An Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God Cannot Exist

--- Definitions: Metaphysics: "[P]hilosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space" and "[A]bstract theory . .. with no basis in reality. "[1] Extend all of my previous definitions as correct, because my opponent did not offer any alternative definitions. --- 2C1: "All knowledge is observational[. ] . .. . We have no . .. reason to believe . .. the laws of logic . .. apply to a metaphysical realm . .. or . .. metaphysical knowledge is . .. possible. . .. . Pro . .. attempts to define “evil” and “omnibenevolent” on observational terms without [considering] any greater considerations an omnipotent entity might have. . .. . The . .. doctrine of salvation, for example, asserts . .. all worldly actions . .. remain subordinate to . .. the redemption of souls. . .. . We don’t know what a good or evil God would do because this outpaces . .. our parochial viewpoint. We can’t even define “good” and “evil” . .. because these are metaphysical concepts. " 1. Clearly the Problem of Evil is within the scope of observational knowledge, as we observe both the existence of evil and the lack of a metaphysical being's removal of said evil. Regardless of what metaphysical characteristics a metaphysical being has, it clearly has not removed evil. And seeing as we are defining omnipotent and omnibenevolent using observational terms (ie, the scope and nature of how a god would interact with the universe), we can observe whether or not these such an interaction is actually present in our world. Again, it clearly has not interacted in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent way, and, as such, the Problem of Evil applies and disproves an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. 2. We have two scenarios for the doctrine of salvation. The first in which an omnipotent being has fully unlimited power, not constrained by logic. In this world, an omnipotent being could simultaneously remove evil and achieve ALL other requirements, regardless of their contradictory nature, because it can do literally anything. As such, the Problem of Evil applies. The second in which an omnipotent being has unlimited power, but is constrained by logic. In this world, an omnipotent being would not have to wait to save people's souls, when it could simply force their souls to be saved. Unless my opponent has additional constrains on how souls can be saved, the Problem of Evil applies. 3. I would ask my opponent to provide a definition of good/evil that would be consistent with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god's interactions with the universe that also makes a statement about what the universe ought to be. Moreover, if we are working within our observational framework, it is possible to see that certain consequences (such as the death of or reduction of quality of life of a person) are inherently bad, because they reduce our ability to resolve problems like this and determine what good and evil truly are. --- 2C2: "My opponent . .. asserted . .. I must prove an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God exists. " My apologies, I meant "can exist", as you pointed out. --- 2C3A: "Occam’s Razor has been historically overstated[,] . .. relies on . .. cultural contingencies[,] and assumes . .. primacy of Western epistemologies without considering . .. other [ways] to obtain knowledge. " 1st. Please provide a citation for Occam's Razor being "historically overstated" and a reason that this is important. 2nd. "Cultural contingencies" would mean "a future event . .. that is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty" [3] "of or relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society" [2]. I do not know what you mean by this, please explain. 3rd. Please prove that Occam's Razor "assumes . .. primacy of Western epistemologies" and a reason that this is important. 4th. Please provide examples of "other [ways] to obtain knowledge" and reasons that they are valid methods. --- 2C3B: "Occam’s Razor is only applicable . .. when explanations are within the scope of our analytical tools[. ] How can you predict that an event . .. is more or less probable if . .. that . .. event lies outside of your predictive scope? . .. [Y]ou can’t, which is why there is no . .. default metaphysical position on . .. God. Agnosticism should be the default position . .. that, an omnibenevolent, omnipotent [entity] . .. could exist. If Pro cannot . .. prove the non-existence of such a being . .. Con should win the debate. " 1st. My opponent states both that "there is no . .. default metaphysical position on . .. God" and that "[a]gnosticism should be the default position. " I'm certain that this is just a typo. 2nd. If we truly cannot know anything about a metaphysical being or the metaphysical portions of a being, then we would assume that the being or the portions of a being do not exist. Occam's Razor doesn't apply to "events", but to explanations. And if an explanation includes a metaphysical being (without evidence) then it is inherently more complex than one which does not include a metaphysical being (without evidence). The reason why Occam's Razor is so useful is partially because it avoids problems that occur when people invoke needlessly complex explanations, including those beyond what our current predictive scope, such as hard-core pseudoscience or the supernatural or the metaphysical to explain events. If you can't back X up, X falls, regardless of X possibly being true when expand our predictive scope. As such, Occam's Razor still applies. --- References: [1] . https://www.google.com... [2] . https://www.google.com... [3] . https://www.google.com...