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

IntroThat was quite an amusing post by Con. Con admits to strawgodding, “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'm proving that that strawgod does not exist. And Con agrees with me: That god cannot exist. Con concedes my point. ”If Con wins the debate by proving that the strawgod that he created doesn’t exist, then that’s totally fine by me. Con accomplishes nothing by doing this and proves what I already told him, that he does not know how to use the PoE argument correctly. The PoE as I’ve said in the opening round is an internal critique. So exactly which worldview is Pro internally critiquing? The PoE, which was first discussed by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (371-270 BC), was created to refute a tri-omni God, but if you remember from my previous post, Abraham’s God is the ONLY God with these characteristics. The PoE argument was primarily formed to refute Abraham's God, the Christian God, not just any strawgod. The Actual DebateI never conceded to the resolution of this debate. My position is still that the PoE does NOT prove that a tri-omni God exists. Before Con and I started this debate, we were discussing in the comments section of my previous PoE debate (where God = the Christian God) about his PoE argument. . http://www.debate.org...After seeing his comments, I replied that our PoE debate will most likely revolve around whether God (the Christian God) remains omnibenevolent despite the act of permitting evil to exist. I said, "yes that is the original PoE, and my answer to that is kinda like what you mentioned, that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil that exist. But this does not take away from His omnibenevolence (Holiness is a HUGE part of God's character). God is still not the one committing the evil. He's only made providence for them. I guess that could be our debate. Whether God remains Holy despite Him allowing evil. "1. I assumed that Pro knew that we will be debating about my God, the Christian God, and not a strawgod that he created.2. I never agreed to Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence. I told him before the debate started that the issue of omnibevolence will be the focal point of the debate. Pro is banking on a technical win by default, by claiming that I accepted his definition. Again, I never did, my opening post is centered around my rejection of Pro’s definition of omnibenevolence. In my opening post, I challenged pro to give us a rational basis to his definition of omnibenevolence. In other words, I challenged him to give us a universal absolute standard of benevolence that he can then apply to God. He did not even try. OmnibenevolenceIf Pro is still interested in debating about the Christian God’s omnibenevolence, I will then reitterate my arguments. Pro says,“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. ”“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 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. ”Not exactly. I said that if omnibenevolence is (wrongly) defined the way Pro did, then of course his syllogism stands. But the debate is mostly about the definition. I don’t accept Pro’s definition.1. Because he is no longer critiquing the same God that I am defending, which I thought was defined as the Christian God, prior to start of the debate.2. Because he has not provided a universal absolute moral standard of benevolence/goodness to back up his definition of omnibenevolence. The Christian WorldviewThe Bible teaches that God is powerful enough to eliminate evil. This is a non-issue in this debate. The question is, why did an all-good God permit evil? The Christian answer is that God chose to permit evil to display His glory. Though we don't know the specifics like why it has to be this severe and this long. We know that ultimately it glorifies Christ in a way that can only be possible if evil was permitted. As John Piper beautifully said,"The terrorized and troubled world exists, to make a place for Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to suffer and die for our sins. The reason there is terror in the world is so that Christ could be terrorized. The reason there is trouble in the world is so that Christ could be troubled. The reason there is pain in the universe is so that Christ could feel pain. This is the world that God prepared for the suffering and death of His Son. This is the world where the best display of devine love could happen. Because the Bible is real clear what the highest and most beautiful display of love is. Romans 5:8 'God shows His love for us in that while were still sinners, Christ died for us' This world of suffering and death exists so that God could love like He could only love in this world. And you can back up and say 'I wouldn't have done it that way. ' Well you're not God, and I am thankful. I think it's really arrogant to say that you, before the creation of the universe would have greater wisdom than the Almighty to design a universe in which the fullness of the panorama of His perfections would shine more brigthly than in this one. "Conclusion What exactly is Pro's goal in this debate? Pro says,"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. ""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. " This debate has a lot to do with the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview claims the opposite of what the PoE claims. The Christian worldview holds to the belief that God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, and at the same time permitted evil to exist. Your goal is to refute this system but all you have done so far is proved that your strawgod does not exist. In order for your resolution to be proven, you need to refute the Christian worldview. This can not be done by arbitrary defining words and claiming that since your opponent agreed to the definitions you win. You might as well say that for God to be omnipotent, He must be able to microwave a burrito so hot, that even He can't eat it. I'll help you out, you need to somehow prove that your definition of omnibenevolence, is universal and absolute, and applies to God.