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

Two points before I begin: - I apologize for the formatting. I'm new here, and don't yet know how to make Microsoft Word paste fluently to this site. - Thanks to Rednerrus for participating, and for pointing out that the PoE doesn't refute all gods, doesn't refute all Christian gods, and doesn't refute Rednerrus's god. I hope he has eliminated any readers' confusion on this point. And now my second post: === Con has conceded. Vote Pro. Con agrees that god has the power and knowledge so that he could prevent evil if he wanted to, and that therefore there would be no evil if god were totally opposed to it. God could prevent evil if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to. That's Con's point, and it is my point. It is what I set out to prove, and Con agrees with me. So he has effectively conceded. Con wrote: : … God is also ultimately the one who is allowing the continous : ongoing evil, despite having the power to stop it at anytime. and : Christianity does not at all claim that God is not willing to allow evil. and : That is not exactly the Biblical definition of God's character. So he's agreeing with me that god is not totally opposed to evil. Con's way of coping with the problem of evil is to admit that god is not totally opposed to evil. But that's my point. If god is omnipotent and omniscient, and if evil exists, then god must not be totally opposed to evil. Con is agreeing with me. He even wrote, : The fact that He already allowed evil tells us that He was willing to permit evil. Bingo! That is concession. In my opening post, I wrote: : : I don't know why people who don't believe in a tri-omni : : god argue against the PoE. Many say, "The PoE is wrong; : : god doesn't know the future. " But that's really the PoE's point: : : god doesn't know the future. Not if he's omnipotent and : : omnibenevolent, and if evil exists. Yet here's Con, himself not believing that god is totally opposed to evil, and yet thinking he's arguing against the PoE. Con says that god allows evil for his own purposes. That's my point. That's not a refutation of the problem of evil, rather it is agreeing with it: If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and if evil exists, then god must not be totally opposed to evil. That's what I set out to prove, and Con agrees that I am correct. Con has conceded. Con argues that the reason god doesn't totally oppose evil is that he has some screwy not-opposed-to-evil morality. That's fine with me. For the purposes of this debate, I don't care about the reason. My claim is only that, if evil exists, god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. Con agrees that if god were omnipotent and omnipotent and totally opposed to evil, then evil would not exist. That's a concession. That is the very issue we are debating, and Con has conceded it. Vote Pro. Notes and asides: Con accuses me of strawgodding by suggesting that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. Apparently he's missed the whole point of my argument. I proved that, if he coexists with evil, god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to evil. I'm not strawgodding; I'm proving that that strawgod does not exist. And Con agrees with me: That god cannot exist. Con concedes my point. - Con points out that if we defined "omnibenevolent" differently, then god could be tri-omni and still coexist with evil. I grant this point. There is no argument on any subject that couldn't be defeated by changing the meaning of the words. In my opening post, I defined "omnibenevolence. " I said, : : Benevolence is wanting good, opposing evil. Omnibenevolence, : : then, at a minimum, is totally, infinitely, wholly, strongly, unconflictedly : : wanting there to be no evil. For an omnibenevolent god, opposing evil : : is not on a back burner. Con wasn't bushwhacked by this definition. He agreed to this debate knowing what my definitions were. He knew what issue I wanted to discuss. And he agrees that if we use my definitions, the resolution is correct: I win the debate. But he wants to make the point that if he changes the definitions then my argument no longer works. Well, that doesn't bother me, because there is no argument on any subject that couldn't be defeated by changing the meanings of the words. What's important is that if we do not change the meanings of the words, then the resolution is proven to be correct, and Con agrees that it is correct, and every reader should vote Pro. As I may have pointed out in my opening statement, some Christians don't believe god knows the future. But they still call him omniscient. And I've talked with one Christian who doesn't think god can supersize fries, but he still calls him omnipotent. In other contexts, Con is welcome to call his tolerant-of-evil god "omnibenevolent" if he wants to, but in this debate I have defined the word. And Con agreed to that definition by accepting the debate. And he agreed that if we use definition, then god cannot be tri-omni and coexist with evil. In other words, he conceded. He even wrote: : However, according to Pro's definition of omnibenevolence, the : answer is No. He is not omnibenevolent. That is full concession of the only point in contention. Vote Pro. - Con makes some claim about the worldview of Reformed Protestant Christianity. I don't know anything about that. This debate has nothing to do with that. Con is welcome to start a debate on that topic if he wants to. I won't have standing to participate. - In his conclusion, Con writes: : God having a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil : the exists, refutes the claim that the Christian worldview is : logically impossible. The PoE (problem of evil) doesn't say that "the Christian worldview" is impossible. It says that if evil exists, then there can't be an omnipotent and omniscient god who is totally opposed to evil. Con doesn't believe in that god anyway, so he is in agreement with the PoE. Conclusion: Con hasn't really tried to refute the PoE. His real point may be that you can be a Christian without believing in a logically impossible god. I've got no problem with that. Nor has the PoE. And if Con wants, in other contexts, to call god "omnibenevolent" even though he isn't totally opposed to evil. I've got no problem with that either. The point is that, if evil exists, then there can't be a god who is omnipotent and omniscient and who is totally opposed to evil. Far from refuting this point, Con has endorsed it, agreed with it, conceded that it is correct. Therefore, the resolution is uncontested.