one affirming and one negating the resolution. Instead of factoring that into their decision, the voter simply says "impossibility is impossible to come back from" and claims that Pro can't have a true argument as long as the tautology exists, essentially rendering a vote because the voter has a problem with tautologies rather than because of anything relevant to the debate.
**************************************************
If you didn't act like this, you would have won the Barney debate. The very fact that so many people on this site dislikes you renders a vote for you emotionally difficult.
I'll give it a look if it is reported, I guess.
I'll like to see you will yet again bend backwards to somehow argue that this is not a sufficient vote, all whilst ensuring to ad hoc render the votes against me in my debate valid. Good luck!
In addition to Vici, here are some people who actually know what they are talking about in philosophy. They are good candidates to vote on this debate, so I am mentioning them in case they ever come around to.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Vici // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
There is no problem of evil in an atheist’s universe because there is no evil in an atheist’s universe. Since there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard, and nothing is wrong. The torture of little children is not wrong in an atheist’s universe. It may be painful, but it is not wrong. It is morally wrong in a theistic universe, and therefore, there is a problem of evil of perhaps the psychological or emotional sort, but philosophically the answer to the problem of evil is you don’t have an absolute standard of good by which to measure evil in an atheist’s universe. You can only have that in a theistic universe, and therefore, the very posing of the problem presupposes my world view, rather than his own. God has a good reason for the evil that He plans or allows.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter never assesses specific arguments given by either side, instead giving their own perspective on the debate and awarding points on that basis. In order to award argument points, the voter must assess points given by the debaters, and not use their own perspective on the topic as a means to award points.
**************************************************
bump
You both did really well here.
These philosophy debates tend to be the most interesting for me. That being said Ehyeh is the most philosophically literate person on this site I have seen, and Bones seems to be the strongest atheist, in my experience.
Its really not that complex. Everyone before reading a debate already has some sort of opinion on the resolution - everyone also has other underlying beliefs which necessitate their current viewpoint on a resolution too, as Wittgenstein taught. Its not that whiteflame or I are too mentally deficient to understand your arguments. You seem to think you're playing 4D chess while we're all stuck playing checkers. The real issue is that its going to be impossible to win all voters for the reasons i cited, except in the case of a forfeit or you destroy all possible axioms going into the debate, which wont happen. Its not that "90% of the population are vile sheep that could never comprehend my genius mind" but more so that's just how debating goes most of the time.
-
I'm also unsure what you have to lose - the problem of evil is considered one of the most debated and contended upon philosophical concept with no realistic resolution in site. I imagine it would be safe for you to accept if your goal is to win.
Thank you! you found a way to keep it appealing while adding God to it.
That is essentially what I said...
Change it to - THBT: All things considered, the problem of evil is not a significant problem for the existence of God, (with God being defined as one with the four omni's).
I have a lot to lose and little to gain.
I also need to grasp how certain voters' brains work as at the moment there is a serious issue with a regular voter that you think like which I can't grasp. He's regularly voted against me as of late over situations where he says I didn't say or do what I said or did, this is concerning for me.
If no one accepts this debate by the end of tomorrow, I would like to see you accept it.
I will naturally be explicitly talking about an omnibenevolent god within my own argument anyways. You're going to see it plastered all over my round 1.
You can just point that out to the voters then. It's as plain as day. Just spam it as a remainder every third sentence if you wish.
we both know how corrupt you are about respecting descriptions.
Its within the description. I'd prefer to keep the title as appealing as possible.
I only put the forfeiture rule when im actually going to put my all into a debate.
I would remove the forfeit rule in case you accidentally miss a round.
add an extension to the title to be 'regarding God being omnibenevolent' and I will accept.