The Problem of Evil Proves that Tri-Omni Gods Do Not Exist.

Pre-debate“Con has some confused (at least unclear to me) claim based on our discussions elsewhere. If you follow his link, you'll see that I was perfectly clear even there. When he told me I should argue about god's moral perfection, I declined. When he asked how I would argue, I gave him a preview. When he read my preview, he said he would have to change his argument in order to respond.”The readers can see for themselves what Pro and I said by following this link.http://www.debate.org...“And yet, here he is refusing to change his argument. He's still saying that I can't refute some other god, when I'm only interested (in this debate) in refuting the omnipotent omniscient god who tolerates evil even while being totally opposed to evil.”I said that that my argument will be different depending on Pro’s syllogism. That’s exactly what happened. After looking at Pro’s definition and syllogism, I decided to refute the resolution by challenging Pro’s definition of omnibenevolnce.Accepting Definitions“Con claims that he didn't agree to my definition of "omnibenevolent." How not? I set out the definition on my opening post. He read the post, and then he agreed to the debate.”Pro is again claiming that since I accepted the debate, it automatically means that I accepted all of his definitions.1. Accepting a debate does not mean that you accepted your opponents definition, unless it is agreed upon before hand.2. I did not accept Pro’s definitions when I accepted the debate, I accepted the debate to challenge the resolution, and I challenged his definition of omnibenevolence as part of my argument against the resolution. I did this right off the bat in round 1, and I will continue to do so.3. I assumed that our definition of God is the Christian God since Pro knew prior to the start of the debate that I will be defending the Christian God, but after my first post where I criticized him of not actually arguing against the Christian God, Pro starts claiming that he is in fact just arguing a strawgod.Strawgodding“I not only didn't admit to it, I didn't do it. And Con should not have misrepresented me.”I will forgive Pro here, since I did not really explain what I meant by strawgodding. What I meant by strawgodding is simply creating a god with arbitrary traits and arguing agaisnt it. The readers can see for themselves that Con both did this and admitted to it. I am not however accusing Pro of claiming that I believe in this strawgod that he created.I pointed out that in refusing to use the PoE as an INTERNAL critique of the Christian Worldview (which claims the opposite of the PoE), his argument was reduced to an argument against a strawgod that he himself created.1. He accomplishes nothing.2. He knew beforehand that I will be defending the Christian God.“The fact is, I'm not arguing against Con's god.”“I set out to show that evil could not exist if there were a god who was omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. Con agrees with me. He stipulates that such a god is not compatible with evil. Or, we could put it another way: If evil exists, then that particular god does not exist.”Pro again admits that his argument does not even argue against my God. I conceded that Pro’s strawgod does not exist. But Pro claims that by this concession, I have conceded the full resolution of the debate. I think Pro forgot that the Christian Worldview, which he refuses to argue against, claims that a tri-omni God exists simultaneously with evil. I did not concede the full resolution of this debate since refuting the Pro’s strawgod does not prove his resolution.“I'm arguing against an omnipotent, omniscient, and totally-opposed-to-evil god who nonetheless coexists with evil. That god does not exist because it cannot exist. Which point, Con concedes repeatedly.”Yes, indeed I agreed that that particular God can not logically exist with evil. But I argued that since omnibenevolence does NOT necessarily mean TOTALLY opposed to evil, a tri-omni God is still logically compatible with evil. This is why the debate revolves around the defintion of omnibenevolence.Back to the PoE DebatePerhaps It’s my fault for trying to stay 2 arguments ahead of Pro. I will try clarify my position, and my argument against the resolution of the debate.The full resolution of the debate:“It is not possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god to coexist with evil.I completely disagree. Con’s formulation of the argument:“An omnibenevolent god would want to prevent evil if he could. An omnipotent god would be able to prevent evil if he wanted to. A god both omnipotent and omnibenevolent would both want to and be able to prevent evil. And no evil would slip past or baffle an omniscient god. If a tri-omni god existed, then, there would be no evil.” Sounds like the typical logical PoE argument so far and the typical refutation is:God being omnibenevolent, does not necessitate that He eliminate and prevent all evil. Rather, what follows is that God will eliminate or prevent all evil, UNLESS he has a morally sufficient reason not to do so. The fact that evil exists does not at all undeniably prove that a tri-omni God can not logically exist. Because if God has a morally sufficient reason to permit evil, then God retains all of his traits while evil exists, refuting the logical PoE claim. That is the standard response that refutes the logical PoE. And this alone wins me the debate, so "VOTE CON!"But here’s the issue, looking at Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence, I know that he will not accept this response and claim that God is no longer omnibenevolent since according to Pro, an omnibenevolent God would not permit evil for ANY reason whatsoever.In anticipating this, I jumped on the opportunity to point out what every Christian apologist knows; that the unbeliever does not have a moral standard outside of the Christian worldview. In other words, my opponent does not have an absolute and universal standard of good that he can use to judge God's actions, and therefore will not be able to account for his definition of omni-good. “Con challenges me to provide prove that god doesn't have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating evil. That would only be relevant if I were talking about Con's god, who is morally perfect. Let me make it clear, yes even unto the point of tedium, that I am not talking about morality. ”No, I did not challenge Con to prove that God doesn’t have a morally sufficient reason for tolerating evil. I challenged Pro to prove that God, in permitting evil, loses His omnibenevolence. To do this Pro must undeniably substantiate his definition of omnibenevolence.Pro says that he is not talking about morality, and he’s even said, “I don't claim to understand morality.” Yet Pro claims to know the absolute definitions of “omnibenevolence” and “evil”. You see, Pro must first pressupose the system where words like omnibenevolence and evil can be absolutely and universally defined in order to argue against it.ConclusionPro wants to win the debate by making arbitrary stipulations to God’s traits and then claiming that God has not met the stipulations. Well anyone can disprove anything by doing that. Like I’ve said, Pro might as well define omnipotence as being able to microwave a burrito so hot that even He can’t eat, then claim that God is therefore not omnipotent by definition.I accepted this debate and argued primarily that Pro can not account for his definition of omnibenevolence. Pro is now relying on the claim that since I accepted the debate, it means that I have to accept his defintions. I never did and if the readers decide that I did, and that therefore Pro proves his resolution by default, then that is perfectly fine with me since MY tri-omni God is uneffected, and Pro’s argument only refutes a God that no one believes exists anyways.