It is possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the evil which exists in this World.

However it goes, I've enjoyed it as, I hope, has Pro. I do dislike the constant discussion of burden-of-proof on DDO (I feel that it should be understood implicitly by the gentle voters, not rammed down their throats) but I fear that I must bring it up here and now. The resolution before us is this:It is possible for a tri-omni god to coexist with the evil which exists in this World. Now, Pro has pointed out the importance of the word "possible" in the resolution and suggests that this puts the burden of proof onto me: I must demonstrate with 100% certainty that such a God could not co-exist with the World as we know it. I will note that there is a large degree of truth to this line of reasoning and, to be fair to Pro, the original idea that we were discussing (see comments) was essentially arguing whether or not "the argument from Evil is sound". I ask the gentle reader accept, though, that 100% certainty is never achievable. .. and one does not vote on a debate based on whether either side has achieved 100% certainty. .. one votes on whether one feels that one has been reasonably convinced - and the threshold for whether a gentle voter is convinced is entirely a subjective affair. Here's why we can never be certain: nobody can prove the brain-in-a-vat argument to be unsound. If I had to argue Pro's case in this debate, I would have proceeded like this:1. No sentient being can be sure that they are not the only sentient being.2. If you are the only sentient being, perhaps your life has been "perfect" in the sense of any pain being a life lesson.3. Therefore your existence may be explained as being brought into being by an omnebenevolent creator. But, I fear that one really must accept solipsism for this to wash. I assume that the gentle reader, whilst allowing for the possibility of solipsism, is not too troubled by such philosophical concerns. I assume, for the purposes of this debate that we are to trust our own senses and to work with the thesis that everything we observe to be real is real. As an interesting side-note, I found more appeal in the idea of solipsism when I was a religious Chrisitan believer and as I have become atheist, I have found such concerns fade as I can focus more clearly on the here and now. I don't personally like the dream-like interpretation of reality that supernatural beliefs seem to entail (for me). I wish to remain balanced and centered in the here and now; the plight of children in Africa dying of AIDS matters to me. If I am indeed a brain in a vat and these kids don't really exist, sure, my existence could be the doing of an omnibenevolent being. .. BUT. .. if that were the case then His special purpose for me would be to have my heart bleed for these illusions as a way to deepen my soul - the only reasonable conclusion being that I should act as if this illusion is not, in fact, an illusion, but a reality. .. I would be fulfilling His purpose for me to the highest degree by engaging with the reality that I am faced with as if it was reality. .. and when He chooses not to reveal Himself to me then it seems that it is His will that I work with the assumption that He does not exist. Thus, I have even managed to justify my atheism (for myself, you don't have to find this convincing) from a theistic stance. Either way, I beseech my gentle audience to work from one basic assumption: what we see is reality. Even if you believe in a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, it seems fair to assume that making the emboldened assumption is what He wanted. So. .. why would I accept belief in an almighty as a possibility and then argue that the argument from evil disproves His existence? Because the only way that this could work is if you believe that all you see around you is an illusion. .. this idea is either false, or, if the almighty created you and put you here for a reason, believing that seems to be contrary to His wishes and, therefore, a sin. And that, it seems to me, is a rock-solid theological argument as to why we should not accept the proposition! Either way, I beseech my gentle audience to work from one basic assumption: what we see is reality. I argue this both ways: either you are rational and already believe this; or you allow for a possibility of an almighty and should see that it is His Will that you should believe this. Reality has to be treated as reality, otherwise you lead yourself to a theological contradiction in which God wants you to not believe in God! God has put you in an illusion wherein the argument for evil is absolutely true, insofar as you believe the illusion. And you *should* believe the illusion: it's what you want to do, it's the only rational way and it is almost certainly what such a God would want of you if He put you in this unique illusion! Let me remind the gentle voter what Pro said (starting by quoting me):ME: " If you don't think that we live in a World that has the absolute minimum of pain and suffering theoretically possible, you must find against the motion. "I agree with your conclusion (except for the last portion), in that, I see many "evils" that exist in this world that don't have to. In fact, I am quite confident that no one of sound mind would disagree with you. Everyone will have some idea of "evil" that exists in this world. For instance, cancer should be a blatantly obvious example everyone can agree on. However. .. The key issue with this question is the last part: ". .. the reality which we know". We are constrained to our experiences and to our human perception and limited cognitive ability to make this judgment. Who are we to declare that such a proposition is *impossible* while we are subject to such incredible limitations? Well, I accept your point, Pro, I really do - we are subject to such incredible limitations. I could not have put it better myself. We ARE subject to such INCREDIBLE limitations. They are incredible; you would have to believe that you were a brain in a vat. .. which, it seems to me, would not be the desire of a God who had so carefully crafted such a convincing illusion for your benefit.