An Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God Cannot Exist

Burden of Proof My opponent has mistakenly asserted that I must prove an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists. This is not the case. As Con, I must negate “cannot exist,” which means I must merely prove that such a being might exist or could exist. The logical negation of “cannot exist” is not “exists.” Conversely, my opponent must prove the nonexistence of such being in all possible worlds, with no contingencies, without any doubt. More on this below in the “Occam’s Razor” discussion. Observational and Metaphysical Knowledge All knowledge is observational, derived from our rational interactions with nature. We look for parallels, patterns, and make expectations given what we already know about the world. Nature becomes our guiding hand to logic, and its laws, form the basis for our ability to reason and project. Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction, for example, ~ (A&~A), underscores our ability to identify and categorize objects and different states of being. According to our observations, it’s natural to expect that the universe has a beginning because that idea reflects the cycles we have seen for all recorded history - like the cycle of life and death. This does not mean it is reasonable to believe the universe has a beginning. The primary problem with religious principles, ideals, and moralities is that they rely upon metaphysical knowledge (etymologically, beyond the physical), meaning that they use knowledge about and from our world to try and understand a realm of existence beyond that world. We have no good reason to believe that the laws of logic or commonsense apply to a metaphysical realm -- or, for that matter, to believe that metaphysical knowledge is even possible. Religions, thus, rely upon divine revelation (and faith in the texts that deliver that revelation) in order to obtain what believers understand to be metaphysical knowledge. Answering the Problem of Evil Pro’s proof is void, because it tries the juxtapose “evil” as an epistemic concept with the metaphysical. The resolution does not require me to define omnibenevolent, and I do not intend to do so. But, Pro erroneously attempts to define “evil” and “omnibenevolent” on observational terms without assuming any greater considerations an omnipotent entity might have. P2. From definition, an omnibenevolent entity would remove as much evil as possible. The Christian doctrine of salvation, for example, asserts that all worldly actions and activities remain subordinate to the Greater Good, the redemption of souls. Death, disease, moral degradation - suffering might superficially belie a good God but actually remains ultimately irrelevant in the grander scheme of eternity. We don’t know what a good or evil God would do because this outpaces the scope of our parochial viewpoint. We can’t even define “good” and “evil” in absolutist terms because these are ultimately metaphysical concepts. Given this, we cannot say that the problem of evil disproves the existence of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God. Occam’s Razor The strength of Occam’s Razor has been historically overstated because it relies on too many cultural contingencies and assumes the primacy of Western epistemologies without considering any other methodologies to obtain knowledge. But more importantly, Occam’s Razor is only applicable to observational contexts, when explanations are within the scope of our analytical tools and vocabularies. How can you predict that an event or being is more or less probable if everything about that being or event lies outside of your predictive scope? The answer is, of course, that you can’t, which is why there is no legitimate default metaphysical position on the probability of God. Agnosticism should be the default position, which holds exactly what I need it to -- that, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent might or could exist. If Pro cannot definitively prove the non-existence of such a being, then Con should win the debate.