The Christian God Does not Exist

Resolution: The Christian God Does not Exist Definition: The Christian God, as described in the Bible and possessing the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. As Pro it is my role to affirm that the Christian God as described above does not exist and can not exist because he is a logical impossibility. It is the role of Con to affirm that the God described above is a logical possibility. In taking this debate my opponent recognises that the truth or falsity of God's existence is a matter that can be decided using logic, he recognises the Bible as a valid source for the nature of God irrespective of whether or not the stories are intended to be literal or allegorical. Any deviation from this will be taken as conceding the debate. Ordinarily I avoid making a positive case for the non-existence of God but I feel that I must at least attempt to do so in order to try and repair the damage caused to this site by my fellow atheist, the egregious troll known as Izbo. --- Argument 1: The Problem of Evil (Suffering) Though much maligned by the activities of a recent troll, the problem of evil is still worthy of consideration. Evil however is very much a vague concept, suffering though also subjective is universally understood and experienced, and seems to cut right to the centre of what the Problem of Evil questions. P1: If the Christian God exists he is aware of all suffering (omniscient), Capable of ending all suffering (omnipotent) and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent). P2: Suffering exists. P3: Therefore the Christian God does not exist. As I see my opponent has only two ways to refute the Problem of Suffering. Refutation One: God Lacks one or more of the Omni-Characteristics My opponent may argue that God lacks one of the Omni-Characteristics, perhaps he is Omniscient, Omnipotent but not omnibenevolent? However as the argument is predicated on the existence of a being with all three attributes such an argument causes them to concede their position. Refutation Two My opponent may argue that suffering is necessary to allow happiness. However this argument seeks to impose limitations on the power of God. An omnipotent being is able to create happiness without any restrictions and indeed would want to. My opponent may seek to counter that his definition of Omnipotence is Logical Omnipotence, not Maximal Omnipotence, and that logically suffering and happiness must exist alongside each other. To justify such an argument he will have to demonstrate that creation is possessed of the greatest possible amount of Happiness and the least possible amount of suffering that is logically possible to create. He will also have to justify how God could keep suffering absent from the Garden of Eden and how he will keep suffering absent from heaven, but can not or will not do that on earth. --- Argument 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist. 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. --- Argument 3: The Great Flood Genesis 6:5 to 6:7 states, 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. http://www.biblegateway.com... How does an omniscient being regret his actions? God would have had full knowledge of the consequences of his actions. 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. --- Argument 4: The Tower of Babel In Genesis 11:4 to 11:7 it is recorded that, "4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." http://www.biblegateway.com... Reading the text God is not omniscient on two counts, not omnipotent on one count, and not omnibenevolent on one count. 1: God is not omniscient, he learns of the tower being built and reacts to this. If he was omniscient he would have had prior knowledge of the intention to build the tower of Babel. 2: God is not omniscient, the building of the tower attracts his attention and he 'came down' to see it. If he was omniscient he would have known every detail of the event throughout all of time. 3: God is not omnipotent, he fears the ambition of mankind, he regards it as a threat that he has to nullify. 4: God is not omnibenevolent. He does not want what is best for mankind, he wants us to be divided and unable to co-operate. --- I believe that these four arguments provide a sufficiently robust argument to affirm the resolution and look forward to my opponents rebuttal.