Take 2: The existence of unnecessary suffering makes a perfect God impossibole

As I will not be able to respond to my opponents final statement, please keep these arguments in mind. Definition of Good and its Application to SufferingI defined good as “To be desired or approved of.” Suffering was defined as “the state or experience of one that endures pain, death, etc.” Humans and just about every other living thing that is able to experience suffering spend there existence trying to avoid pain, death, and other forms of suffering. Additionally, to further clarify this point: It is clear that what is not beneficial is not desired or approved of. Unnecessary is not beneficial. Therefore, unnecessary suffering is not good. Con didn’t like my definition of “good,” though my refutation of his reasoning for objection went unchallenged. In the most recent round Con wrote: “If Merriam Webster’s definition for ‘good’ is what gave your grounds to say suffering is ‘bad’ then you have no adequate grounds to say suffering is bad.” I have just explained why the dictionary definition of “good” is in opposition to the agreed upon definition of “suffering.” I am also rather perplexed by the statement I just quoted given the following statement that was made not long after it: “Of course I don’t have prove that this debate. It’s only been my job to show you haven’t proved your own case that suffering is bad. I suggest something like an appeal C.S. Lewis makes in the Tao is your only chance at doing such. If you explore the link I gave above that contains the appendix of ‘the abolition of man’ where every claim about what is ‘good’ is defended by a variety of belief structures from across the world, including things like Ancient Egyptian writings, Stoic philosophers from Rome, Ancient Chinese, Hebrew Law, Noirs religious writings, and more.” Con argues that the standard for determining whether suffering is good or bad should be something like his source that includes a variety of belief structure’s opinions. The thing is, however, that my dictionary definition is simply a much simpler way of expressing what he expresses in that paragraph. Obviously if multiple belief systems reject something as good, then it is not desired and not approved of: it is not good. So, Con’s challenge to my definition is really a non-challenge. God and Time This section of Con’s argument is rather flawed. The main idea he expressed was that the future was not fixed and can therefore not be known. While this is true, the idea he failed to acknowledge is that once an event occurs within a singular universe, that event cannot be undone. Con wrote: “I argue if you were outside of time and could see the future you would see the future does not have much definition yet. That if you built a time machine car, drove to the future observed it, changed nothing, came back, then drove to the future again, you could quite possibly be in a very deferent future. That basically if you saw the future you would see multiple futures, and they remain all possible futures until the moment in time that is the present reaches the points were we make the choices that bring us into only certain kinds of those futures.” The time machine thing different futures thing is flawed. As long as you are traveling back and forth within the same universe and your time travel does not affect the events you are observing, you should see a repeat of the same event. Why? Because, like I stated, once something happens within a universe, that thing has happened and will remain having happened within that universe. God would therefore be able to know what event happened before it happened. Con also argued that knowledge of future events for which the outcome had not been determined is logically impossible in the same way that creating a triangle with four sides is. Con wrote: “Knowing everything does not mean knowing what isn’t there to be known.” This is true, I suppose, but knowing the future is something that is there to be known for a being that exists outside of time. The Baby argument In the previous round I asked why a baby that has committed no sin should be subject to suffering such as disease. Con’s answer was: “What an infant deserves is irrelevant to this debate resolution as I have said the world they were born in was forged that way by there parents and ancestors, all the bad in it anyway.” What he is saying is that a baby can deserve to suffer because of the actions of its parents and ancestors. That’s basically saying is that it’s alright to murder torture and do anything else you want to a baby because you don’t like that his or her parents’ or grandparents’ or ancestor’s a thousand years ago’s actions. I have already established that unnecessary suffering is undesired and therefore not good. Causing suffering upon an innocent baby is unnecessary as that baby bears no responsibility for the actions of its parents. The Animal Argument This argument is pretty similar to the baby argument. I have already demonstrated that unnecessary suffering is bad. Suffering of animals such as diseases and natural disasters, i.e. things that are uncaused by other living organisms choices, is undeserved and therefore unnecessary. Free Will I agree that if we do not have free will, then this debate would definitely by different. The reason I conceded this point is that I am not aware of sufficient evidence to conclusively claim one way or the other on this issue. But regardlessly, the arguments I have made in this round and the preceding rounds do not depend on us not having free will, therefore the point is irrelevant. Summary and Conclusion P1. If there exists unnecessary suffering in the world, a perfect God is incapable of existing. I have demonstrated that unnecessary suffering is undesired and and not beneficial, and is therefore not good. I have also demonstrated in this debate that a perfect God would be able to prevent unnecessary suffering if it existed. A perfect God would also know what suffering would occur in the future. Therefore, if suffering exists that is not necessary for some greater good, then an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good God cannot. P2. There exists unnecessary suffering in the world. The baby argument is probably the most basic example of this. However, numerous examples of such suffering exist. Also of note here is my point that the “sins” of humans do not directly cause events such as natural disasters and disease, that God must have decided that these things should begin to occur. C. Therefore, a perfect God is incapable of being. I demonstrated that the conclusion follows logically from the premises, an argument that Con did not challenge. Therefore, if the premises are true, which I have shown them to be, the conclusion must also be true. I’d like to thank Marauder for participating in this debate. I’d also like to thank those who have taken the time to read this debate and the unfinished one preceding it. I have successfully fulfilled my burden of proof and the resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!!