The Christian God Does not Exist

The instigator begins his final round, pointing out that it is now far too late for me to address the issues which he has raised. If he is referring anything which he has just now brought up in round 3, I am more than free to address it. If however he is implying that there is something which I've left uncontested in my first and second, as you may realize in actually reading each round, I've gone to great lengths to address each contention thoroughly. RE RE RE: Argument 1: The Problem of Evil. RE RE P1: (a)The instigator is correct. I did in fact tell him that that his understanding of these terms did not apply to God. What he forgets to mention is that I proved it didn't an offered a more reasonable understanding simultaneously. My explanation for omnibenevolence was that God has other attributes, thus is certainly not entirely comprised of love. My explanation of omnipotence was that there were many things God was capable of doing, therefore he is certainly not capable of literally being able to do anything. Therefore, I've challenged his understanding and the dictionary items which may or may not support his understanding automatically fail if they do in fact support said understanding. Seeing as how the instigator took no opportunity to demonstrate the errors in the above reasoning present since the first round, we are thus to see this reasoning as having been conceded to, thus the last round dictionary tactics which I shall address below are not worth your consideration. Now lets look at his definitions provided from an online dictionary. Omniscience: I did not contest this at any point in the debate, thus have no objection to itOmnipotence: If "all-powerful" serves to indicate literally capable of any action conceivable, this understanding fails as I've already proven. If it serves to indicate the actual intended usage of the term, meaning to describe something of great power/authority or with the most power/authority, then it's fine. Omnibenevolence: Nowhere does the source say "literally all good. " Even if you could interpret it as such, it fails for reasons I've stated. As for unlimited quantities, that's fine as it doesn't contradict having other characteristics in unlimited quantities as well. Like with potence, 'most good' or the 'ultimate source of good' better serves the ideas posited by scripture. (b)This definition nonsense aside, he still hasn't remotely demonstrated how his first premise is self-evident. Remember, I asked him to justify his assumption that a being entirely comprised of love would automatically end all suffering. In both rounds, he has refused to do so. On the other hand, not only have I attacked him for not completing his task and supporting his assertions, but have gone further to point out that the Biblical concept of love includes allowance of suffering. RE RE P2: PRO has waited until the last round to satisfy my request of proving the existence of suffering. He cites the feeling of pain, hunger, anguish, illness, etc. ' Although I had more in mind with this contention, seeing as how it's the last round, I'll simply cite Descartes "I think, therefore I am", demonstrating that we know we exist. Beyond that however, we don't know to absolute certainty anything else concerning existence. Indeed, according to PRO, suffering MIGHT exist, but he hasn't established that it or any other fabric reality outside ourselves certainly does. RE REP3: Once more, the instigator doesn't address my favorable light hypothetical in which P1 and P2 are correct. In other words, he concedes. The instigator once again attempts to draw us back to this idea that I have conceded to debate. I'll give this matter more thorough notice in the closing section of this round, but would ask that you note that I have pacified the instigator in every contention, demonstrating that even with his understanding of the terms, he position does not stand. He claims I have specifically stated that I deny God's omnibenevolence, but as you can see by my clarification at the beginning of the previous round, it's really PRO's understanding which I reject. Did my opponent so much as address my clarifying remarks? Certainly not. RE RE: Pre-Emptive Refutation 1: (a) Remains uncontested. RE RE: Pre-Emptive Refutation 2 (and 3 the labeling of previous rounds): PRO speciously attempts to establish that I have not satisfied the condition he laid out for this refutation in the first round, but as I've stressed in both of the proceeding rounds, I have not advocated the notion that suffering is necessary to allow happiness. My claim was that it was necessary to allow freedom and accountability. Since the instigator had no interest in my actual assertions, we need not dwell on this contention any longer. PRO fails. RE RE RE: Argument 2: Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence can not co-exist. P1: OkayP2: Yes, if an omnibenevolent being did anything that was not omnibenevolent, it would not be omnibenevolent, but based on the characteristics which PRO subscribes to, there's no reason to why it is not possible for the omnibenevolent being not to have been omnilethargic at one point or perhaps become an omni-disco-dancer some time in the future, especially if said being is omnipotent. Right now, Joe the omnibenevolent crossing guard is omnibenevolent, hence right now, we can expect 'maximal goodness' from Joe. There's nothing to discredit the notion that Joe chooses to do acts of 'maximal goodness. ' If there is, PRO hasn't shown it. P3: Chain Broken at P2P4: ^P5: ^PRO fails. RE RE RE: Argument 3: The Great Flood-PRO notes he concedes that his argument against omniscience doesn't follow. -As for the omnibenevolent bit, I extended my explanation showing how biblical love/good and suffering often existed side by side throughout scripture. Again, there's the case of the prodigal son, there's the case of God allowing the Israelites to endure slavery and there's the case of allowing Jesus to endure unimaginable suffering. The Biblical standard of love goes against the instigator's. My explanation remains uncontested as the instigator merely reasserts what he did in the first round. PRO fails. RE RE RE Argument 4: The Tower of Babel. The instigator claims that not a single rebuttal has been offered for the four issues raised, but anyone who actually reads my previous round knows otherwise. PRO fails----------------------- ConclusionISSUE of DEFINITIONS. : You'll note that contrary to my method of considering the possibility that PRO's understanding of the terms is correct throughout EACH of his contentions, the instigator does not grant me the same benefit of the doubt. In other words, if you disagree with the affirmative on the definition issue, being that PRO's understanding of his own terms is false, then you are to conclude that he has conceded to my stance, thus are compelled to vote CON. ISSUE of CONCESSION: Throughout his rounds, I notice that PRO constantly asserts that I have conceded to his stance. This is on the grounds that I have argued against his understanding of the terms which he subscribes to. Intentional or not, the instigator is being deceptive as I have argued assuming I'm correct on the definition matter AND assuming I am incorrect . You'll notice that much of my attempts at the latter route has been ignored by PRO (i. e. . me demonstrating that the the concept of love in the Bible often serves to allow suffering). It should also be noted that during the second round, I clarified with a direct quote from my first round ("Seeing as I don't subscribe to either omnibenevolence or omnipotence at least in the fashion the instigator does. ") demonstrating that it's necessarily the terms PRO uses which I reject, but rather his understanding of them. Like much of my case, said clarification remain uncontested. For anything else, if you find the instigator has not satisfied his burden, vote con. I thank the instigator for the debate and the audience for reading. Have a nice day.