Omnipotence and Benevolence are Mutually Exclusive

1) My first argument is more than mere semantics- it is an exercise in rigorous analytical philosophy. If Pro does not uphold strictly what the Resolution claims, he has lost this debate. Regardless of Pro’s intention in drafting the Resolution, this debate is about the Resolution he actually wrote. a) Omnipotence only requires “the power to know everything.” Omniscience is that state of ACTUALLY knowing everything. An omnipotent being could have the power to know everything but choose not to exercise that power. I have the power to know what toilet water tastes like, but I do not have that knowledge because I choose not to exercise that power. A god which is benevolent and omnipotent but unaware of the existence of evil avoids the Epicurean paradox. The resolution does not establish the required knowledge of evil necessary for the Epicurean paradox, so Pro has failed to prove the resolution. b) The example Pro provides fails. The claims “Bob lives in England” and “scottie lives in California” are NOT mutually exclusive. Nothing about one claim precludes or excludes the other. What Pro has shown is that the THREE claims “Bob lives in England,” “Scottie lives in California,” and “Bob and Scottie are flatmates” are exclusive. Only the introduction of the third term of “evil” creates a contradiction between omnipotence and benevolence. The bulk of this debate is centering over what is entailed by the evil in the world and whether evil is necessary or even exists. This demonstrates that evil is the key part of Pro’s paradox, and it isn’t even in the Resolution. The paradox is not generated by omnipotence and benevolence, it is generated by evil. Pro’s definition of mutually exclusive requires that “the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other.” Nothing about omnipotence or benevolence precludes the other. 2a) I clearly defined free will: “Moral freedom requires the ability to freely choose the good. Such a choice requires the real possibility for people to choose to act in an evil manner. “ Free will is the ability to choose the good and the just without compulsion. The superiority of decisions made freely is supported by moral wisdom: we value those who volunteer, donate to charity, and are spontaneously kind while we place no moral value on those who engage in the acts because they are forced to. 2b) I don’t know what Pro’s argument is. Pro says I have some idea of compromise- I do not know what he is referring to. I made the argument that a benevolent god would desire the best of morally free agents, and this requires the opportunity to flourish and grow. A benevolent god would not place his creation in a pain-free safety box to keep them free of harm, but would place them on a wonderful playground to allow them freedom to explore and be joyous. His creation may scrape its knee on the playground, but if this possibility did not exist it would not be a playground at all. 3a) Omnipotence does not entail the ability to do what is logically impossible. If it is logically impossible for a world without evil to exist, then an omnipotent god could not create it. If Pro insists that omnipotence means the ability to do the impossible, then his paradox is resolved. Benevolence, omnipotence, and evil can coexist because god is not bound by the laws of logic and can do logically contradictory things. 3b) I don’t know what Pro finds subjective about my idea of value. He has offered no argument against my argument that a world with evil could be more valuable than a world without it. Maybe a world without evil would require a world without ice cream and maybe the value of ice cream outweighs the negative value of evil. It’s a possibility, and as long as it is possible I have refuted resolution. 4) Pro totally ignores my argument. It may be the case that evil is illusory- that evil events only appear evil due to the limited perspective of humanity. It could be the case that from the perspective of god, the totality of creation is good. My Batman example shows how “evil” events can result in a more beautiful and grand picture than could exist without “evil.” Certainly we all agree that a world with Batman is better than a world without Batman, yet “evil” is required for Batman to exist. Ergo, a world with evil is not really evil at all, its just a world with Batman.