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

Thank you to Marauder for his response. To begin, I would like to address a misunderstanding made by my opponent concerning the difference between validity and soundness. He wrote: “You must be misreading the intentions of my own opening statements if you think I have not challenged the validity of either of your Round 1 premises your going to argue from. That was the only thing I did in round 1 besides accept the debate.” The validity of a logical argument has nothing to do with the truth of the premises. The sole object in asking if an argument is valid is whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Con offered no challenge to the validity of my argument which, as I previously pointed out, follows the valid form of: P1. If p, then q. P2. p. C. Therefore, q. The soundness of an argument, however, is what deals with the truth of the premises. For an argument to be sound, it must be both valid and have true premises. So while he did challenge the soundness of the argument, no opposition was offered to the validity. I will now offer rebuttals to the points Con raised and in doing so continue to offer affirmation of the resolution. At the end of the round I will explain how these arguments relate to the two premises and by extension their conclusion. The Definition of Good Con challenged my definition of good by saying: “If you use that dictionary definition for ‘good’ then slavery for all purposes was not ‘bad’ but rather ‘good’ for a very long time because it had wide approval. Good must be objective enough to be indifferent to the swaying views of public approval.” The problem here is one of perspective. Indeed from the slave owners perspective slavery may have been good. But from the slaves perspective it would not have been good. It appears that this definition is subjective, but it does not have to be as I shall explain. What is understood to be good may be quite different from what is actually good. Even if there exists a God, people may interpret what this God says is good in a way different from what is actually good. So in determining what is actually good, we must look at the situation objectively. We do this by looking not just at what is good for us, but by looking at what is good for every living being. Any definition can be twisted to suit one’s own personal taste for what is good, but a comprehensive view allows for a definition to be useful in a debate about what really is and is not. The way in which Con presented Lewis’ definition of good was rather confusing, but in some ways it seemed to agree with what I have said. It argues that it is important to look at all cultures and religions and not just one’s own to determine good. I also argued that a broad and objective viewpoint is necessary in determining what is good. I therefore ask Con to further explain the standard his chosen definition uses to determine good. I also challenge him to explain why this definition would include suffering within it. If this definition rejects suffering as well, then we are in agreement that suffering is not good, regardless of which definition we use. God and Time Con’s argument here is somewhat contradictory. He agrees that God exists outside of time, but denies that God would then know events that would happen in the future. Even though humans operating within time did not know what would transpire in the future, a being outside of time would not be bound by time and would then have the ability to know what would occur in the future. Additionally, Con’s denial that God has all future knowledge is directly in contrast with the definition of a perfect God. Such a God was defined as being omniscient, having all knowledge, therefore a God that does not have this knowledge is not the perfect God that is the subject of the debate. Non-Man originated suffering Con wrote: “My argument has been that in the beginning what God created was completely devoid of suffering, and it was not until man began to go against the will of god that suffering entered the world as a direct consequence of this. Any kind of suffering wether it be a sore back after plowing a garden or labor pains or tornadoes destroying things….all are a result of the fallen creation that fell from the way it was perfectly made because of mans actions.” As I have previously explained, because of His/Her/Its his omniscience and existence outside of time, God would know when the universe was created exactly what would transpire. Additionally, it seems that going against the will of God is not a just reason to institute suffering on all of humanity and all living creatures. Therefore, I ask you: Is a newborn baby that has made no significant choices or moral transgressions in his or her life responsible and deserving of suffering inflicted upon it by some non-human cause such as disease? And what about animals? Like the baby I just described and perhaps even to a greater extent, they cannot be held responsible for disobeying some divine command of which they are not aware nor able to understand. So, why then is it morally acceptable for them to suffer from sickness, earthquakes, tornados, etc.? These two examples demonstrate unnecessary suffering. From an objective and perfect standpoint, these scenarios are hardly the result of human actions. Even if, as my opponent argues, they are provoked by human transgression, what transgression could possibly result in this massive punishment that has been inflicted upon so many living things in the form of suffering? Any God that would levy such a punishment for a human action such as, for example, eating a forbidden fruit, can hardly be considered moral. More importantly, Con said that even though human decisions may have provoked suffering occurring, it is through God’s will that sustained suffering has occurred. This is because human actions do not directly cause the creation of all diseases or natural disasters. No, if there was no suffering before this transgression, then some third party, God, would have had to cause the massive amount of suffering that cannot be directly caused by humans like earthquakes to begin. Free Will I will concede for the remainder of the debate that human free will does indeed exist, however this does not affect the points I have previously made. Summary To summarize the arguments so far: P1. If there exists unnecessary suffering in the world, a perfect God is incapable of being. The arguments that Con made no arguments explicitly addressing this premise, but the two arguments he made that are related to it are his “Definition of Good” argument and the “Argument from Time.” In this round I explained why the definition of good I provided is applicable and why unnecessary suffering is not part of good pretty much anyway that one looks at it. I also explained why God’s omniscience and existence outside of time means that he can does know the future. This premise stands. P2. Unnecessary suffering exists. Con’s challenge to this premise was that all suffering is the result of human decisions and is therefore necessary. I explained that not all suffering can be the direct result of human action if the world began with no suffering. I also explained that babies and animals have no reason to suffer because they are not morally responsible, therefore, their suffering is unnecessary. There is clearly unnecessary suffering int he world. C. Therefore, a perfect God is incapable of being. Because the premises have been shown to be true, the conclusion stands as well. The resolution is affirmed.