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

From the very beginning, I made it clear what my subject was. I said that a god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil cannot logically coexist with evil. That was my point, and I proved it. Please vote Pro. Con's objection seems to be that I shouldn't have used the word "omnibenevolent" to stand for the phrase "totally opposed to evil. " He likes to use the same word with another meaning. He never intended, apparently, to discuss the subject matter of this debate. As near as I can make him out, his whole purpose has been to chastise me for misusing his word. His attempts to hijack this thread cost me and our readers time and effort, with no upside. He deliberately wasted our time. That's worth a conduct point. Please vote Pro a conduct point. Con wrote: Pro claims to know the absolute definitions of “omnibenevolence” and “evil”. I never made such a claim. I made it clear what I meant by "omnipotence. " That doesn't bind anyone else in any other circumstance, but it did make clear what this debate is about. I did offer one possible definition of evil, but I repeatedly offered to let Con submit another. The problem of evil works regardless of what definition is used, as I made clear. Con never took me up on this, never submitted another meaning for the word "evil. " And now he says I claim to know the "absolute definitions" of these words, by which I assume he means that I claim to know what definitions his god uses. I made no such claim. I only provided definitions so that people would know what I meant by the words. Con's complaint is unfounded. I said nothing like what he accuses me of saying. I don't even see how he could say that in good faith. I think Con's accusation, made in reckless disregard of the truth, is grounds for voting me the conduct point. Please vote Pro a conduct point. Con wrote: Conclusion Pro wants to win the debate by making arbitrary stipulations to God’s traits and then claiming that God has not met the stipulations. I have demonstrated that one particular kind of god does not exist. Well anyone can disprove anything by doing that. I can't disprove Con's god. I can only disprove the god who is the subject of this debate (the one I call, "tri-omni," and Con calls, "strawgod") because that god's characteristics are self-contradictory. 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. That would be pointless. But, on the other hand, if Con set up a debate on that topic, and if I accepted that debate, then that is the topic I would have to discuss. It would be poor behavior if I accepted that debate and then insisted on talking about something else. I accepted this debate and argued primarily that Pro can not account for his definition of omnibenevolence. I don't even know what that means. "Account for"? What I know is that if there were a god, and if he were omnipotent and omniscient and totally against evil, then evil couldn't exist. I don't see any part of that that I should "account for. " Pro is now relying on the claim that since I acceped the debate, it means that I have to accept his definitions. I never did. I'd like to see a debate between Con and Einstein. Einstein: "In my equation, E=M * C squared, E stands for energy. " Con: "E is a vitamin. Everybody knows that. And MC is a rapper, a rapper who, I must insist, is not at all square. " Einstein: "Excuse me. That's not what I'm discussing. " Con: "You think you get to decide what you're discussing? Well, anyone could disprove anything by doing that. "