The Problem of Evil Proves that Tri-Omni Gods Do Not Exist.

Intro Pro has given up on the debate and has resorted to protesting that I “hijacked” the debate, as if he wasn’t the one who challenged me to this debate, knowing that I will be defending the Christian God. I will let the readers judge if my posts dealt with the debate issue or not. But I want to remind the readers of what the full resolution is. “It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil. ” Pro has not proven this statement across the board. Especially since he refuses to even argue against the Christian worldview, which claims that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God coexists with evil. Pro refuses to use the PoE against the God that it is designed to try to refute. Pro refuted what he is now saying as, “a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and TOTALLY OPPOSED TO EVIL”. He then goes on to say, “I can't disprove Con's god”, knowing that my God claims to be omnipotent, omniscient, and OMNIBENEVOLENT. There is obviously a discrepancy here that I tried to explore but Pro refused to engage. Einstein VS wiploc Debatewiploc: Hey Einstein, E=MC squared is false and i’ll prove it. A squared rapper does not equal energy! Vote Pro! Einstein: But E=MC squared if we use the definitions of my system. wiploc: Yeah but I'm not arguing against your system, I’m just trying to prove that a squared rapper does not equal energy! Vote Pro! Einstein: You did prove that, but you’re supposed to prove that E=MC squared is false, it's still true within my system. wiploc: No I don’t I just have to prove that E=MC squared is not true, and using my definitions, I did this and you agreed, therefore E=MC squared is false. Vote Pro! Einstein:You don't have to accept my definitions but I will not accept yours either. If E=MC squared is true in any other system, then you failed. wiploc: Vote against Con for misbehavior since he won't accept my definitions. Please vote Pro! Definitions I will let the readers judge if my rejection of Pro’s definition should cost me conduct points or even the whole debate. But to my defense, Pro did not stipulate like others on DDO do, that acceptance of the debate means acceptance of his definitions. The first thing I discussed is what the PoE is and its objective. It is meant to be an internal critique. In order for the PoE to even be debatable, both sides must agree on the definitions. In an internal critique, the critic must use the definitions of the system in question, or at least challenge these definitions. Pro did not do this. I could have just said, “I don’t accept your definitions, they don’t apply to my system, my system is still untouched, your resolution is not proven, debate over. ” But I thought that a legitimate PoE debate could still be discussed here. The debate was centered around whether or not God remains omnibenevolent in permitting evil for morally good reasons. The Bible, which in my worldview is ultimate judge of morality, says God is justified and remains omnibenevolent in permitting evil. Pro disagrees and claims that God is not omnibenevolent if he allows evil for any reason. Obviously Pro and I are standing on 2 different towers here. The only way to debate now is to see which tower is on solid foundations. I stepped out of my tower and challenged Pro’s to account for his definition of omni-GOOD. How can Pro have his own definition of good when he claims to not understand morality? ! Pro’s tower has no foundations whatsoever! If he can’t account for the definition of good and omni-good, then his definition is arbitrary and he might as well say that omnibenevolence means that you are a 40 foot gap-toothed clown with 3 fingers. My God would fail to meet that stipulation as well. Pro said, “What I know is that if there were a god, and if he were omnipotent and omniscient and totally against evil, then evil couldn't exist. I don't see any part of that that I should account for. ”Pro again replaced the word “omnibenevolence” with “totally against [uwilling to permit] evil”. That’s exactly what Pro needs to account for! Why is it that omnibenevolence = totally unwilling to permit evil for any reason? I told Pro that if he can somehow show that his definition of omnibenevolence is universal, absolute and applies to my God (who claims to be omnibenevolent), then I myself would “vote Pro”! Pro did not even make any attempts to do this. Pro did not attempt to refute the Christian God’s claim of omnibenevolence, or challenge my definition of omnibenevolence. In essence, Pro conceded that the Christian God is omnibenevolent within it’s own system, which would also mean that Pro conceded to the fact the Christian system is logically coherent. Pro lost the debate, or rather, Pro masterfully debated and beat himself. PoE Refuted The omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God sovereignly planned (all-knowing) and permitted (all-powerful) all evil for morally commendable reasons (all-good). The PoE is based on 2 wrong presuppositions: 1. We autonomously know everything about everything. 2. We have the moral authority, perspective and capability to judge God’s actions. (Pro defining what an omnibenevolent God ought to be, falls under this category). The PoE is the Problem of the Unbeliever Pro admits to not understanding morality, but shows inconsistency when he then turns around and gives definitions to words like “good” and “evil”. Pro says, “I never made such a claim [knowing absolute definitions of omnibenevolence and evil]. I made it clear what I meant by "omnipotence. " That doesn't bind anyone else in any other circumstance,” This is precisely the point! Pro chose not to argue within the Christian context, where words like good and evil are absolutely and universally defined. My challenge to Pro was why should I or anyone accept his own system’s definitions of good and evil, when his system does not have an absolute and universal standard of good and evil, and Pro himself even admits to not understanding morality (good and evil)? ! If Pro wants to claim that he has his own definitions and that the definitions of my system are irrelevant, then Pro needs to validate his definitions of good and evil. The PROBLEM of evil is that even unbelievers believe that evil truly exists. But evil presupposes a transcendental, absolute and universal standard of morality. Not only that, but our experiences can only tell us descriptive truths,not prescriptive truths. We can't know what ought to be, from what is. Only the tri-omni, personal God of the Bible can account for both the ultimate standard of morality and our knowledge of it. I challenge anyone who disagrees to show me an alternative system. Pro, apart from a Biblical context, does not have an objective moral standard that he can use to define words such as good, omni-good and evil. The PoE is the problem of the unbeliever who claims that evil indeed exists, but can not account for an absolute universal moral standard and our knowledge of it. The PoE, as internal critique is refuted, and when not used as an internal critique is irrational. Conclusion Pro set out to prove that “It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil” but he has only done so if his stipulations are granted. Pro did not validate his stipulations and actually admitted to not having a rational basis for them when he admitted to not understand morality. Pro repeatedly admitted that he is not interested in refuting the Christian God. He said,“I can't disprove Con's god. I can only disprove the god who is the subject of this debate (the one I call, "tri-omni," and Con calls, "strawgod") because that god's characteristics are self-contradictory. ” Pro repeatedly neglects the fact that my God claims to have the characteristics that Pro claims to be self-contradictory given the existence of evil. Pro never challenged the ONLY tri-omni God in the history of all religion, the God of the Bible.