The Problem of evil is a good argument against God and Theodicy.

>>>>This debate has been very much a disappointment<<<< /////"You just stated that an omnibenevolent god is, by definition, always fair. So, if it is always fair, it should be fair to everyone, in everyone's eyes, instead of just one being. " That impossible, you can't make something fair for everyone. It's like making a single colour leaf both red and blue. 'fair' is different to everyone. It is relative. Reread round 2. Fair to me and you is not the same as fair to god or someone is Mecca. It's really that simple. By calling something fair you're giving it value, value from who? One self. If I shot person A and give $20 to person B what makes it unfair? Because killing someone is bad and giving money is good? Says who? Morality. Under Moral Relativism, morals are subjective. Some bipolar Sociopath might find murder salvation. [Eg. Heaven's Gate] /////"You just told me to prove a negative. The B. o. P is upon you to prove that God does have a moral code separate from us, since you are the one asserting he does. You can;t just say prove that he doesn't; that is fail. You have the B. o. P and you cannot just try and pass it on. It is logically upon you. " I don't have the burden of proof. Learn your logical fallacies. This is a negative proof fallacy or 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' argument from ignorance ON YOUR PART. You're saying God has 'X'. I'm saying God doesn't have 'X', prove he does. Who has the burden? Who? You, it's your assertion! You're mistaking the instigator of the assertion as the instigator of the debate/topic. How do you know that God finds anything lovely, evil, indifferent? You don't know. There's no way you can know. Christians have the bible to tel whats good or bad not what's fair(in gods eyes). I'm not saying: "god loves 'X'" I'm saying: "you don't know god 'X'. ////And you are the one -asserting- it isn't. The B. o. P is upon you. As above. //His morality might be better than ours, after all he's omniscience and you're not. // //I think you mean omni benevolent. And you used the wrong form of omniscient right there. All knowing - Omniscience [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Also, "omnibenevolent" is one word. >>"pencil dropping analogy"<< "Actually, there will be neutral actions left. For instance, a good act would be to pick up a pencil someone dropped. A neutral act would be to not help, but not hurt either. . .. Wrong. Neutrality would be a zero, and good acts would rank higher than zero. See my pencil dropping analogy above. Neutral acts, you neither help nor hinder. Good acts, you help. Bad acts, you hinder. Nothing too confusing there. " We removed the ability to hinder. What is left is support and non action/neutrality. Support to emotion is subjective. If there's no ability to be hindered one won't even consider the possibility of being hindered. Your analogy still assumes things that hinders still exists. The mind set shifts. What is good is negated because there's no counterpart that gives it value. It is similar with light and the dark. See it from other Theologians below. CS Lewis: "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? .. . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies" St Augustine: "And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present—namely, the diseases and wounds—go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils—that is, privations of the good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else. " ->On the Burden of Proof<- ////-Is of good conduct to do so I said it in the first round; bad conduct is if I changed my mind mid-debate causing you a hindrance and change of style, you accept my rules, my debate. How can I debate you if I have incomplete knowledge of your P. o. E, which you could so easily shift? It's not an attack on conduct. ////-Can be done with such a controversial topic Non sequitur, what has the controversial topic have to do with my debate style? ////-Can just be passed off without acceptance. It is unfair to try and pass of a B. o. P when you are asserting something. I. e. Prove God exists. Prove he doesn't. Argument ad infinitum. I don't think you know what an Argument from ignorance is. I'M NOT MAKING THE ASSERTION. Take this hypothetical situation: Ragnar Rahl challenges GodSands. He's INSTIGATING a debate on god existence with GodSands. Ragnar Rahl says: Prove God exists. God Sands says: Prove he doesn't, you made the claim you back it up, Argumentum ad infinitum. That's EXACTLY what you're doing. Again, how do you know that God finds anything lovely, evil, indifferent? ////--->This topic is not controversial relative to most mainstream debate topics. // ///I'm sure many others aside from myself would beg to differ. Want to debate it? Pro's argument against my main argument is well.