Evil proves God does not exist (Part 3)

I thank Con for his reply. I will now briefly address his arguments. Pro says "there is no objective standard to tell us what acts are evil". .. but I did not present an argument what acts are objectively good or objectively evil' The above is a Strawman. In other words, Con is presenting an argument I did not make and arguing against it. I did not claim that there is no objective standard to tell us what acts are evil. What I did was to argue from both points of view; from the existence of objective morality and from the non-existence. What Con is selectively equoting above is part of my argument in the section that assumes non-existence of objective morality. I also did not claim that Con presented any argument about what is objectively good or evil. That question is not even relevant. 'You would have to provide more argument in your parody to prove that impossibility, you didn't as such your argument leaves open the option that bumba vomited the sun. Lack of evidence doesn't prove impossibility. If your going to claim something is impossible you need more than lack of evidence to back that up. ' Again, this is a misdirection. My argument was that the fact of existence of anything (morality, sun, universe) does not of itself admit the possibility of any specific conceivable cause of it. And I stand by that. The most one can say is that "if objective morality exists then there must be a cause of it" . 'No, it does succeed until it is proved that God does not exist, or God can't be the objective moral standard, until proven other wise its still a possibility. ' I disagree for the reason already presented above. In effect Con's "objective morality makes god possible" argument is a red herring. Either the argument from evil is correct and God can't be the cause of morality or the argument from evil is incorrect, in which case I lose the debate in any event. Thus, Con's claim is irrelevant. It does not bear on the subject of the debate at all. "Indeed Pro, but have you done so is the question ? Call me biased but I am going to say nope" What I did with the question is to show that it's irrelevant to the debate and it presents circular reasoning. If the Argument from Evil is successful then God cannot be the source of morality because God cannot exist. And, as I have stated previously, there are many proposed sources of objective morality (proposed by objective moralists, that is). 'Next time you use a parody argument, where God is represented as bumba, you should actually have a parody argument that proves bumba and thus God doesn't exist. ' FIrstly, the Bumba argument was not a parody argument. The argument followed exactly the same line of reasoning as Con's. What's more, Bumba is not a contrived entity, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Pink Invisible Elephant in the corner of my room. Bumba is a deity that people actually believe in. There is no parody in my argument. Secondly, I don't need to disprove anything in that section of the argument. As I stated above, my opponent's attempt at proving a possibility of a god is (apart from being irrational) irrelevant. It has no bearing on the debate. 'But seeking a morally good world is ambigous in this premise. Now maybe Pro means that by "seeking" pro really means God would not allow any evil to exist at all. But as I asked before why can't God have sufficent moral reason for allowing evil ? ' I have answered this. Again, a world in which evil exists is a less morally good world than a world in which evil does not exist (it's a truism). A morally good agent must wish for the most morally good possible world. And the most morally good possible world is a world in which there is no evil. 'How should one go about seeking a morally good world ? Why can't seeking a morally good world include the temporary existence of evil ? Again if Pro claims God can't have moral sufficent reason for allowing evil, then why not ? ' I have already demonstrated that it is self-evident (it's a truism) that a perfectly moral world (at all times) is a more moral world than a world that is not perfectly moral. Again consider two worlds: 1. A world that's temporarily immoral and then completely moral; 2. A world that is completely moral at all times. Clearly, the latter world is (by definition) more moral than the former. And yet, that's not the world we have. If a morally good omnipotent god existed, he/she/it could have created a world populated by morally good agents; a world that would be perfectly moral. That's not the world we have, because evil exists. Therefore, there can't exist such a god. Con's closing argument '1) Pros arguments implied and rested on the assumption that an objective moral standard exists. ' Again, no. Con's definition of a god (defined as "morally good") necessitated the existence of objective morality. All I did was to adopt it. I was locked into it and had no choice in the matter. That said, my argument succeeds whether or not there is objective morality. That's because evil exists in either case, as shown in Round 3. '2) Pro did not prove that God could not be that objective moral standard. ' Yes, I did prove that. God (as defined by Con) cannot exist and therefore such a god cannot be the source of any objective morality. And why cannot such a god exist? Because a morally good god would necessarily want a world that is morally good. And an omnipotent god could create such a world by populating it with morally good agents. And that's not what has taken place. Hence, a morally good and all-powerful god does not exist. And a non-existing entity cannot be the source of objective morality. '3) Pro did not prove that God can't have morally sufficient reason to allow evil to exist. ' Again, I did. A morally good entity must seek to maximise moral goodness. And moral goodness is not maximised by creating a world where (even temporary) evil exist. Imagine a doctor who wants to cut cure you of a disease so that you don't suffer pain. The doctor can do this painlessly (by using anasthetic) or he can perform a very painful procedure instead. A doctor who wants to minimise pain will choose the former. By the same token, if a morally good god existed, it could have created a morally good world with no evil at all. Conclusion I have demonstrated that a god as defined would necessarily want to minimise evil. An all-powerful god would also be able to minimise evil. Evil is not minimised. Therefore such a god cannot exist. This argument applies whether or not there is an objective morality. Evil exists in either case, as shown in Round 3. The assumption of objective morality does not defeat the argument by magically making God possible. Con's argument in this regard is irrelevant. It would carry some water if a god were the only arguable source of objective morality. But that's not the case. I have shown that there are a number of alternatives proposed by moral objectivists. Finally, an entity whose one and only normative attribute is moral goodness (and Con defined God in just such a way) cannot want anything more than a morally good world. This is self-evident and it holds true without having to consider what particular things are morally good or morally bad. And the morally best world is a world populated by entities that are morally identical to the creator; a world populated by morally good entities. Since the world we have is not a morally good world (evil exists), it can't have been created by a morally good and all-powerful god, such as defined by Con in R1. Thank you for this debate.