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

The Essence of This Debate: 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. That's what I undertook to prove, and I have proven it even to my opponent's satisfaction. He has repeatedly conceded that point, which is the only point in contention. Vote Pro. === Notes and Asides: What's left to discuss? 1. Con seems to wish I were trying to refute a different god. He thinks an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-moral god could coexist with evil. I don't know that such could coexist with evil, but I also don't see how we could productively debate the subject, since we aren't likely to agree about morality. The fact is, I'm not arguing against Con's god. 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. Vote Pro. 2. 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. I was perfectly clear as to what we would be debating, and he agreed to the debate. Or did he not read the opening post before agreeing to the debate? If not, that was his mistake, not mine. I was perfectly clear. In fact, I think this is worth a conduct point. I was clear about what I wanted to debate, and he keeps trying to hijack the debate so we discuss something else. As a judge, I've given conduct points for that in other debates. 3. 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. 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. That god doesn't exist, and Con agrees that it doesn't exist. Vote Pro. That god is clearly the topic of this debate, and Con's attempts to hijack the thread so we can talk about other gods should cost him a conduct point. Vote Pro a conduct point. 4. Con says I admit to strawgodding. I think that's a lie, and I think it's worth a conduct point. Had I defeated one argument while pretending to defeat another, I would be committing the strawman fallacy. If I refuted one god while pretending to refute another, that would be strawgodding. But I am not strawgodding. I have never pretended that the god I disprove (omnipotent, omniscient, totally opposed to evil, yet coexisting with evil) is the god Con believes in (presumably, some other god). I have been perfectly clear about this, to the point of tedium, and yet Con accuses me of strawgodding. I don't see that he can say that in good conscience. I think it is worth the conduct point. Now it's true that when Con called the god I discuss a "strawgod," I adopted that label for purposes of clarification. I refute the one god while Con defends another. I called mine the strawgod, and called his, "Con's god. " So, yes, I did use the "strawgod," label. But when Con charges that I have admitted to strawgodding, he's clearly saying something else. He's accusing me of a strawman argument, and claiming that I admitted to doing that. I not only didn't admit to it, I didn't do it. And Con should not have misrepresented me. 4. 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. If Con's god tolerates evil for perverse moral reasons, then that is not the god I am disproving. I am disproving the god who does not tolerate evil. I couldn't possibly be more clear about this. Conclusion: The topic of this debate is whether an omnipotent omniscient god who totally opposes evil would tolerate evil. I proved my case. Con agrees that I proved that case.