The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

A good God is out there, for sure!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 528 times Debate No: 35690
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Proceeding from the last debate I claim that God is NOT deceitful.


I won't take much time here, I just want to understand how Pro defines "deceit" for this debate?

A quick Google search says:

  1. The action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth.
  2. A dishonest act or statement.
deception - fraud - cheat - trickery - trick - guile

For example, I'm sure Pro isn't a Young Earth Creationist, and so we'll use a common example: that if the Earth is 6,000 years old, then it appears God has constructed a Universe that is deceptive. It appears to us, despite a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old.

This surely isn't that Christians don't want to see the truth, since most scientists who are Christian assert God would not create a universe that appears 15 billion years old.

So, most Christians accept the God of the Bible that requires a literal and inerrant view of the text does not exist, but that a different one does. One that requires more nuanced exegesis.

One that requires either an effort to get an PhD in Christian Theology, or a simple revelation, but not a God that is revealed if reading the Bible literally, as if there are no errors to the text.

I don't know if Pro is Christian, and I don't need to argue against a Christian God, only a Good God, but I would like a point of reference for how we are going to use the term "deceit".
Debate Round No. 1


'Deceit' as in having people believe you are good, but secretly being bad. The Christians do have a deceitful person, but it isn't god. I'm pretty sure that you know the devil. He looks like and acts like God, but isn't. therefore, there is no deceitful god in the universe.


1. Pro is begging the question by presupposing a Christian God exists. His challenge is to debate the existence of a Good God.

Asserting a Christian God exists is not debating.

In response I can simply say the Greek Gods exist, and they are not to be believed to be Good.

Pro has not argued his case. He has simply asserted it.

2. However, if he wants to argue from the Bible, I only have to quote the Bible:

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

The Bible says the Lord (aka God) deceived people into saying evil things, then had them killed. Only if Pro redefines Good to mean "decieving someone to make them say something that will have them destroyed" can he argue this is Good.

Or, here:

"...for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me," Exodus 20:5

3. The evidence of suffering is evidence against a Good God, regardless of the religion. In order to argue from a theodicy (an apology of suffering), one has to show the God they believe exists has a reason to allow suffering AND remain silent.

Apparently, if Pro is right, a Good God is sitting, hands folded, while a mother in Somalia is raped and her baby cut from her womb.

Something the Christian God has commanded:

"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Samuel 15:3)

If this is Good, then we can expect this same kind of thing in Heaven. Yet, the Bible teaches that this is eactly the kind of suffering we can expect in Hell.

If Pro things what God does is Good, and the suffering is necessary for some greater Good, then how can he explain Heaven which invloves no suffering, but Hell includes eternal suffering?

("He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21:4)

Is Pro a Satanist and claiming Satan is truly the Good God because of all the suffering he provides?

Or, is Pro admitting the Christian God is deceptive in placing a high premium on suffering, only to take it all away once you get to Heaven?

This is deceptive.

Pro is refuted.
Debate Round No. 2


aider forfeited this round.


Pro accepted the challenge to defend the proposition "A Good God is out there for sure."

Considering Philosophers think it's hard to prove anything "for sure", proving that a god - let alone a good god - exists, is certainly a tall order for sure!

In fact, it has been impossible for all of human history. No one has proven a God, let alone a Good God exists.

Pro is simply not going to be able to prove (for sure) his statement, and by default, I win the debate.

Further, I win the debate because I have an argument against a good god existing, even using Pro's own criteria (the Bible).


In order for Pro to defend the proposition "A Good God exists out there, for sure!", Pro will have to show that a God exists and acts Good. Citing the Bible that says God is Good, or any other claim is not proving his case.

Many people claim that if a God exists, it is an Evil God, or an amoral God. These claims simply contradict the premise that a Good God exists.

Pro has to prove, for sure, why these claims are not true, while his claim is true.

This is the basic debate and Pro has not even attempted to engage the challenge.

As poorly as I have debated, I have, at least, debated. Pro has not.
As much as one may disagree with my position, I still win the debate because I am actually debating the issue.

Debate Round No. 3


aider forfeited this round.


I will forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 4


aider forfeited this round.


ooberman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF the debate so conduct goes to Con. The Pro's arguments were lacking and proved nothing. The Con made more convincing arguments and unfortunately had to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the Pro was actually debating, since the Pro was unclear about his arguments. So convincing arguments goes to Con. The Con used the Bible as a source so he gets points for that.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF