Instigator / Con
0
1465
rating
37
debates
55.41%
won
Topic
#6286
The problem of evil can be completely resolved
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
0
1439
rating
11
debates
36.36%
won
Description
The problem of evil asks how a good and all-powerful God can allow pain and suffering to exist in the world.
Round 1
Con
#1
Definitions:
God - The biblical god of absolute power and goodness
I've heard quite a few responses to the problem of evil, and some of them are very sensible. The problem, I believe, is that they don't manage to explain animal suffering.
C1 - Animals experience suffering
Our current understanding of animals shows that they undergo experiences of pain much like humans. Some animals are even known to experience loss and grief.
C2 - God would not create unnecessary suffering
This is a simple one - an all good god would not create pain with no purpose.
C3- There is no need for animals to experience suffering
An argument can be made that there is purpose for human pain, perhaps a necessity result of free will and a tool to bring people closer to god. However, I can't see a reason animals must experience so much pain. Take natural selection. Vicious, bloody, and brutal. Why though? Why can't all animals be herbivores or autotrophs? Why can't they die painlessly?
Pro
#2
Definitions:
What does it mean to be an "all-powerful God"?
If an Afterlife exists, what does it Imply of pain and Suffering?
Is it logical to say God can do 'anything?
1+1=2, I do not think can be changed to 1+1=3.
"It's like asking of God can jump green or justice a whalebone" - wokeupabug of Reddit
I argue the meaning of All Powerful, to mean God is capable of doing All that is 'Possible.
Further I would argue some natures of existence such as math and logic, to be tied to God, as we are assuming God exists, and has always existed, so too perhaps these have 'always existed with, in, and by him.
Does All Possible mean knowledge of every moment of every future, or are the known ends and paths vague but existing?
What is meant by Good?
Can we 'clearly 'see Gods Ends/Good, by only our partial views of good?
C1 - Animals experience suffering
Well, we humans 'are animals,
And many scientists say we evolved from some farther back ancestor that we share with various other species.
Certainly 'we experience suffering, we grieve, but do 'all organisms?
Some people say 'plants experience pain and scream.
are plants sentient? and robots? 1 minute 43 seconds long.
But I argue this is an overattributing of 'human experience. An Anthropomorphizing of organisms. They do 'not feel as we do, do not think, or act as we do.
Not in all ways, not in all reasons.
Clever Hans they 'said could do arithmetic and other intellectual tasks, until it was found he could not.
"The horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer." It was an 'illusion, born of an overattributing of human qualities in a lesser animal.
In "BEFORE THE SOUL DAWN", Helen Keller speaks of the awakening of her soul.
"Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness. I did not know that I knew aught, or that I lived or acted or desired. I had neither will nor intellect. I was carried along to objects and acts by a certain blind natural impetus. I had a mind which caused me to feel anger, satisfaction, desire. These two facts led those about me to suppose that[142] I willed and thought. I can remember all this, not because I knew that it was so, but because I have tactual memory. It enables me to remember that I never contracted my forehead in the act of thinking. I never viewed anything beforehand or chose it. I also recall tactually the fact that never in a start of the body or a heart-beat did I feel that I loved or cared for anything. My inner life, then, was a blank without past, present, or future, without hope or anticipation, without wonder or joy or faith.
It was not night—it was not day. . . . . . But vacancy absorbing space, And fixedness, without a place; There were no stars—no earth—no time— No check—no change—no good—no crime. [143]
My dormant being had no idea of God or immortality, no fear of death.
I remember, also through touch, that I had a power of association. I felt tactual jars like the stamp of a foot, the opening of a window or its closing, the slam of a door. After repeatedly smelling rain and feeling the discomfort of wetness, I acted like those about me: I ran to shut the window. But that was not thought in any sense. It was the same kind of association that makes animals take shelter from the rain. From the same instinct of aping others, I folded the clothes that came from the laundry, and put mine away, fed the turkeys, sewed bead-eyes on my doll's face, and did many other things of which I have the tactual remembrance. When I wanted anything I liked,—ice-cream,[144] for instance, of which I was very fond,—I had a delicious taste on my tongue (which, by the way, I never have now), and in my hand I felt the turning of the freezer. I made the sign, and my mother knew I wanted ice-cream. I "thought" and desired in my fingers. If I had made a man, I should certainly have put the brain and soul in his finger-tips. From reminiscences like these I conclude that it is the opening of the two faculties, freedom of will, or choice, and rationality, or the power of thinking from one thing to another, which makes it possible to come into being first as a child, afterwards as a man.
Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another. So I was not conscious of any change or process going on in my brain[145] when my teacher began to instruct me. I merely felt keen delight in obtaining more easily what I wanted by means of the finger motions she taught me. I thought only of objects, and only objects I wanted. It was the turning of the freezer on a larger scale. When I learned the meaning of "I" and "me" and found that I was something, I began to think. Then consciousness first existed for me. Thus it was not the sense of touch that brought me knowledge. It was the awakening of my soul that first rendered my senses their value, their cognizance of objects, names, qualities, and properties. Thought made me conscious of love, joy, and all the emotions. I was eager to know, then to understand, afterward to reflect on what I knew and understood,[146] and the blind impetus, which had before driven me hither and thither at the dictates of my sensations, vanished forever."
A great many organisms, I assert, do not experience and suffer as 'we do.
C2 - God would not create unnecessary suffering
Some believe this world a crucible.
"The Earth is not for the pleasure of man.
But a place of instruction for his soul.
Man more readily feels a stirring of his Spirit in the face of disaster, than in the lap of luxury.
Only the limited understanding of man, sees imperfection that isn't perfect for it's purpose."
BurialGoods 41 seconds
Jesus Heals the Man Born Blind
"1Now as Jesus was passing by, He saw a man blind from birth, 2and His disciples asked Him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God would be displayed in him. 4While it is daytime, we must do the works of Him who sent Me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6When Jesus had said this, He spit on the ground, made some mud, and applied it to the man’s eyes. 7Then He told him, “Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam” (which means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came back seeing."
Suffering, whether in humans or other organisms, is something that 'forms us.
That we can grow from, whether as individuals or a society.
We have choices on how we treat animals in our domain.
The Bible contains many examples, of consideration to animals.
What does the Bible say about animal rights? - Biblehub
Though I do not see statements of animals suffering as equal as man.
A least reason I can think though, is how it can reflect his actions towards his fellow man.
“You can judge a man's true character by the way he treats his fellow animals.”
― Paul McCartney
― Paul McCartney
There is a 'lesson and an impact humans take from animals and their existence.
I cannot 'Say what 'is Gods vision, only 'suggest 'theories that 'could resolve the issue.
. . .
Some people, even Christians, have believed in reincarnation,
Was it only in the first moments of earliest humanoids that such individuals believe in reincarnation?
How canst we know?
C3- There is no need for animals to experience suffering
Perhaps most organisms do 'not suffer.
And perhaps some 'was necessary.
Behaviors that mimic suffering and it's responses are not only useful, but steps of evolution towards higher understanding and suffering.
And in that higher understanding, higher suffering, we still walk unsteady,
Of this world, babies at times suffer discomfort, not knowing the necessity of some parents actions.
But it is a possible theory to resolve the question.
Round 2
Con
#3
I've combined my second and third contention for sake of organization.
C1 - Animals experience suffering
A great many organisms, I assert, do not experience and suffer as 'we do.
I can agree with that claim. Many animals do not experience, or comprehend, their suffering the same way a human might, however that suffering is still very real.
It's possible that animals display behaviors that appear to be suffering and we anthropomorphize them, but I see no reason to believe that. Simply put, why would we feel pain when other animals don't? Another major question is if evaluation is true, when did the animal stop mimicking and actually experiencing?
Because of this believe there are a lot of animals that experience pain similarly, primarily self aware animals. An obvious example being primates. Granted, what they feel is possibly a more simplified or shallow experience relative to that of humans, but it's still suffering.
Could you elaborate on the connection of Helen Keller to this subject?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2 - Animal suffering is not necessary
I can see how human suffering might be necessary, and I can see how animals might be meant to serve as a sort of tool for humans to grow, but couldn't that also be achieved through man helping fellow man? Is there not enough suffering already among humans?
Then there's also what I consider to be the mayor problem of all the pain animals feel that's not caused by humans, like how natural selection and death are the fuel for life. Creating an alternative system would be nothing to omnipotence. I don't see any logical contradictions or any good that comes out of the current system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the theories you proposed are definitely possibilities, but possibility it far from probability. For these reasons, I still believe the problem of pain can't be completely answered, or resolved, with our understandings and observations of the world.
Pro
#4
C1 - Animals experience suffering
The 'suffering in other animals is not 'necessarily 'as real as our own.
Nor their 'behavior 'meaning the same.
The 'grin of a dog or an ape, I would not take as they are 'happy to see me. But that the animal is exhibiting danger signs.
Though the depth of their 'reason is hard to tell, an automatic car may flash it's lights or beep when backing up as a warning. But there is no 'person in 'that machine.
Who would say of a crow using a stick as a tool, that Crowkinds technological understanding and accomplishments were equal to Humankinds?
Why then their suffering 'as real as ours?
A lit wax candle is not a fiery forest blaze, though both are fire, what they 'are differs by their depth and breadth.
The difference in pain and suffering, between various organisms. I argue comes from a higher awareness.
Pain is a sense receptor, a warning of this sensation implies a danger to function.
Even 'robots can be given pain receptors. Sensors sending signals.
"Some of Mr Post's talks have been quite useful, such as the history of leprosy and visual self examination.
Robot vision is very good. Our sense of touch, not so good. We bump into things and damage ourselves. With V.S.E. and inspection mirrors, early detection has cut our failure rate by 30 percent.
. . . It's also cut the amount of time I've spent with a "Recycle Me!" sign on my back by 85 percent."
- Dvorak, Freefall Webcomic http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fv01392.htm
It is a useful mechanism. But it does not imply 'suffering.
A 'severed human had can feel pain,
But without our brain attached, what does it matter?
An ant may feel 'pain,
But without Propositional Content, without the rational mind, does ant ants suffering mean the same as our own.
In Helen Keller, I see the theory of the Rational Soul.
Even humans, without the right environments, the right nurture, can come up lacking.
Is such not an argument some Pro Choice individuals make in regards to the unborn? The denial of humanity, personhood, and 'equal 'feeling to a human full grown.
Think of feral children, or humans who ever only grew up in a box and devoid of sensations, their soul experiences stunted.
C2 - Animal suffering is not necessary
If we believe in evolution, then how could the suffering of animals 'lacked a meaning?
Some millions, billions of years, evolving to a an animal that you yourself deem 'necessary,
"An argument can be made that there is purpose for human pain, perhaps a necessity result of free will and a tool to bring people closer to god." - R1
If even the Rational Soul moment be the 'end of Gods plan.
You spoke perhaps, of the Necessity of Free Will, in Round 1,
You also attribute animals suffering to be 'equal to our own,
Why then does their Free Will not equal ours, their Necessity of it?
Omnipotence. . .
Meaning what?
For I argue again, All that is 'Possible.
But even then, what difficulty we have in 'knowing Gods plans and necessary means.
. . . Were humans to kill every species but humanity, would you be assuaged that their suffering had served it's purpose?
. . . . .
The question can 'always be resolved as an ambiguity, an uncertainty, or by possibilities.
For many humans, 'no 'theory ever made, has been resolved.
“A thousand years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, they knew the Earth was flat. Fifteen minutes ago, you knew we humans were alone on it. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.” - MIB
C2 - God would not create unnecessary suffering
I am still interested in your contention in Round 1,
'If it is being assumed that God is All Good and Able To Do All Possible,
Then this is 'naturally the Best Of All Possible Worlds, for such a Good and Able God would not have made existence 'worse.
There must naturally be 'some Necessity, known by us or not, that makes all that it is.
Humans Alone,
Might in time, we not have created animals ourselves?
Reincarnation
I also bring up the argument of Reincarnation again.
I ask you, can an individual have memories of past lives of humans that have lived?
Round 3
Con
#5
C1 - Animals experience suffering
Nor their 'behavior 'meaning the same.
I acknowledge that animals displaying behavior we associate with pain does not necessary mean they are feeling pain.
The difference in pain and suffering, between various organisms. I argue comes from a higher awareness.
If I understand correctly, the argument being made here is that pain can't be considered suffering without the ability to be aware of the pain, this "higher awareness" I will refer to as sentience.
I argue that many organisms beside humans are sentient and experience pain in the same way humans do, even if to a lesser extent. I argue this because many organisms beside humans also posses a cerebral cortex . This part of the brain is possessed by all mammals, as well as some reptiles. It is responsible for, among other things, memory consciousness, reasoning, and thought. In other words, sentience. This allows animals to not only experience the pain, but to be aware of it and to suffer from it.
The question of animal grief is a harder one, and it's something easy to anthropomorphize, though I don't think that's entirely what's happening. Dr. Becky Millar of Cardiff University writes the following:
"...the role of comprehension, particularity, and temporality in grief do not rule out animal grief. On the contrary, once grief’s central process of comprehension is understood in non-intellectual terms, and it is acknowledged that animals’ lives can integrate specific others, this highlights that central features of grief are present in many animal responses to loss. There may, of course, be other reasons to reject the notion of animal grief, beyond those I have considered here. However, given the centrality of these features to grief’s process and phenomenology, their applicability to various animal loss responses provides important evidence of animal grief. Moreover, as Nussbaum puts it, 'There’s always room for skepticism about these attributions of intelligence and emotions to animals. But at this point, it is useful to remind ourselves that our attribution of emotion to other human beings itself involves projection that goes beyond the evidence."'
C2 - Animal suffering is not necessary
Reincarnation
I also bring up the argument of Reincarnation again.I ask you, can an individual have memories of past lives of humans that have lived?
To the best of my knowledge there is no reliable account of someone having a memory from a past life, same with mentions about reincarnation in the bible.
Free will
I don't actually believe in free will, but only mentioned it as an example of an argument that could be made. That's a lazy answer though, so if I did believe in free will I would emphasize the copious amounts of suffering animals incur naturally.
You also attribute animals suffering to be 'equal to our own,
I want to emphasize I don't believe animal suffering to be equal to our own, merely similar to it in a lot of cases.
Evolution
Why does evolution have to occur through natural selection? Why must the end result only be achieved through the suffering of non rational beings? Even if the ends justify the suffering, there was no need for the suffering in the first place.
We cannot know god's plans
Generally this is a perfectly acceptable response. However, I do not believe it serves as an answer to the problem. This debate isn't if there might be a hidden reason, but rather if there's a reason we can use to resolve the issue. Answering a math problem with "I don't know but there definitely has to be an answer" while true, would most likely be counted as wrong.
For many humans, 'no 'theory ever made, has been resolved.
Answering my teachers "All I really know is that I think and so I am" never works. (Trust me, I've tried. A lot.)
Humans alone
I don't think a perfectly good god would would have created a world entirely devoid of animals, rather one where they didn't need to incur so much natural suffering. For example, some animals, such as hyenas, eat their prey alive. What's the purpose of that suffering?
Pro
#6
C1 - Animals experience suffering
You state the value of the cerebral cortex.
But even 'seemingly smart organisms such as crows,
"Have no cerebral cortex. Nieder found that in crows, thinking occurs in the pallium—the layers of gray and white matter covering the upper surface of the cerebrum in vertebrates."
Even organisms 'with a cerebral cortex, does that mean it is 'utilized as the same extent as a human?
Even 'humans, when their 'thinking changes, can experience a tunnel vision in 'experiencing.
Something draws our attention, and some sensations are ignored.
Whether due to a flood of chemical adrenaline in arousal or anger, causing a dulling of pain felt.
Or even in completely 'normal circumstances, with 'no flood of chemicals. Commonly a human will experience a cut, but experience no pain until 'looking at the injury and 'seeing that they have been injured.
There we come again to Propositional Content.
"it has not been proven that non-human animals do, or even can, die by suicide"
"Suppose that three sensations follow one another—first A, then B, then C. When this happens to you, you have the experience of passing through the process ABC. But note what this implies. It implies that there is something in you which stands sufficiently outside A to notice A passing away, and sufficiently outside B to notice B now beginning and coming to fill the place which A has vacated; and something which recognises itself as the same through the transition from A to B and B to C, so that it can say “I have had the experience ABC.” Now this something is what I call Consciousness or Soul and the process I have just described is one of the proofs that the soul, though experiencing time, is not itself completely “timeful”. The simplest experience of ABC as a succession demands a soul which is not itself a mere succession of states, but rather a permanent bed along which these different portions of the stream of sensation roll, and which recognises itself as the same beneath them all"
Of animal grief,
If indeed they feel it, then I ask what measure is human?
You argue "An argument can be made that there is purpose for human pain, perhaps a necessity result of free will and a tool to bring people closer to god."
But while you are willing to similarize pain and grief in animals to humans,
You do not similarize their Free Will or closeness to God.
If a Soul exists in a human, and a human's brain can be effected by various material means, to be heightened or lowered. Lowered I say to less 'seemingly than a chimp or even a dog.
Is that human 'without a soul?
That chimp or dog, who with we share common origins? (According to evolution)
This Earthly coil their only experience?
When we imagine the vastness of space and time, when we consider the concept of afterlives?
C2 - Animal suffering is not necessary
Evolution
What 'alternative to this existence have you to offer?
Could we 'exist without suffering?
Never mind it's use in function and empathy, to exist is to 'feel.
Though people 'do hope for more in Heaven.
As 'this is 'not Heaven, 'not a perfect world.
"May your Kingdom come soon. May your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven."
New Living Translation
What measure is human?
And all the others.
A problem
If you adhere 'strictly to the Bible, ought you not take various assumptions and literal translations?
A perfectly Good and Able God, 'If one makes that assumption, then one is able to use circular logic, to 'again
Then this is 'naturally the Best Of All Possible Worlds, for such a Good and Able God would not have made existence 'worse.
There must naturally be 'some Necessity, known by us or not, that makes all that it is.
Take the development of various technologies as example, the 'exactness of 'How does not 'matter so much, so long as we are assured of Ends and vague Means.
Even before we could 'see germs through a microscope and exactly classify them, we don't merely need to 'think, as we have the End.
If you 'don't adhere strictly to the Bible, then cannot options outside it be offered?
Round 4
Con
#7
C1 - Animals experience suffering
You state the value of the cerebral cortex.
I do believe that the presence of a cerebral cortex can confidently let us conclude those animals are capable of suffering, but from my research I don't actually believe it is a necessity.
Adam Shriver, a PH.D. in Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology, (I got very lucky) argues that the cerebral cortex is not necessary to experience conscious suffering.
"But although the argument is strongest for mammals in virtue of shared cortical areas, it is a
mistake to conclude that other species lack the conscious experience of pain in virtue of lacking
those same cortical areas. This is because, despite the fact that certain cortical regions appear to
be “necessary for pain” at particular times for humans, lesion studies indicate that there are no
cortical areas that are always necessary for the conscious experience of pain, even in humans."
Full article here
Additionally, birds like crows, which do not possess a cerebral cortex, have neural networks that are homologous to those found in mammals. (Source found below)
Even organisms 'with a cerebral cortex, does that mean it is 'utilized as the same extent as a human?
I don't see why a species would lose the use of its cerebral cortex. We can see that, though smaller, animal cortices function similarly to human ones.
Even 'humans, when their 'thinking changes, can experience a tunnel vision in 'experiencing.
Just because suffering can be dulled or delayed does not make it fake, and it doesn't mean animals don't ever think about pain.
I do not think animals experience grief in the sense that humans do, or to the extent of being suicidal. Because of this you bring up a valid point.
But while you are willing to similarize pain and grief in animals to humans, you do not similarize their Free Will or closeness to God.If a Soul exists in a human, and a human's brain can be effected by various material means, to be heightened or lowered. Lowered I say to less 'seemingly than a chimp or even a dog.Is that human 'without a soul?That chimp or dog, who with we share common origins? (According to evolution)This Earthly coil their only experience?When we imagine the vastness of space and time, when we consider the concept of afterlives?
The bible puts special emphasize on the importance of humans, saying they alone are made in the image of god. The bible makes it clear that Jesus died to cleanse the sins of mankind, but no where does it mention animals.
This would also raise the question of where the line gets drawn. We know humans would have a chance at salvation, but would every microorganism? The best way to answer this question, I would think, is reincarnation. But if this was the case, as I mentioned earlier, it's very odd there's no biblical support of it. In fact, the bible says the opposite. "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" - Hebrews 9:27
C2 - Animal suffering is not necessary
EvolutionWhat 'alternative to this existence have you to offer?
I do come across one problem when contemplating this, and that is I'm not god. This hinders my ability to comprehend alternative existences.
Perhaps intelligent life could have been created with the universe, as many biblically literalists believe. Maybe species could advance not through killing each other, but some alternative mean of selection.
Could we 'exist without suffering?
I think we could. Especially without suffering to the extent many must undergo, same with animals.
A response to the problem
A perfectly Good and Able God, 'If one makes that assumption
That assumption is the very thing the I'm disputing. The argument the problem of suffering makes is the unlikeliness that this world so full of genocide and seemingly needless animal suffering is the ideal one. Granted, there could be some reason not comprehensible to us, but I hold that the possible existence of this unknown reason can not be used to answer, or resolve, the problem of suffering.
I believe I have demonstrated animals are capable of not only feeling pain, but comprehending it, and also that it is likely they experience something akin to loss or sadness. I also believe Pro has not been able to provide a theory that com
Pro
#8
C1 - Animals experience suffering
Better than Vestigiality, let me argue 'eyes.
Despite many creatures 'possessing eyes, they don't 'see the same objects, nor to they 'interpret what is reflected, the same.
Organisms 'can lose certain brain functions through evolution,
Cave crustaceans 'losing visual brain'
Adam Shriver, at 'no point in the article, do I see the word "suffering"
'Experiencing 'pain, I have argued since round 1 (The Plant Example), 'does remove much of it's concern.
Even an 'AI can be trained to 'experience/sense 'pain identified experiences.
C2 - Animal suffering is not necessary
I argue the Bible 'has mentioned creation, which includes all life. Awaiting perhaps some purpose humans, or some 'other life's purpose.
Future Glory
(2 Corinthians 5:1–10)
18I consider that our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until the present time. 23Not only that, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved; but hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he can already see? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet see, we wait for it patiently.
1. Creation
Refers to the entire universe, including the earth and all living things. In this context, it is personified as waiting eagerly for a future event.
BOP
I 'don't ever recall it being stated in the description or round 1, that such was 'all on me.
Proof
Many Religious and Spiritual Beliefs 'rely on certain ideas that are 'yet difficult to 'prove scientifically.
To Resolve the issue does not require that Science prove 'every claim of a Religion, that a Soul must be seen and measured by an instrument of science,
That we send some mechanical rover through the barriers of life and death.
To 'convince someone, would I 'not need to convince them of the soul, the afterlife, Jesus?
Much is taken on faith, but I argue an 'amount of assumptions 'must be made,
I do not argue such assumptions be pushed forward as Objective Doctrine, but in and as 'Possibilities we cannot answer.
Until experienced and proven, theory suffices in resolving a question.
The question of the debate is whether The problem of evil can be completely resolved?
I argue it can, a number of elements must be taken theoretically to be true.
. . .
I do not see how we could exist without suffering myself, not unless we we 'Not.
Even senseless of our 5 senses, emotional suffering exists,
'Freedom exists, to make good and bad choices,
It can sadden people to see others make wrong choices,
Ought even 'that be taken away? Our ability to emphasize?
Or our Freedom to choose our paths in life?
A cage, but oddly empty? Holding No One At All?
The question of the debate is whether The problem of evil can be completely resolved?
Which I 'did question in round 1,
What does it mean to be an "all-powerful God"?
Even if there are limits to Gods power, I argue All Powerful, to mean God is capable of doing All that is 'Possible.
The problem of evil is not a problem,
As God 'can be Good but extremely limited in power, yet all powerful.
The debate was not, is God All Powerful and All Good,
But can The problem of evil can be completely resolved?
If God is all Powerful and Good, they only would have acted Good.
If God is As Powerful As One Can Be Able and Good, then flaws in Creation could exist beside such a God.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: IamAdityaDhaka // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to Pro (Arguments, Sources, Legibility)
>Reason for Decision:
Con offers a focused and compelling argument that Pro fails to sufficiently address: animal suffering is unjustified under an all-good, all-powerful God.
Pro meanders through philosophical musings on math, logic, and Helen Keller, but these serve more as distractions than direct rebuttals. The crux of Con’s case is clear and sharp: why does gratuitous animal suffering exist if God is wholly good and omnipotent? This isn’t about human free will or soul-building—it’s about non-human creatures enduring pain with no clear moral, spiritual, or redemptive value.
Pro’s response largely dodges this, relying on vague ideas like animals maybe not really suffering or suffering being “possibly necessary” without proving why a good God must allow it. That’s not a resolution—that’s speculation.
Perhaps there’s a reason for it all, albeit one we can’t comprehend—but until such a reason is demonstrated, Con holds the stronger case. A resolution must be complete.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter appears to be awarding points to the opposite side from the one they wished to. The voter also doesn't justify source or legibility points.
**************************************************
I think you voted for me by mistake.
You can copy your RFV vote, delete your vote, and recast it, or if too much time has passed, you can ask a Mod to delete it, that you can recast it.
I still think if something can 'theoretically be resolved,
That 'can be another way of saying it 'can be resolved.
Or if one thinks a problem might be solved in the future.
Suppose years ago in some medieval period for instance, someone said, resolved that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
Suppose someone offered up the idea of hot air balloons or gliders, perhaps they could not 'currently 'build such, or construct and explain 'every detail of a design.
But a rough outline would be enough for me to doubt the claimed resolution that there is no way for humans to achieve flight.
I also don't quite understand the vote 'reasons for legibility and sources.
Still, thanks for reading and voting on the debate.
I have a bad habit of saying I'll vote on a debate and then not doing so. That being said, I do want to vote on this one. I'll try and get my vote up over the weekend. Probably won't come sooner.
@NobodyInParticular
Ah, Forgot to use a couple thoughts in debate, ah well.
"A slave isn't a slave unless it possesses the intellectual wherewithal to comprehend the condition of slavery."
- Vilenjji, Lost and Found by Alan Dean Foster
Course, in the book, the various aliens abducted from their planet disagree.
. . .
And,
Flow (psychology) - Wikipedia
. . .
Just want to note again, that my position and arguments in the debate, are not necessarily the views I 'hold.
I was glad for the opportunity to debate this subject,
One of my earliest debates was whether, This was the Best of All Possible Worlds?
I was inspired after reading Candide.
Went worse than this one,
Though I suppose this one also differenced in focusing on animals other than humans.
While usually such a debate might focus on humans primarily.
I'm still not wild about my performance in this debate,
But it was a push for me to read a number thoughts online,
Such as Descartes, Reincarnation, glanced at C. S. Lewis, Charles Darwin.
I do wonder if you redo the debate though,
What might differ, with a different opponent.
@NobodyInParticular
Carp, well that was a useless fishing cast (For me) (Reincarnation)
Not something I believe in, not something I thought was mainstream in Abrahamic Religion, but I thought there was a chance of some offshoot section of people in the Abrahamic faith who believed in it.
Closest 'I see right this moment is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah,
But I'm not seeing any good arguments or citation of old writings I can use.
Hm, there 'is epigenetic inheritance,
Course on another hand how can you reincarnate through your child while they're alive?
And even if it was some 100 generations later that you supposedly reincarnated, just seems 'tacked 'on to the scientific explanation.
And even the scientific explanation one can argue isn't so much 'memories like thinking back to some moment of your life lived (I think).
"Environmental factors experienced in one generation can impact the behavior of unborn offspring in mammals (Fig. 1C). For example, environmental stresses such as high exposure to predators reduces maternal care in female rats, as measured by licking/grooming and arched-back nursing (LG-ABN; Fig. 1C) [75]. Pups reared under conditions of low maternal protection and LG-ABN are more fearful and more sensitive to environmental stresses. These pups exhibit less LG-ABN with their offspring than normal pups, even in the absence of environmental stressors and this behavior is passed on to future generations (Fig. 1C) [75]."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4072033/
"Of great interest is that they provide a possible explanation of the frequent observation in human societies that adverse environments acting in one generation appear to influence the behavior and disease risk of subsequent generations. As a consequence, the transgenerational inheritance of stress pathology"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014488611000239?via%3Dihub
@NobodyInParticular
I don't advocate for cruelty to animals, generally speaking.
It's not. . . easy, to change my way of life, whether it is eating meat, or plants.
I mention plants, because many animals die in farming as well.
My talk of lesser animals 'also discomforts me,
Because I've been reading a book on slavery recently.
Ah well.
Some animals are more equal than others route, I seem to be going in this debate.
@Self
I hope I don't sound pretentious, as though I understand the topic well, I 'don't, but one 'learns the unfamiliar by 'attempting it at times.
Forcing oneself to read, study, get feedback on one's thoughts.
. . .
The canst, might be a bit pretentious. But I 'like archaic English sometimes.
Hm, people don't always like videos and style, but I do,
And these aren't 'long, or even 'required videos to watch.