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

IntroI will be defending the Chrisitian position in this debate, not a generalized concept of a tri-omni God.What Is The Problem Of Evil (PoE) I would like to start by first talking about what my opponent's argument is about and what it tries to accomplish. A lot of times, people using the PoE argument do not understand it and turns it into a completely different argument during the course of the debate. The PoE is an argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, that claims that the existence of such a God is incompatible with the existence of evil. The problem of evil amounts to the charge that there is logical incoherence within the Christian outlook. The PoE is an internal critique of a worldview that adheres to the belief that a tri-omni God, exists simultaneously with evil. So for this debate, I will only be defending the internal coherence of the Christian worldview. This calls for both Pro and I to assume for argument sake, all of what Christianity claims to be true.David Hume persuasively expressed the PoE this way,“Is [God] willing to prevent evil but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (1)The PoE's goal is to show that a belief system that claims that a tri-omni God exists while at the same time evil exists, is internally incoherent, and is therefore is logically impossible and false.This PoE usually concerns the God of the Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam, due to the claims of respective holy texts. I will be defending the Christian worldview, more specifically Reformed Protestant Christianity, which I would argue is the biblically accurate Christianity. I would also argue that Christianity is the complete and real Judaism, and that Islam is just a perversion of Christianity. This has little to do with this debate, but I just wanted to point out that Abraham's God is unique in that it is the only God with tri-omni traits.My Position and ResponseWe have to first realize that the description of the Christian God is entirely rooted from the claims of the Bible. We know that the Christian God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, sovereign, perfectly just, loving, personal, etc. only by the revelations of scripture, which claims to be God's very word. We also have to realize, though Pro will probably disagree, that we only know what evil is because God Himself revealed it to us. This issue may or may not matter in this debate depending on Pro's arguments.Now the Christian worldview claims that indeed, God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent while simultaneously evil exists. It also claims that since God is completely sovereign, God ultimately was the one who allowed evil to exists. He did this when He chose to create human beings despite knowing that they were gonna rebel and cause the fall of all of nature, and God is also ultimately the one who is allowing the continous ongoing evil, despite having the power to stop it at anytime.Pro listed what he thinks are the 5 legitimate responses to the PoE. Obviously I disagree that any of those are legitimate answers. All 5 of them are against the Bible teaches.The Biblical, logical, and legitimate response is this:The omnipotent, omniscient God, sovereignly allowed and continues to allow evil to exist for a morally sufficient reason. As Dr. Greg Bahnsen puts it, “any evil we find must be compatible with God's goodness. This is just to say that God has planned evil events for reasons which are morally commendable and good.” (2)This response does not result into any internal incoherence, conflict or negation of any of His revealed traits, refuting the PoE claim that God and evil are logically incompatible. Of course Pro begs to differ, but let's see why.Omnibenevolence I think the main issue in this debate will be the issue of omnibenevolence and it’s definition. “The phrases "perfect goodness" or "moral perfection" are often preferred because of the difficulties in defining what exactly constitutes 'infinite benevolence'.” (3)Pro said while defining omnibenevolence that,“Benevolence is wanting good, opposing evil. Omnibenevolence, then, at a minimum, is totally, infinitely, wholly, strongly, unconflictedly wanting there to be no evil. For an omnibenevolent god, opposing evil is not on a back burner. ” He adds, "An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil if he could."This is not exactly the Biblical definition of God’s moral character. The Bible never said that because of God’s perfect goodness or omnibenevolence, He is unable to permit evil. Christianity does not at all claim that God is not willing to allow evil. The fact that He already allowed evil tells us that He was willing to permit evil. Nevertheless the Bible teaches that God is all-good, omnibenevolent. The angels declare that “holy, holy, holy, is the Lord almighty”. The word of God claims that God is not guilty of ANY evil. So the question is; is God still omnibenevolent even if He is willing to, and in fact did, allow the existence of evil for a morally sufficient reason? The Christian position is that God's intentions for permitting evil are purely good and morally justifed, so the answer is yes, God remains omnibenevolent in allowing evil to exist.However, according to Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence, the answer is No, He is not omnibenevolent.Problem with the definitionWe have to remember that the PoE is an internal critique. But you see, when Pro decided to define one of God’s traits (omnibenevolence), outside the revelation of scriptures, and in a way that does not describe the God of the Bible, Pro is no longer arguing against the existence of Abraham’s God. He is commiting what I like to call strawgod fallacy (pretty self explanatory).Omnibenevolence in the Bible means HOLY, morally perfect, not guilty of any evil. God does hate evil and will ultimately and absolutely abolish it. But He chose to permit and make providence for it for His purpose. The specifics of the purpose is not revealed to us but we have a general idea by deducing from what He did reveal. "Everything is by Him, to Him, and for Him." We know that ultimately Christ will be glorified. In the Christian worldview, this is the ULTIMATE good, displaying the glory of Christ.Now Im sure Pro will challenge this response by saying that God is guilty of evil when He permitted evil to display His glory, or for permitting evil for any reason at all. Well we can not just accept this unless Pro can provide a moral basis to why God choosing to permit evil for morally commendable and good reasons like displaying His glory, results into the negation of His all-good nature. If Pro wants to make his own definition of “omnibenevolence” outside the Bible, then he needs to provide a standard of omnibenevolence or “good” that isn’t arbitrary or question begging. Pro will first need to somehow come up with a moral standard that he can apply to God.If he is unable to do so, then his argument is basically, "God is not omnibenevolent because I don't like the fact that He permitted evil to fulfull His purpose." And this leads us to the the ironic fact that the PoE is actually a problem for the unbeliever. I will not get into this right now to avoid complicating this already phylosophically heavy topic. But It might come up depending on Pro's arguments.ConclusionGod having a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil the exists, refutes the claim that the Christian worldview is logially impossible. Unless one just want to disagree according to one's own arbitrary moral standards, making the problem a psycholigical problem, instead of a logical one.(1) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. Nelson Pike (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill Publications: 1981), p. 88(2) Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, ALWAYS READY(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...;