A God can not be omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient
Debate Rounds (3)
Fact is, I have experienced God in my life (his audible voice, visions, dreams, and miracles). Many others can testify to what they have experienced with God. We believe in him because he is a very real presence in our lives.
As for evil, if there is no God, evil and good, right and wrong, do not really exist. What Pro calls evil is merely socially unfashionable, but that does nothing to show that its wrong. When its just one man's opinion versus another, morality becomes just a subjective feeling. But right and wrong, good and bad, do exist. If you KNOW for sure that raping a two year old baby is WRONG, not just your opinion, but its WRONG even outside of your opinion, then there must be some universal lawgiver who determines right from wrong. Even if you, or your neighbor don't think its wrong, its still wrong. Objective morality is that which remains right or wrong even when people don't agree with it. Its a truth that isn't decided by majority vote. So the fact that Pro speaks of evil in the world shows there must be a God.
Evil. There is no denying that it is in abundance. Thousands of innocent people being blown limb from limb in conflicts they didn't start; millions still starving in hot, poor countries; people from illness reduced to quivering wrecks of humanity, desperate for death; crimes. The scariest thing about atrocities that we've committed to each other is this: imagine the worst crime you can possibly think of. That crime has been done ten times over. Evil is so prominent in our lives that we naturally want to balance out its existence with the notion of an abundance of good. We do what humans are very good at doing, we make up. This is where "heaven", God and all divine ideas have come from. Human desperation.
But, if we are being honest with ourselves, can such a someone exist? How can a god see all of the blood freezing acts that go on under his watch and not do anything to stop them? If he were truly omni benevolent and truly omnipotent there would be no reason for him to not. Don"t tell me that there is an ulterior motive to having a six year old die of leukaemia before they've even had a chance at life- that would be truly senseless. Don"t tell me that without the concept of evil good could not exist. Why not? If god were really omnipotent he could do anything, he could have just happiness. He could make us aware that all we had was happiness.
This leads me on to my second point, a God cannot be truly omnipotent. Could God make a round square, or a circular diamond? Could God make a stick twice as long as itself? These logical contradictions make the nature of possibility always have impossible concepts.
What my opposition said about evil is wrong, all evil is subjective. Knowing not to rape a baby is our natural programming not wanting us to harm our children and become extinct. It is not some divine absolute.
Pro claims if God has reasons for allowing suffering, we would know them. So gravity didn"t exist until we knew about it? We didn"t always know what caused earthquakes but our ignorance of it didn"t prove earthquakes were without cause. Maybe we will one day know God"s reasons for suffering.
Omnipotent just means "all-powerful," having all power, but having power, does not prove one can literally do anything. No Christian believes God can sin. No matter how much power is in a battery, even limitless power, its still a battery, it can"t fly without wings. God can"t do the logically impossible such as FORCE a person to FREELY be good. You can"t have free will and force people to obey. But as for a round square etc, might not be impossible for God after all. I used to think it was impossible to be in two places at the same time, but science now shows particles can be in more than one place simultaneously https://www.youtube.com... Who knows what scientist will learn in a thousand years? More on morality next round.
The only decent argument the Con is using is that we don't know what God's reason is, therefore one exists and God does too. I find this an overwhelmingly feeble argument. It's basically giving in to the fact that there is no explanation. If there is no reason we could think of, then it logically follows that there is no reason at all.
I would invite con to familiarise himself with what 'omnipotent' means. I define it, as by the oxford english dictionary, as having unlimited power. So I'm glad that con has brought up yet another impossible contradiction with the idea of a omnibenevolent and, omnipotent. He is all able but also all loving. Surely if he is all loving, he is not all able as that would mean that he can commit awful crimes. So by the definition of a God within this argument, he can not exist.
Pro claims out understanding of God has changed as we became more intelligent. He uses the example of Zeus, but that religion didn't change Zeus' name or concept, it simply died out. He uses the example of lightning, but the Jews and Christians have never believed in a nature God. Further, even today Christians still credit God with sending the rain so where is the change? So William Lane Craig isn't intelligent when he gives scientific evidence for God?https://www.youtube.com...
Pro didn't give any proof that God commits awful crimes, so I dismiss that as his opinion. And whose law would God be breaking anyway? Pro's? Pro could not show that his ignorance concerning God's reasons for allowing suffering proves there is no reason, so his argument from evil fails. And to call something evil presupposes a standard of right and wrong already exists by which to judge it, set by whom? Nature is blind. Without God there is no crime - a male white shark doesn't rape a female shark, it just forces itself on her for sex. A lion doesn't murder a zebra, it just kills it. No morality exists in the animal kingdom. So if we are evolved animals, no such morality would exist for us either. In nature, crap just happens. This is a world without God. If you believe that somethings really are wrong, regardless of who or how many say differently, there is a God who made this law. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: PRO wins because con only merely suggested that God MAY have alternative reason for letting people suffer, but con shows we have not confirmed it. Con also contradicts himself by saying being all-powerful doesn't mean you can't do something logically impossible. He also only bought up the morality argument within the last round, so it doesn't count. I'm tempted to also give conduct to pro but I'll go easy seeing how they both had very limited characters to support and refute arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.