The problem of evil and the concept of God are irreconcilable

DROPPED ARGUMENTS Although my opponent didn't use the word "dropped", he did admit at the end of round four that he didn't address two of my arguments in round four. Well, as my unbiased source shows, that means he dropped those arguments and as such those arguments of mine are to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate. It's too late for him to try to refute them now. Debate protocols don't allow it. I too have the same character limits that he had, and yet, I was able to refute every argument he has made in each subsequent round. Burncastle said: "Adam and Eve: For the Earth to be 6000 years old, every known decay rates must be erroneous and our current light speed value must be erroneous. Article from the examiner: Unfortunately, the article does not tell us about any evidence that would indicate that minds can exist outside of brains, it simply says vaguely "this person has made some research that supposedly leads one to think that it is possible". Without having the evidence, I can not assess this case (and neither can my opponent). On the other hand, there are very good reasons that would lead one to believe that minds are products of the physical brain: We can alter your mind by damaging your brain, we can reset your memory, some people acquire more than one personality after brain damage, etc. " My response: These are responses to arguments of mine that my opponent conceded/dropped by not responding to them when he had the chance. Since they were conceded by him, no further response from me is necessary. DEMONSTRATE As my opponent admitted in round two, he had the "full burden of proof" in this debate. Also, in round three, my opponent agreed with me that if, besides my opponent's views, other alternatives were possible, then I would win the debate. His had one caveat. I couldn't ask him to prove the possibilities I offered to be impossible. I have not done so. But now my opponent has tried to play a semantics game by alleging that showing and demonstrating in a debate are somehow different concepts. He has not offered a source for this argument, but I will now "show" everyone that there is not any difference. Let's first start with the definition of "demonstrate" 1. to make evident or establish by arguments or reasoning; prove: to demonstrate a philosophical principle. [6] So here we see that in order to "demonstrate" alternative possibilities exist, I only need to use arguments. I don't need to do anything else. This is exactly what I have done. And it's the main reason I have won this debate. Pro said: But in my opponent's model of reality, God created a Earth in which he KNEW that these things would happen, so he is ultimately responsible for them. My response: That's not true. For example, if I could see the future, it wouldn't follow that I am responsible for what happens. Regarding the issue of Christians suffering, pro said: "The problem here is that the quote he gave[from then Bible] is literally telling us that suffering is actually a GOOD thing ("we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance") which, if it is true, would mean that God actually SHOULD torture people in addition to letting natural suffering occur, which is ridiculous. " My response: It doesn't necessarily mean that. One thing it does mean is that God is able to bring about a good result from a painful experience. For example, His son Jesus was executed despite being innocent. However, His death brought about the opportunity for all of us to be saved. Whatever TEMPORARY pain we experience in this life, God is able to compensate us with ETERNAL and UNLIMITED joy in the next life. This is yet another way suffering and a benevolent God are possible. Regarding the issue of a requirement-free Heaven, pro said: "Ah, this is interesting: my opponent is equating "Heaven" with "spending eternity with God". If heaven is indeed limited to that, then why would he care so much about sending us there? Wouldn't it be WAY more benevolent to prevent all the suffering and then let us live eternally without him then allowing us to suffer just so we can be by his side? What if I do not want do be by his side, can he prevent MY suffering then? Or is God so arrogant that he actually believes that being by his side is worth a lifetime of suffering? " My response: Again, God doesn't give us suffering. He tries to bring good out of it. He doesn't force anyone to do anything. Regarding the issue of instant death, my opponent said: Last round I said: "Again,these exist because of the sin of Adam. And it doesn't necessarily take years to be reconciled" My opponent said: "Then we are back to the unjust system; people are being killed (sometimes by the hundreds) for the crime of ONE MAN. Does my opponent believe that this is just? And I was not arguing about something that takes "years", I was specifically talking about INSTANT death. " My response: Then we're back to Pro being unable to call something "unjust". And even someone who dies quickly may still have enough time to be reconciled to God. Regarding the issue of "violating our free will", Pro said: "Influence through suffering IS coercion. What could possibly be my opponent's definition of coercion if it does not include that? Whether or not God is causing that suffering is irrelevant, the fact remains that he can prevent it and chooses not to, making him responsible (analogy: by-standers as just as responsible as the bully if they do not act, especially if they CAN act). " My response: Coercion requires FORCING someone to do something. On the other hand, if you influence someone, they can still choose whatever they want. But don't take my word for it, let's look at the definition of "coerce": Coerce: "to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact" [7] Regarding the issue of "going to Heaven despite not loving God", Pro said: "It would seem that my hypothesis was correct; my opponent's view of Heaven is indeed limited to "living with God and loving God"". That being the case, my objections remain the same: Why does God care so much about us being eternally with him and if I do not want to be with God, can I be exempt of suffering? " My response: Again, God doesn't give anyone suffering. Suffering exists because of the sin of Adam. On suffering, Pro said: Moreover, can one really be eternally happy when there are still people (sometimes close to them) suffering on Earth? Or does God make it so we do not care about anyone (except him) anymore? " My response: It's not possible to be unhappy in Heaven. And yes they care, but they don't despair, because they know God's mercy and justice will prevail. Regarding the "cancer" example, my Pro said: "I'm pretty sure that the most usual scenario is a LOSS of faith, not a gain,. .. " My response: Pro didn't offer any evidence for this, so it should be rejected as baseless. Pro said: In response to my comment about the incoherence of "existing outside of time", my opponent said: "Existence is only a temporal concept for things that begin to exist. God has always existed. Even before the creation of physical time. " "Where did that come from? How could my opponent possibly conclude that existence is a characteristic that applies only to things that begin to exist? Does he have anything to compare, or perhaps a set of things which are in fact eternal that my opponent can study? No. In his worldview, only God is infinite and this argument becomes a fallacy of special pleading. " My response: I think Pro misunderstood my argument. I was saying that existence is temporal ONLY for things that begin to exist. If God created physical time, then His existence must be eternal. On God possibly creating the universe. via the Big Bang, Pro said: "But Occam's razor deals with the God hypothesis because God is NOT required to create a Universe (look up Sean Carroll vs. William Lane Craig debate on youtube). " My response: That's irrelevant as to whether God did create the universe and how He did it. On the issue of free will, Pro said: "There is no third option, either God knows or he doesn't, these two options are mutually exclusive. HOW God knows my future is irrelevant and so is his perception of that future, if he knows it, I do not have freewill. As a side note, I find it pretty amusing that I managed to get my opponent to argue against the validity of prophecies. " MY response: Sure there's a third option. I showed that last round. Outside of our universe, "the future" may not exist since linear progression may not exist. And I never said anything about prophecy. On God being unjust/wrong, Pro said: "What my opponent is consistently failing to understand is that my ability to account for justice is absolutely irrelevant in my argument; my argument is that my OPPONENT CAN NOT RECONCILE (WITH HIS VIEW ON JUSTICE) THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. I am baffled by the fact that this seems so hard to understand. " My response: I've refuted this argument several times. As an atheist, Pro is unable to call anything unjust/wrong. Again on the subject of being unjust, Pro said: "- So basically, we are now ALL in position to be judged because of what ONE MAN did? This still seems pretty unjust. What didn't we ALL get the chance to live without being judged - A system in which one man's action can lead to repercussions that affect ALL humans is an unjust system. " My response: See above. On the objectivity of God, Pro said: "The law is not analogous to morality, and labelling God's moral pronouncements "laws" is simply a semantic trick. " My response: I disagree, but would he feel better if I called them orders? Pro continues: "Moreover, laws are not absolute, they change over time, that is how we got rid of slavery despite it being sanctioned by God (I had to put that in there). If my opponent wants to have a debate on the objectivity of God's laws, I would gladly accept the challenge. " My response: Even if God changed (He doesn't), His authority still makes His decisions objective. And since my opponent didn't offer any evidence concerning his slavery claims, they should be rejected as baseless. On his definition of evil and me rejecting it, Pro said: "I didn't expect him to. We each have our own definition of what is good and what is evil, this why morality is ultimately subjective. For what it's worth, I don't accept my opponent's definition of evil, which is basically "that which God does not approve of". " My response: I argue that objective morality is self-evident. We all know that rape is wrong regardless of opinion. But notice how Pro says he believes morality is subjective. This is proof he is not able to say anyone is unjust/wrong. If morality is not objective, then no action is wrong, just unpopular. "I'd be happy to re-word my comments: A good father allows his child to suffer less happiness by keeping meth away from his son because in th long run, it will bring his son more happiness. " On free will, Pro said: "So what happens if the child actually has the meth in his hands? Taking it away from him at this point would be violating his freewill, but it would still be the moral thing to do, wouldn't it? " My response: The son could get more, so no. SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE: 1. Pro didn't even attempt to refute all my claims, but I did refute all of his, so the "better arguments" vote should go to me. 2. Pro had no sources. I had several, so the votes for reliable sources should go to me. 3. My opponent agreed that if I showed there could be other possible alternatives than the ones he espoused, that I would automatically win the debate. I did that. Please vote Con. Sources: 6. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 7. . http://dictionary.reference.com...