Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
34
debates
61.76%
won
Topic
#6133
The problem of evil does not negate an all good God
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 2,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Description
The problem of evil definition:
The opinion that existence of evil in the world negates completely the existence of all good God
All good God definition:
God who only does actions which always do more good than evil
Round 1
The problem of evil definition:
The opinion that existence of evil in the world negates completely the existence of all good God
All good God definition:
God who only does actions which always do more good than evil
As we see from definitions, all good God can do evil action if that action contains more good than evil.
All evil in the world can be placed in this category.
Evil caused by humans enables free will and ability to choose, which is ultimate great good.
Evil caused by nature also enables free will of humans, in choosing how they deal with nature there, will they respect nature more or just same, will they wish for nature to harm someone, will they ask God for help or not...
In this sense, every evil creates some form of choice. Choice means choosing between multiple options. But it is not possible to choose if those options dont exist.
Thus, evil must exist for choice between good and evil to exist.
You cannot even choose if you dont know about evil.
I would like to start by stating a fundamental disagreement I have with pro with regards to our topic of discussion. Pro defines an all-good God as the following:
God who only does actions which always do more good than evil”.
Merriam-Webster defines “all” as the following:
- the whole amount, quantity, or extent of
- every member or individual component of
- the whole number or sum of
- every
An all-good God should therefore reflect good in all of its decisions and actions; only the majority being good or the goods outweighing the bads does not satisfy the definition of an “all-good” God.
Therefore, I consider pro’s argument “As we see from definitions, all good God can do evil action if that action contains more good than evil.” refuted.
Pro goes on to justify their view, stating, "All evil in the world can be placed in this category." I would like to ask Pro if the evil of a child suffering from terminal cancer also does more good than harm, and leads ultimately to good. Or an earthquake that kills thousands of people leads to eventual good.
Pro might respond with their argument that these and human caused acts of evil are ultimately good because they “enable free will and ability to choose”. I fail to see how such situations allow free will, or even if they do, why they are needed for the existence of free will. A child deciding what they want to do in the future would be an example of free will, and one that does not require pain and the loss of life.
...will they ask God for help or not…
Surely, if God requires people to pray to him or ask for his help or worship him to do “good” for them and otherwise allows harm inflicted on them even though it has the ability to prevent it, it is not an all-good God.
Furthermore, God is accepted to be omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, it should know how to maximize the good without causing any harm and have the ability to realise this ideal world. If there really is a God that is all-knowing and all-powerful, it certainly is not all-good.
Round 2
Merriam-Webster defines “all” as the following
Rejected, as definition was already given in description. If you wanted a different definition, then you could have said so before debate then.
I would like to ask Pro if the evil of a child suffering from terminal cancer also does more good than harm, and leads ultimately to good. Or an earthquake that kills thousands of people leads to eventual good.
It causes people to dedicate to God more, realizing that they depend on God.
A child deciding what they want to do in the future would be an example of free will, and one that does not require pain and the loss of life.
Life isnt lost, as afterlife exists. Thus, no choice lost. Pain makes people appreciate happiness more. If pain didnt exist, people would be much more careless.
Surely, if God requires people to pray to him or ask for his help or worship him to do “good” for them and otherwise allows harm inflicted on them even though it has the ability to prevent it, it is not an all-good God
God, if he exists, also has ability to decide what "good" is. Being grateful to God is good.
God is accepted to be omniscient and omnipotent. Therefore, it should know how to maximize the good without causing any harm and have the ability to realise this ideal world.
Having a choice is considered the ultimate good. This argument from round 1 wasnt even challenged, so it is dropped.
To sum it up:
Humans dont have all knowledge, thus problem of evil as an argument cannot negate an all good God. Problem of evil rests upon unproved assumption that humans know that evil outweighs good. Humans cannot know that because good can be defined in many ways. Humans dont have such knowledge needed to support the argument of problem of evil to negate God. Having a choice is good. You cant have a choice if evil doesnt exist. Essentially, evil must exist for people to be able to choose good. Evil also must exist for people to truly choose and appreciate God. If evil didnt exist, there would be no choice nor free will. Choice by definition requires multiple options. If evil didnt exist, then people wouldnt be able to choose evil. Having only option of "good" then negates a choice.
Rejected, as definition was already given in description.
The first round was the first time we interacted, I did not have an opportunity beforehand to object. I apologise if there was a way I didn’t realize — it is my first time on this website. Still, my point stands; if your definition was logically sound, I would have accepted. I didn’t redefine “all-good God,” I defined “all” and pointed out a logical flaw in your definition. I think you can agree your definition is self-conflicting, and building a debate on that is meaningless.
It causes people to dedicate to God more, realizing they depend on God.
I have 2 issues here. God is all-powerful, so it must be able to make people realize they depend on it without violence. Also, why does God need or want people’s appreciation? Feeling appreciated is a human trait God shouldn’t need.
Life isn’t lost, as afterlife exists. Thus, no choice lost. Pain makes people appreciate happiness more.
Assuming heaven and hell exist, how can infinite joy exist in heaven but not on Earth without pain? You say no choice is lost; is there free will in heaven? Then is there evil? If not, why not use the same system on Earth? God should be able to give happiness without suffering.
God, if he exists, also has ability to decide what “good” is. Being grateful to God is good.
Right, because he decides everything. Then why is pain needed to appreciate happiness? Also, why is being grateful to God good? Isn’t it narcissistic that God created the universe so humans worship him, and only some get to be happy? And why not make this point by killing criminals, not innocent kids?
Having a choice is considered the ultimate good.
Even if we accept that, I explained God should be able to create other ways of enabling free will. You said evil is needed for good and choice. Fine — but religion has logical limits in some parts and none in others. God is all-powerful, knowing, and loving — yet evil exists because God is bound by logic? It doesn’t add up.