The Christian God Does not Exist

My opponent has continued to ignore both the resolution and my arguments, it is now time to summarise the debate and far too late for him to address the issues I have raised.Argument 1: The Problem of Evil.P1: If the Christian God exists he is aware of all suffering (omniscient), Capable of ending all suffering (omnipotent) and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent).P2: Suffering exists.P3: Therefore the Christian God does not exist.P1 requires no further explaination, it is simply the product of what those words mean. My opponent claims that because I did not provide definitions he is free to challenge the meaning of such words. Unfortunately he has failed to challenge such definitions, he has simply told me that they do apply to God. Which automatically forfeits the debate as it is predicated on the alleged existence of a God will omni-characteristics. It is now far too late for him to offer a new argument of a contrary version of the omni-characteristics so we are forced to rely on the dictionary. Omniscience: Having total knowledge, knowing everything.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Omnipotence:Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Omnibenevolence: Literally all good. Unlimited or infinite benevolence. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...My opponent has no choice but to concede P1, it is self evident.P2 is also self-evident. Has my opponent ever felt pain, hunger, anguish, illness etc etc.P3 is the rational logical conclusion of P1 and P2From the very first round I offered two rebuttals to the Problem of Evil. Firstly that God is not possessed of the omni-characteristics, or secondly that suffering is a requirement for happiness.I made it very clear that by taking the first option my opponent would be conceding the debate, as he would be arguing against the existence of a God with all three omni-characteristics. I specifically suggested that my opponent might seek to argue that God was not omnibenevolent, I specifically showed how this would forfeit the debate.My opponent stated that he denied God's omnibenevolence.My opponent has flirted with the idea of the second refutation, that suffering is necessary for happiness. This is the only way that Con can actually defeat the Problem of Evil that I am aware of, certainly no other escape clause has emerged during the debate. I made it very clear that to affirm this he would need to "demonstrate that creation is possessed of the greatest possible amount of Happiness and the least possible amount of suffering that is logically possible to create. He will also have to justify how God could keep suffering absent from the Garden of Eden and how he will keep suffering absent from heaven, but can not or will not do that on earth."He has failed to make this case, he has failed to address the logical paradox caused by the Problem of Evil. This alone is sufficient to affirm the resolution.Argument 2: Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence can not co-exist.P1: An omnibenevolent being will always perform the most benevolent act, is unable not to do so.P2: An omnibenevolent being therefore lacks free will.P3: A being without free will can not be described as omnipotent.P4: A being can not posses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence.P5: Therefore God does not exist.P1: This is self-explanatory, an omnibenevolent being would always seek to perform the most benevolent act possible. If an omnibenevolent being decided not to cure your cancer, if an omnibenevolent being bought you a new car, if an omnibenevolent being did anything, it would have to be for the intention of causing maximal goodness. Whether or not we understand it.P2: This is self-explanatory. If an omnibenevolent being did anything that was not omnibenevolent it would not be omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being can not choose to be anything other than omnibenevolent, that would be a logical contradiction. It therefore by definition lacks free will.P3: Again this is self-explanatory, an omnipotent being has no limits on it's frreedom or power. P4: Is simply the product of P1, P2, and P3.P5: If a being can not possess the characteristics of omnipotence and omnibenevolence than the being known as God which is supposedly possessed of both can not exist because he would be a paradox.My opponent tries to argue that,"In the previous round, I pointed out that his 5 premised argument on this contention was broken as per the claim made in the second premise which asserted that PRO assumes without justification that the omnibenevolent being hasn't chosen to be omnibenevolent."No such assumption was made, logical proof was offered that the omnibenevolent being is unable to to choose. My opponent fails to address the fatal contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence. The argument rests on the assumption that free will is a component of potency, my opponent has not challenged this assumption, and I am not if he could but it is the only way he could have argued against this.Argument 2 therefore still holds.Argument 3: The Great FloodMy opponent complains that,"I addressed God's regret in great detail in the previous round and even posed a question pacifying the instigator's understanding of regret. Seeing as the instigator has neither addressed my explanation or question, you are to extend it to extend across to this round."Actually I effectively conceded Con's argument with regards the wording of this quotation and showed how the argument still stood. This was ignored by Con.If you remember the passage was a challenge against both God's omniscience (regret for his actions) and his omnibenevolence (drowning the earth). If we ignore the former we still have the latter.Again I ask, How does an omnibenevolent God deem genocide to be justified? My opponent must show how flooding the earth and killing countless men, women and children was the most benevolent solution to a world of sin that God had intentionally created...Simply stating as he does that the dead move onto the afterlife is not sufficient, he must demonstrate how their suffering is consistent with omnibenevolence and omnipotence.Or to be put it otherwise,God is omnibenevolent (Can not be denied without conceding the debate).God drowns the earth causing suffering to millions. (Can not be denied without conceding the debate).Conclusion: God does not exist due to logical paradox or that drowning the earth must be the most benevolent act available to God.My claim is the former, my opponent must provide evidence to support the latter. He has not, he has conceded Argument 3.Argument 4: The Tower of Babel.Not a single rebuttal has been offered for the four issues raised with regards the tower of Babel. Arguments extended.---I ask voters not to vote on the basis of their own religious opinions. The simple fact is that under the definitions employed in this debate a specific conception of God can not logically exist. Therefore the only viable vote is for PRO. In addition to being unable to address the logical paradoxes I have raised CON repeatedly states his refusal to argue in favour of a God possessed of the Omni-Characteristics, therefore the only viable vote is a vote for PRO.Thank you for your time.