Problem of Evil

[wiploc]

I'd like to discuss/debate the problem of evil. Seems to me obvious that the PoE proves that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, but even atheists tell me I'd be better off going with the Evidentiary PoE rather than the Logical PoE. I've read Plantinga's book; there's nothing there. I don't see any reason to give up my cold hard proof that god doesn't exist in favor of a probablistic argument that might be defeated by something like, "God works in mysterious ways."

I would love to see a meaningful refutation of the Logical PoE, even at the cost of "losing" a discussion/debate.

crc

[wiploc]

I've already debated this with Seebs at this location:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=66165

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by wiploc
I'd like to discuss/debate the problem of evil. Seems to me obvious that the PoE proves that there is no omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god, but even atheists tell me I'd be better off going with the Evidentiary PoE rather than the Logical PoE. I've read Plantinga's book; there's nothing there. I don't see any reason to give up my cold hard proof that god doesn't exist in favor of a probablistic argument that might be defeated by something like, "God works in mysterious ways."

I would love to see a meaningful refutation of the Logical PoE, even at the cost of "losing" a discussion/debate.

crc

Hi wiploc,

Keep in mind that you would only be able to get involved in one formal debate at a time. :) So I suppose it depends on whatever opponent manages to hammer out the parameters with you first, be it extinctionist, 4God, taoist, Gregory, or whoever. Of course, you're welcome to set up as many debates as you want here, but the start dates would have to be put on hold while you're engaged in one of the formal debates.

Jason

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Nightshade
Hi wiploc,

Keep in mind that you would only be able to get involved in one formal debate at a time. :)

That's cool, just so we get one of them going.

crc

[long winded fool]

Hi wiploc. I think I can logically refute the PoE as it relates to omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Specifically: "The presence of evil in the world does not create a logical dilemma between the premises of omnipotence and omnibenevolence regarding a deity."

I've never participated in a "formal" debate before but I'm flexible, so whatever debate parameters you think make sense are okay by me. I'm also fighting the clock at the moment, so I accept your challenge and await your response.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Hi wiploc. I think I can logically refute the PoE as it relates to omnibenevolence and omnipotence. Specifically: "The presence of evil in the world does not create a logical dilemma between the premises of omnipotence and omnibenevolence regarding a deity."

I've never participated in a "formal" debate before but I'm flexible, so whatever debate parameters you think make sense are okay by me. I'm also fighting the clock at the moment, so I accept your challenge and await your response.

(a) The topic of the debate.

The problem of evil proves that a perfect god does not exist.
Note: "Perfect" means omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.



(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Wiploc for the affirmative.
Long Winded Fool for the negative.



(c) The scope of the debate.

I forget how to tell this from the topic. I assume that in this case the topic, as stated, defines the scope.



(d) The length of the debate, in number of rounds (no more than 10 rounds per debate).

Seebs and I went ten rounds at not-more-than 2500 words per round. I'm wondering how it would feel to be significantly shorter, say five rounds at a maximum of 1800 words. So that's what I'm suggesting, but I'll be happy start with longer limits if you'd like, or even change the limits mid debate if those make us feel too pressed.



(e) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

We'll alternate, wiploc going first.



(f) The maximum length of each statement (no more than 5,000 words per statement and this includes quotations).

1800 words max.



(g) The maximum duration between statements.

Seebs and I had one week deadlines. That would be fine. On the other hand, since I would enjoy a faster pace, and since I was the one who usually dithered until the deadline pressure forced me to produce, what if we had a four day deadline? Of course, that could be awkward at times, so what if each of us gets to have two opportunities to run into overtime? Say, four day deadlines, with each player getting two opportunities to take eight days rather than four.



(h) The extent to which quotes from outside sources will be permitted (absolutely no copyright violation or outright plagiarism will be allowed).

I think I don't care about this, possibly because, not having seen it abused, I don't know what abuse of the privilege would look like.

(i) The starting date of the debate.
Unless you want a later start date, I'll do my first affirmative within four days (assuming that's our turn length) of when the moderators start the thread for us. That will probably be shortly after we agree on terms and both of us say, "Request for debate."

(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

Nothing comes to mind.

Oh, I get to use "omnibenevolent" as if it were a word.

Oh, I'm also setting up a debate with Gregory on whether god exists. I don't get to have two formal debates at once, so if that thread starts first, this one will have to either wait or jump back to EoG or somewhere. But Gregory disappears for weeks at a time, so that's not too likely.

And I wouldn't mind doing the debate in another forum anyway. The point of debating here is that we focus our responses on each other, and keep coming back so the subject is discussed in depth. If we pay attention, we can achieve those goals in another forum.

So, what do you say, LWF? I'm highly flexible on the terms. If you already agree with all of the terms, you can request a debate and we'll be off. :)
crc

[long winded fool]

Originally posted by wiploc
Seebs and I went ten rounds at not-more-than 2500 words per round. I'm wondering how it would feel to be significantly shorter, say five rounds at a maximum of 1800 words. So that's what I'm suggesting, but I'll be happy start with longer limits if you'd like, or even change the limits mid debate if those make us feel too pressed.

Five rounds and 1800 words sounds fine.

Originally posted by wiploc
(g) The maximum duration between statements.

Seebs and I had one week deadlines. That would be fine. On the other hand, since I would enjoy a faster pace, and since I was the one who usually dithered until the deadline pressure forced me to produce, what if we had a four day deadline? Of course, that could be awkward at times, so what if each of us gets to have two opportunities to run into overtime? Say, four day deadlines, with each player getting two opportunities to take eight days rather than four.

Four days is fine.

Originally posted by wiploc
(i) The starting date of the debate.
Unless you want a later start date, I'll do my first affirmative within four days (assuming that's our turn length) of when the moderators start the thread for us. That will probably be shortly after we agree on terms and both of us say, "Request for debate."

This sounds good. Do we officially agree on terms and request the debate in this thread?

Originally posted by wiploc
(j) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe (subject to moderator approval).

Nothing comes to mind.

Oh, I get to use "omnibenevolent" as if it were a word.

I always do. :)

Originally posted by wiploc
Oh, I'm also setting up a debate with Gregory on whether god exists. I don't get to have two formal debates at once, so if that thread starts first, this one will have to either wait or jump back to EoG or somewhere. But Gregory disappears for weeks at a time, so that's not too likely.

And I wouldn't mind doing the debate in another forum anyway. The point of debating here is that we focus our responses on each other, and keep coming back so the subject is discussed in depth. If we pay attention, we can achieve those goals in another forum.

So, what do you say, LWF? I'm highly flexible on the terms. If you already agree with all of the terms, you can request a debate and we'll be off. :)
crc

I agree with all of the terms I didn't quote, (and oddly all the ones I did, so I guess I wasted my time quoting them...) I think a debate in another forum is fine too. I trust your interest in the subject and don't see the need for "extra moderation" or whatever. If you do want to start a debate in EoG, I'll give responses to your posts priority. (I guess it would kind of be a "semi-formal" debate with the 'peanut gallery' included? :)) There are already a few going on there, but starting a new one would give us a fresh start so that we can easily examine the logic of the arguments from start to finish.

But that said, I'm also willing to debate it here if you'd prefer, so I'll make this my official request and statement of agreement on terms and I also offer to debate you informally in EoG, since the debate will be exactly the same as far as I'm concerned and this will leave you open to debate someone else formally.

[wiploc]

Moderators, we request a debate.

crc

[Silent Dave]

Just for the sake of reference, here are the parameters you have agreed upon:


(a) The topic of the debate: The problem of evil proves that a perfect god does not exist. (Note: "Perfect" means omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.)

(b) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue: Wiploc for the affirmative, Long Winded Fool for the negative.

(c) The scope of the debate: As defined by the topic.

(d) Length of debate: Five rounds

(e) Participants will alternate statements, with Wiploc going first.

(f) Maximum length of each statement: 1800 words.

(g) Maximum duration between statements: Four days, with each participant getting two opportunities to take eight days instead of four.

(h) Short of copyright violation or plagiarism, quotes from outside sources may be used to any extent.

(i) Starting date: Immediately.

(j) Additional rules: none.


Looks like a debate, folks. I'll start up your thread in FDD immediately, and close this thread down. Wiploc, please note that your debate with Gregory will have to be put on hold until this one is resolved -- although, as you say, Gregory is here so infrequently that it probably won't matter much.


Dave