Pointless Suffering

This website has been moved to: https://debatemap.live

Structure

The idea of an argument that:

  • An argument that opposes a being that is omnipotent, is omniscient, is omnibenevolent.
Foundation (A)

Summary

1. If a being is omnipotent, it would be able to end unseen animal suffering.
2. If a being is omniscient, it would know how to end unseen animal suffering.
3. If a being is omnibenevolent, it would want to end unseen animal suffering.
4. If a being that is all three exists, and if unseen animal suffering is not required for a greater good, unseen animal suffering does not exist.
5. Unseen animal suffering is not required for a greater good.
6. Unseen animal suffering exists.
7. Therefore, a being that is all three does not exist.

Discussion

1. If a being is omnipotent, it would be able to end unseen animal suffering.

2. If a being is omniscient, it would know how to end unseen animal suffering.

3. If a being is omnibenevolent, it would want to end unseen animal suffering.

4. If a being that is all three exists, and if unseen animal suffering is not required for a greater good, unseen animal suffering does not exist.

5. Unseen animal suffering is not required for a greater good.

6. Unseen animal suffering exists.

7. Therefore, a being that is all three does not exist.

Conclusion

1. Opposes a being that is omnipotent, is omniscient, is omnibenevolent.

A "being that is all three" would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License