It is impossible for there to exist a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

I do want to also scold my opponent for trying to replace the burden of proof. My opponent affirms the resolution: "It is impossible for there to exist a being who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent" I need only point to a scenario whereby that a possibility is logically consistent. If my scenario is even possible then the resolution is false. I do not need to even prove my assertions are true, only that a scenario possibly exists. My opponent would need to completely prove that my possibility is indeed not possible. I do not think my opponent succeeded… The problem of evil has been resolved for many generations. You will not see many professional atheist debaters ever put forward the problem of evil as a valid concept against the "logical" existence of a Being with those attributes. They may indeed assert they do not like such a being but do not point to the logical invalidity of such a being. << 1) My opponent States; "Free will is actually impossible with a being who is completely omniscient. This being knows everything that everyone will ever do. It knew that we would have this debate, therefore it is impossible for us to not have this debate. Free will disproves omniscience. So, to use the free will defense is to disprove the existence of the all powerful, all loving, and all knowing being. " I believe my opponent confuses "Predestination" and other such concepts of irresistible Destiny with free will? An omniscient being in no way overrules someones freewill just by "knowing everything". It is that beings willfull act of Predestination that overrules such things as freewill. Clearly in my possible scenario, freewill is the assertion and not predestination. 2)My opponent states: "They reject this by using their freewill. " First, I already showed how the existence of free will disproves the existence of your all powerful being. And so you are saying that the only way to be good is to be a slave and a robot? " I do not believe anywhere you made a case where freewill disproves the existence of "said Being". You just made that claim and did nothing to back up that assertion. I did point out that you may have been attempting to discuss predestination, however you would have to prove that predestination existed by said God for your viewpoint to be valid. Also you would first have to prove that "said Being" did indeed overrule a persons freewill thus proving "said Being" does indeed exist. As to the robot comment… if "said Being" were to create slaves and robots of the "Bad" people he would being doing evil against His stated All Loving and Infinitely Good nature. Instead His plan is to punish them "after" they commit the evil. He allows the freewill choice then asserts corrective measures. 3)My opponent states: "God will right all of the wrongs by judging those people who chose to perpetuate evil in the world. He will punish the evildoers for their deeds. " You cannot appeal to divine judgement without actually proving that the Christian god and an afterlife exists. " Again, I need only point to a completely logical system whereby Evil and an All Loving and Infinitely Good good can coexist. I do not need to prove said system to win this debate. 3)My Opponent states: "God has enemies who perpetuate evil outside of the Free Will of Man by utilizing their own free Will. God also does not overrule his enemies' use of their free will even though they overrule man's use of freewill. .. compounding evil. These enemies will also be judged and punished according to their deeds None of this shows that the being I described can logically exist. " It stands resolved above that indeed if my scenario is even possible then the resolution is false. 4)My opponent states:" "As a "preemptive rebuttal"… to prove that overruling freewill would indeed be a greater good, my opponent would have to prove that wiping humans of all brain function and utilizing them as cattle or devices is "good and loving" above whatever harm they may do. " Why cannot this all powerful god give humans the need to do good? He supposedly does not allow humans to breathe underwater or teleport at will even if we wished we could. This however in no way inhibits our free will. " Your examples are restrictive physical actions and not Willful Actions. After All God does indeed restrict us with gravity etc… What you are saying is you have a better plan… Take it up with my possible God… The second point is the need to do good. Christianity asserts that we are indeed given a "desire" and a knowledge innately to do good. This is a need/driving desire that in no way overrules our freewill. It is called the natural law. After all how do you determine Good vs. Evil? You have hit upon a Great Plan and the positive assertion of Christianity! 5) "If Hitler was killed by God as a baby by a "not so random disease" to avoid the tragedy of the Third Reich, God is called an unjust evil baby killer or powerless to cure Hitler. If Hitler is allowed to live…. God is called either powerless to stop Hitler's slaugher machine or He is evil to not stop Hitler's slaughter machine. " I made neither of these claims. " In fact you did. I will quote you below. I just put all of those statements into a real scenario: My opponents objection; "The problem of there existing a being(god) who is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving allowing evil to flourish and people to suffer. This being knows when and where all evil, past and present, has and will occur(omniscience). It also has the ability to stop at any time any evil that has ever ocurred(omnipotence). This being as being "all loving" would want to do anything to stop evil from happening(omnibenevolence). As evil continues to flourish in the world(rape, cold blooded murder) one must concludes that an all powerful, omniscient, all loving being either does not exist, is not all loving, or is not all powerful. " You claimed that with his knowledge and power he failed to act against evil. I showed you how to even assert this viewpoint is faulty in a real world example. 6) My opponent states; "You can see the problem with my opponents claims is that neither He (nor I) are in a good position to know what God should do and when. " This is simply an appeal to ignorance. " Not at all. An appeal to ignorance would be "It could have been the drugs or the alcohol that killed aunt nancy in the car wreck! We will never know! " I pointed out a problem with limited knowledge and limited perspective. For an individual to claim there is a better way, that person would have to have a superior intellect, knowledge and ability to resolve such things. Is my opponent claiming to have those God like attributes? Additionally anyone of us that tried to resolve the "Hitler Problem" would not have been put in jail if we killed baby Hitler. We would have been executed. No amount of explaining would have gotten us out of a murder charge. If we had a superior perspective like knowing the future, we would still be dealing with people that had a limited perspective claiming they know better than we did and what we did was clearly murder. << I want to thank my opponent for the attempt at this rigorous debate and encourage him to further study the historic uses of the problem of Evil. Again the fact that a possible scenario does allow for the coexistence between these qualities of God and Evil the resolution is proven to be false. My opponent was unable to show a fault in the scenario that was illogical.