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

Resolved: It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil. Tri-omni: Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. But we could not logically discuss a god who thwarted logic, so we must restrict ourselves to punk omnipotence rather than true omnipotence: An omnipotent god, then, can do anything except violate logic. No square circles; no married bachelors. Eliminating evil does not violate logic. Nor, unless free will is evil, does eliminating evil while allowing free will. An omnipotent god could do that easily. Omniscience: Knowing everything. Including the future. According to Plantinga, when god was choosing which world to create, he knew everything that would ever happen, including every choice that would be made, in every possible world and in every impossible world. I'm with Plantinga on this: An omniscient god knows all about evil, when and in which circumstances it would happen, how to keep it from happening. Omnibenevolence: 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. An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil if he could. An omnipotent god would be able to prevent evil if he wanted to. A god both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would both want to and be able to prevent evil. And no evil would slip past or baffle an omniscient god. If a tri-omni god existed, then, there would be no evil. Anyone who believes that evil exists is therefore in error if she also believes that a tri-omni god exists. Five Responses:There are five legitimate responses to the PoE (problem of evil). I've seen all five of them used. 1. God is not really omnipotent. 2. God is not really omniscient.3. God is not really omnibenevolent. 4. There isn't really any evil. 5. God is contrary to logic. All of these responses amount to consessions that the PoE is correct. The PoE proves that, if evil exists, then tri-omni gods don't exist. But it doesn't prove that other gods don't exist. The Christian God: Is the Christian god tri-omni? Does the PoE prove that the Christian god doesn't exist? In my mind, the tri-omni version is the standard model Christian god. But I grew up in Kansas, which may have influenced my views. There are certainly many Christians who believe in other models. One could argue that the PoE doesn't even disprove the god of Christians who believe god is tri-omni. It merely, if evil exists, proves that they are mistaken as to their god's nature. Evil: I don't know whether to define it. I don't want to argue about the definition. But, in case it will facilitate discussion, I'll say that I think of evil as suffering or unhappiness. If Red wants another definition, we can use that. The PoE is bulletproof regardless of how evil is defined. If we defined evil as the color blue, then there would be nothing blue in a world that had an omnipotent omniscient god totally opposed to blueness. Might there be such a god in this world, the actual world? No. Some things are blue, therefore we know that no such god exists. Suffering exists, so we know there is no omnipotent omniscient god who is totally opposed to suffering. Regardless of how evil is defined, we know that if evil exists, there is no omnipotent omniscient god who is totally opposed to evil. Anybody who believes in both evil and a tri-omni god is wrong. Sin vs. Evil: Many people conflate sin with evil. I'm not sure this is relevant, and I certainly don't want to hold Red to my definition of either sin or evil. So I offer this only in case it helps. Sin is doubt or disobedience of god. Evil is the punishment for sin: suffering. It's easy to confuse them, because sins can be moral evils. If lusting after your neighbors wife is forbidden by god, it is a sin; and if it causes unhappiness, then it is also evil. What about mixed evil and good? Again, I'm not holding Red to any definition of evil. Just clarifying my views in case that is helpful. What if something made one person happy and another person sad? Would it still be an evil? Yes, because that's the definition of evil. And it would also be a good, because making someone happy is the definition of a good. An omnipotent god could have arranged things so that both people were happy. What about malevolent people? What if someone can only be made happy by the unhappiess of other people? Wouldn't that stump an omnibenevolent god? No, not unless he was really stupid. An omnipotent god could fix it so that people didn't develop malice. An omniscient god would know ways to effect that. I don't have to know the ways, myself. An omniscient god would know. As a last resort, if nothing else worked, god wouldn't have to create those malicious people. He could create the ones who get along with each other. Pantinga admits that there are possible worlds in which no evil choice is ever made. And some of them have free will. God could have created one of them. An omnibenevolent god would have wanted to. An omnipotent god would have been able to. An omniscient god would have known which worlds they were. A tri-omni god would not have created a world with evil. "But, That's Not My God": I don't know why people who don't believe in a tri-omni god argue against the PoE. Many say, "The PoE is wrong; god doesn't know the future. " But that's really the PoE's point: god doesn't know the future. Not if he's omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and if evil exists. People who believe in this lesser god shouldn't try to fight the PoE. They should use it to enlighten benighted souls who believe that god is tri-omni and coexists with evil. Morality and Omnibenevolence: I don't want to put words in Red's mouth, but I'm happy to help him to a running start if I can. And I suspect that I know how he'll argue, so I'll try to help. But, he may have a different angle. In which case this bit is moot. I'm not trying to bind him to a position. I think Red will use move three: god isn't reallly omnibenevolent. Because god is moral, he isn't really totally opposed to evil. I don't know why morality would require toleration of evil, but, hey, that's not what we're discussing. If Red believes that god's morality means he isn't totally opposed to evil, that's a legitimate response to the problem of evil. Red can hold that position, and the PoE has nothing to say against it. I just want to be clear that that isn't a refutation of the PoE. That agrees with the PoE. The PoE proves that, if god exists, and if evil exists, and if god is omnipotent and omniscient, then god cannot also be omnibenevolent. So if Red argues that god, because of his morality, is not totally opposed to evil, that is not an argument against the PoE. I'm laboring this because we only have four rounds, and I've seen people go ten or twenty rounds on this specific issue. You can't refute the PoE by agreeing with it. None of the five legitimate responses contradicts the PoE. And no other response is even on topic. We must conclude that if evil exists, then there are no gods who are omnipotent, omniscient, and also omnibenevolent. Thanks to Red for engaging with me on this topic.