The Christian God Does not Exist

Con's opening paragraph and footnote is correct, to paraphrase. If I fail to uphold my burden then I fail to demonstrate that God is a logical impossibility, therefore he would be a logical possibility and so arguments should fall to con. ---Re: Argument 1: The Problem of Evil (Suffering). NB: I will be using my opponents subdivisions into a and b. (a) My opponent replies that,"He asserts that God is omnibenevolent, but this is not true. "This is an annoying reply for a number of reasons, firstly I was clear in the opening argument we were discussing the,"The Christian God, as described in the Bible and possessing the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. "He has accepted the terms of this debate, if he is now unwilling or unable to address the issue of omnibenevolence he must conceed. Indeed I already preemptied such a refutation in R1 where I state that my opponent may seek to address the Paradox of the problem of evil by arguing that God is not possessed of the three omni-characteristics, I made it quite clear thatAs the argument is predicated on the existence of a being with all three attributes such an argument causes them to concede their position. Therefore at this point in the debate my opponent has conceded, presumably he will address this issue in the next round. (b) My opponent replies that,"Even viewing the first premise in the most favorable light, he assumes without justification that a being entirely comprised of love would automatically end all suffering. This premise is not established, therefore you are to reject it immediately. " My opponent does not have the freedom to view the first premise in a favourable or an unfavourable light as it is based upon the attributes my opponent has agreed to accept. That is to say a being possessed of the omni-characteristics. It is self evident that such a God would be aware of all suffering (omniscient), would have the power to end all suffering (omnipotent), and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent). It is self evident because this is what these terms mean. Nowhere in P1 did I mention a being comprised of love automatically ending all suffering. My opponent further states that,"Furthermore, I'd note an example as simple as loving parents. Many do in fact love their children, but have allowed them to suffer many times throughout history even when being capable of providing aid. Clearly, one cannot simply take P1 for granted or deem it "common sense. ""This is not a valid analogy, parents are not possessed of any omni-characteristics, this is not even relevant. A parent may indeed be cruel to their children, this does not create a logical paradox. My opponent attempts to address P2 and P3 by stating,"One can be capable of and have desire of performing an action, yet still not perform said action. I may be capable of robbing a bank and I may even have the desire to rob a bank in order to secure additional finances. Nonetheless, I can also have to desire to adhere to my morals. If desire for the latter is greater, I will not go through with said action. "This again is not a valid analogy, we are again talking about omni-characteristics. If my opponent could demonstrate that an omnipotent, omni-avaricious bank robber (that is one possessed of absolute power and absolute greed) would not rob a bank, then it would become a valid analogy. My opponent further states,Preemptive refutation (1): a) I have denied the 'omni' connotation. This refutation does not satisfy my objection, therefore gets dismissed. b) Omni not only fails in terms of benevolence, but also 'potence. ' There are many abilities God lacks and this once again goes back to the instigator's poor decision to appeal to hyper literalism. I do not believe my opponent has taken sufficient time to read the debate, he does not realise that he is not in a position to deny the omni connatation. The debate is written to require to affirm the three stated omni-characteristics of God. To summarise, I have shown how the Problem of Evil leads to a logical paradox for the omni God. My opponent has apparently accepted this and so has refused to argue for the omni God thus conceding the debate. Preemptive refutation (2): See 'b. ' Also, I contend that suffering is not necessary to allow happiness. It is nonetheless necessary to allow freedom and accountability. My opponent needs to explain how suffering is necessary to allow freedom and accountability, hinting at it is not sufficient to refute the Problem of Evil. Preemptive refutation (3): I have not made this argument, therefore you are obligated to dismiss this rebuttalThere was no Preemptive refutation 3. I do not believe my opponet has taken sufficient time to read this debate. The Problem of Evil is Affirmed. ---RE: Argument 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist. My opponent states, Seeing as I don't subscribe to either omnibenevolence or omnipotence at least in the fashion the instigator does and have alluded to both concepts being strawmen via hyper literalism, I am not obligated to addres this contention. Again by refusing to accept such terms my opponent forfeits the debate. To repeat argument 2,P1: An omnibenevolent being will always perform the most benevolent act, is unable not to do so. P2: An omnibenevolent being therefore lacks free will. P3: A being without free will can not be described as omnipotent. P4: A being can not posses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. P5: Therefore God does not exist. My opponent replies with,P1: OkayP2: This assumes without justification that the omnibenevolent being hasn't chosen to be omnibenevolent. P3: Chain broken at P2P4 ^P5 ^If he accepts P1, and he does, he also accepts P2. His rebuttal is irrelevant, God can not do otherwise. He has failed to address the fatal contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence. Argument 2 is affirmed. ---Re: Argument 3: The Great FloodEven if my I accept my opponents claim that God is merely saddend by what has occured, as opposed to personally remorseful the onus is on him to demonstrate to address this,"How does an omnibenevolent God deem genocide to be justified? My opponent must show how flooding the earth and killing countless men, women and children was the most benevolent solution to a world of sin that God had intentionally created. "Simply stating that he does that the dead move onto the afterlife is not sufficient, he must demonstrate how their suffering is consistent with omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Argument 3 is therefore affirmed. ---Re: Argument 4: The Tower of BabelHere there are four points,1: The first point is ignored, I am simply supposed to accept that omniscient being behaves unlike an omniscient being throughout his source material and somehow assume that no contradiction is caused.2: "The instigator fails to justify his assumption which he uses to infer that God did not in fact know every detail of the event. How does he reach this conclusion? Dismiss this subpoint entirely until their is justication for it. "The justification for it was in the quote and the emphasis, God comes down to inspect the tower. Yet he is an omniscient being so would know of every single atom of that tower before he even created mankind.3: This refutation refutes itself and supports my interpretation, therefore I don't need to address it.4: There is no mention of supreme arrogance in the text, my opponent has failed to show how I have a false concept of omnibenevolence. Argument 4 is affirmed.