An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

---2P1. Burden of ProofMy opponent has the Burden of Proof to prove that an OOO entity exists.2P1A: "Pro" vs "Con"In a debate, whoever is "Pro" is asserting that a certain position is true. In this debate, my opponent is asserting that "An OOO Entity Exists". Whoever asserts something to be true has the burden to prove that this is so, while those who do not assert something to be true do not have to prove anything. This is because I, as Con, am not proposing that anything special is true, while Pro is proposing that something special is true. Proof is not required for lacks of assertions, but only for assertions. Consider this situation:Sam: "The sky is red. "Sue: "No, it is not. "Sam asserts that the sky is red, but has provided no proof for such a position; as such, Sue can reject such a position without proof.2P1B: Occam's RazorLet's look at this through Occam's Razor. Definition of Occa's Razor: "[A]mong competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. " [M]ore complicated solutions may " prove correct, but"in the absence of [evidence]"the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The " principle " shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power," Wikipedia [1]. In a worldview where an OOO entity does not exist, fewer assumptions are made than in any worldview where one does. For example, contrast a Con universe and a Pro universe. Con: "The universe exists. "Pro: "The universe exists, and an OOO entity exists. "In both worlds, both people assume that the universe exists. However, only in the Pro universe do we, additionally, assume that an OOO entity exists. However, without proof, you should not accept the Pro worldview, because it makes unproven assumptions. A similar scenario is given below:Ateapotism: "The universe exists. "Teapotism: "The universe exists, and a small, white teapot floating in an elliptical orbit somewhere between Earth and Mars exists. "Clearly one would not accept that the default position is that a teapot floating somewhere between Earth and Mars exists, and that one must disprove the existence of a teapot floating somewhere between Earth and Mars in order to not believe in it. This is because we use Occam's Razor in our lives to choose the most simple explanation for events, rather than inventing crazy theories to describe everyday events. The same holds true for religion and philosophy. Thus, Con makes fewer assumptions, and must be assumed true unless a theory with more explanatory power is proven correct. Thus, the Burden of Proof of my opponent is to prove that an OOO entity exists, which would prove that the Con position does not have enough explanatory power and must be rejected for a more powerful explanatory theory. ---Because my opponent has not provided any proof of the existence of an OOO entity, Technically I only need 2P1 to win this debate, because the BOP is on Pro to prove that an OOO entity exists. However, just for fun, I'll prove twice that an OOO entity cannot exist, and thus does not. ---2P2: The Existence of Evil2P2A: The Logical Problem of EvilThe Logical Problem of Evil shows that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity and the existence of evil form a contradiction, such that only one or the other can exist in a given reality. P1: From definition, an omnipotent entity can perform any action. P2: From definition, an omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil. P3: From P1-2, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil. P4: From P1-3, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, then evil does not. A1: Assume temporarily that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists. P5: From P1-4 and A1, evil does not exist. P6: From observation, evil exists. C1: P6 and P5 form a contradiction; A1 is false, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist. The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity. Because we cannot reject the existence of evil, we must reject the existence of an omnipotent entity.2P2B: The Evidential Problem of EvilFurther, even if the mere existence of evil doesn't disprove that an omnipotent entity exists, the existence of unnecesessary evil (evil that does not lead to a greater good) does. P1: From definition, an omnipotent entity can perform any action. P2: From definition, an omnibenevolent entity would remove all unnecessary evil. P3: From P1-2, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity would remove all unnecessary evil. P4: From P1-3, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, then unnecessary evil does not. A1: Assume temporarily that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists. P5: From P1-4 and A1, unnecessary evil does not exist. C1: P6 and P5 form a contradiction; A1 is false, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist. How is this different from the Logical Problem of Evil? While it is conceivable that an entity could have a justification for some level of evil, unnecessary evil by definition does not have a justification. An omnibenevolent entity, by definition, cannot commit actions that are not good, and thus actions that cause evil without causing good would be impossible for an omnibenevolent entity to commit, meaning that an omnibenevolent entity does not exist. So does unncessary evil exist? Take a look at earthquakes, tidal waves, forest fires, the death of infants. None of these added to the total good of the world, and are totally unnecessary. ---2P3: The Paradox of OmnipotenceThe Paradox of Omnipotence attempts to prove that it's impossible for an entity to truly be omnipotent, because an omnipotent entity would have to be able to limit itself; however, because it is limitable, it is also not omnipotent. A few variations on the theme:Theme 1: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? " RationalWiki [2]. If yes: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone. If no: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone. Theme 2: "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? " Homer Simpson [2]. If yes: Jesus's power is limited, because he cannot eat the burrito. If no: Jesus's power is limited, because it cannot microwave the burrito. As such, an omnipotent god cannot possibly exist. ---References:[1] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Occam's_razor [2] rationalwiki. org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox