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

All Religious Bloodshed is Righteous if God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,252 times Debate No: 87530
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (54)
Votes (0)




Full Resolution:
All bloodshed and violence that is enacted in modern times in the name of God (any theistic religious belief) is in full accordance with His will (righteous) and is, therefore, justified in this sense.

To instantiate, even the horrific acts and endeavors of ISIS terrorists are justified. Note that only religiously motivated bloodshed and violence falls within the scope of this debate.

Burden of Proof:
The BoP shall reside with Pro (myself) and I will need to affirm the resolution in order to win this debate. Con is in no way obligated to present his/her own case and in order to win this debate; he/she need only refute my arguments and prevent me from affirming the resolution.

God : The one omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent creator of the universe.
omniscient : the property of having complete or maximal knowledge [1]
omnipotent : the ability to bring about any logically possible state of affairs [2]
transcendent : (a) beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience; and (b) (of God) existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material universe. [3]
righteous : in accordance with God's will. [4] (slightly modified)

For the sake of argument, a monotheistic God (as defined above) shall be assumed to exist, as well as the logical coherence of all of the attributes defined above. Additionally, the descriptor of "religious" shall only apply to theistic religions.Debate Structure:Round 1 shall be only for acceptance of the position of Con for this debate.

Sources (for definitions):


Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. My argument is in the form of a logical syllogism accompanied by first-order formal logical representations ( An understanding of formal logic is not necessary; all forwarded assertions are written out and anything else is just logical modifications of those.

MP1) God is willing to intervene with influential knowledge.
Logic: Ig

MP2) If someone’s religious belief is not mistaken, then that person’s belief is righteous.
Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&~Mx)>Rx)

MP3) If someone’s religious belief is righteous, then bloodshed in accordance with it is righteous.
Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&Rx)>Rdx)

MP4) There exist people with religious beliefs that are mistaken.
Logic: (Ex)(Bxg&Mx)

MP5) There exists bloodshed that is committed in accordance with mistaken religious beliefs.
Logic: (Ex)(Bxg&Mx&Mdx)

MP6) God could correct mistaken religious beliefs by intervening with influential knowledge.
Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>Cgx)

MP7) God is able, but unwilling, to correcting those with mistaken religious beliefs.
Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>(Lgx&~Wgx))

MP8) If God is unwilling to correct mistaken religious beliefs, then they are righteous or He is unwilling to infringe on free will to do it.
Logic: (Ax)(~Wgx>(Rxv~Fgx))

MP9) God is willing to infringe on someone’s free will and all mistaken beliefs are righteous.
Logic: (Ax)(Fgx&Bxg&Mx&Rx)

MC) All bloodshed that is committed in accordance with any religious belief (mistaken or not) is righteous.
Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&(Mxv~Mx))>Rdx)

P1) Religious belief exists. Since God is transcendent, it is impossible for us to come to have knowledge/awareness of Him without His direct influence. This constitutes all possible means of doing so, including revelations, scriptures, and innate tendency to believe. (justification, below)

P2-P3) If a person holds a belief that is actually true about what God wants, then that belief is righteous. Further, if that belief entails committing acts of violence or bloodshed, then that is also righteous.

P4-P5) There exist people who hold contradicting religious beliefs which indicates that both cannot be true according to the Principle of Non-Contradiction, “opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” [1]. Beliefs that are mistaken are so due to an inconsistency with the knowledge that was made available by God (P1), through embellishment, perversion, misunderstanding, etc. (justification, below)

P6) This argument pertains to individuals who genuinely hold their religious beliefs to be true, and if an individual is masquerading as religious in order to achieve other ends, then the resulting actions are not actually religiously aligned. So, in all cases of genuine, but mistaken believers, it is possible for knowledge to be revealed to them by God (P1) in order to influence that person and correct that mistaken belief.

P7) If a being is both able and willing to do something, then it will do that thing. Since God is fully able to correct mistaken beliefs, being omniscient and omnipotent, and mistaken beliefs exist that have not been corrected, it can be deduced that God is unwilling to correct them. (justification, below)

P8-C) Since God is unwilling to correct mistaken religious beliefs, the existence of those mistaken beliefs, in of and themselves, are in accordance with His will. It is often claimed that God would not wish to violate peoples’ free will by revealing Himself, but if this is considered a violation of free will, then God has already shown that He is willing to do that (P1). And since all bloodshed and violence that is in accordance with those beliefs is subject to the same conditions for correction, then that religious bloodshed is also righteous. (justification, below)

Logical Justifications:

Rules employed: Modus Ponens (MP), Modus Tollens (MT), Disjunctional Syllogism (DS), DeMorgan’s Rule (DM), Conjunction (CJ), Constructive Dilemma (CD), Tautology (Taut), Distribution (Dist), Universal Instantiation (UI), Universal Generalization (UG), Existential Instantiation (EI), Change of Quantifier (CQ), as well as Indirect Proof (IP) and Conditional Proof (CP). [2][3][4]

Definitional Premises
D1) Sg&Og&Tg :: “God is omniscient, omnipotent, and transcendent.”
D2) (Ax)(Ay)(Sy>Kyx) :: “If a being is omniscient, then it has knowledge of everything.”
D3) (Ax)(Ay)(Oy>Pyx) :: “If a being is omnipotent, then it has the power to do anything logically possible.”

(P1) Justification
P1) (Ex)(Bxg) :: “There exists people who have religious beliefs.”
P2) (Ax)(Ay)(~Kxy>~Bxy) :: “If people have no knowledge of something, then they cannot have beliefs about it.”
P3) (Ax)(Ay)((Ty&~Iyx)>~Kxy) :: “If a transcendent being is unwilling to intervene, then it is not possible for people to have knowledge it.”
P4) Bag [P1,EI]
P5) ~Kag>~Bag [P2,UIx2]
P6) Kag [P4,P5,MT]
P7) (Tg&~Ig)>~Kag [P3,UIx2]
P8) ~TgvIg [P6,P7,MT,DM]
C) Ig [D1,P8,DS]

(P4) Justification
P1) (Ex)(Ey)(Bxg&Byg&Zxy) :: “There exist people with religious beliefs that are contradictory.”
P2) (Ax)(Ay)((Bxg&Byg&Zxy)>(MxvMy)) :: “If two religious beliefs are contradictory, then at least one of those beliefs must be mistaken.”
P3) Bag&Bbg&Zab [P1,EIx2]
P4) (Bag&Bbg&Zab)>(MavMb) [P2,UIx2]
+P5) ~(Ex)(Bxg&Mx) [Assumed IP]
+P6) (Ax)~(Bxg&Mx) [P5,CQ]
+P7) ~(Bag&Ma) [P6,UI]
+P8) ~Bagv~Ma [P7,DM]
+P9) ~Ma [P3,P8,DS]
+P10) ~(Bbg&Mb) [P6,UI]
+P11) ~Bbgv~Mb [P10,DM]
+P12) ~Mb [P3,P11,DS]
+P13) ~(MavMb) [P9,P12,CJ,DM]
+P14) ~(Bag&Bbg&Zab) [P4,P13,MT]
+P15) ~(Bag&Bbg&Zab)&(Bag&Bbg&Zab) [P3,P14,CJ]
C) (Ex)(Bxg)(Mx) [P5-P15,IP]

(P7) Justification
P1) (Ax)(Ay)((Mx&Lyx&Wyx)>Cyx) :: “If something is mistaken and a being is both able and willing to correct it, then that mistaken wouldn’t exist.”
P2) (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>~Cgx) :: “If mistaken religious beliefs exist, then God has not corrected them.”
P3) (Ax)(Ay)(~Lyx>(~Kyxv~Pyx)) :: “If a being is unable to do something, then it is unaware of it or it lacks the power to do so.”
+P4) Bag&Ma [Assumed CP]
+P5) (Bag&Ma)>~Cga [P2,UI]
+P6) ~Cga [P4,P5,MP]
+P7) (Ma&Lga&Wga)>Cga [P1,UIx2]
+P8) ~Mav~Lgav~Wga [P6,P7,MT,DM]
+P9) ~Lgav~Wga [P4,P8,DS]
+P10) ~Lga>(~Kgav~Pga) [P3,UIx2]
+P11) Sg>Kga [D2,UIx2]
+P12) Kga [D1,P11,MP]
+P13) Og>Pga [D3,UIx2]
+P14) Pga [D1,P13,MP]
+P15) ~(~Kgav~Pga) [P12,P14,CJ,DM]
+P16) Lga [P11,P15,MT]
+P17) ~Wga [P9,P16,DS]
P18) (Bag&Ma)>(Lga&~Wga) [P4-P17,CP]
C) (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>(Lgx&~Wgx)) [P19,UG]

(P9) Justification
P1) (Ax)(~Fgx>~Ig) :: “If God was unwilling to infringe on free will to correct something, then God would not intervene with influential knowledge.”
P2) Bag&Ma [MP4,EI]
P3) (Bag&Ma)>(Lga&~Wga) [P7,UI]
P4) Lga&~Wga [P2,P3,MP]
P5) ~Wga>(Rav~Fga) [MP8,UI]
P6) Rav~Fga [P4,P5,MP]
P7) ~Fga>~Ig [P1,UI]
P8) Fga [MP1,P7,MT]
P9) Ra [P6,P8,DS]
C) (Ax)(Fgx&Bxg&Mx&Rx) [P2,P8,P9,CJ,UG]

(C) Justification
+P1) Bag&Ma [Assumed CP]
+P2) Fga&Bag&Ma&Ra [MP9,UI]
+P3) (Bag&Ra)>Rda [MP3,UI]
+P4) Rda [P2,P3,MP]
P5) (Bag&Ma)>Rda [P1-P4,CP]
+P6) Bag&~Ma [Assumed CP]
+P7) (Bag&~Ma)>Ra [MP2,UI]
+P8) Ra [P6,P7,MP]
+P9) (Bag&Ra)>Rda [MP3,UI]
+P10) Rda [P6,P8,P9,MP]
P11) (Bag&~Ma)>Rda [P6-P10,CP]
P12) ((Bag&Ma)>Rda)&( (Bag&~Ma)>Rda) [P5,P11,CJ]
P13) ((Bag&Ma)v(Bag&~Ma))>(RdavRda) [P12,CD]
P14) (Bag&(Mav~Ma))>Rda [P13,Dist,Taut]
C) (Ax)((Bxg&(Mxv~Mx))>Rdx) [P14,UG]

[1] (
[2] (
[3] (
[4] (



That you for such interesting arguments. I do not hold the burden of proof however I will make some quick arguments that I think I need to raise before moving on to my rebuttals. With that I’ll begin with the arguments.


I will focus this argument on the condonment of righteousness.

P1: God exists (we have agreed to assume this in R1)

P2: We do not know which religion this God belongs to.

P3: Some religions say that bloodshed is wrong, even in the name of God.

C1: If God exists and belongs to a religion that believes that all bloodshed is wrong even in the name of God, then my opponent’s burden cannot be fulfilled.

P4: My opponent must prove that all religious bloodshed is righteous if God exists.

P5: The resolution does not say if a certain God exists, it says if God exists.

C2: It is possible that religious bloodshed in the name of God is wrong even if God exists.

C3: My opponent cannot fulfill their burden because he does not know which God this will be and he needs to show it for all religions that believe in a God that coincides with this definition.

P1 is agreed upon in the R1 set up.

P2 is a truism.

P3 is a truism. In Christianity Jesus famously said, “live by the sword, die by the sword” [1], implying strongly that those who live violent lives will die violent deaths. This is clearly a promotion against all violence in general. Jews believe that nonviolence is the only way of living a life of truth, justice and peace [2]. Other religions have similar beliefs but these are two main ones.

C1 is proven primarily by P3. Many religions condone violence heavily. Ergo, violence in the name of those religions are wrong even under the rules of said religion.

P4 is a truism - the burdens and the resolution reinforces this.

P5 is a truism as the resolution says this.

C2 is proven by C1, P4 and P5.

C3 is proven by P3, C1, P4 and P5 (as well as the other premises playing a minor role).

My opponent’s burden cannot be fulfilled as a result.


MP1 - I disagree with this premise. God has been willing. He is certainly able to under the definition but I disagree that he is willing. Judaism states very clearly that God only intervened to spread his will and his commandments. Once the message of Judaism was sent he never intervened again [3]. The same applies to Christianity. They believe in the same things as Jews (in the old testament and they also believe that Jesus came down to also spread the word of God and his teachings. However Jesus in Christianity came down for a vital reason - to eliminate original sin. God is only willing to intervene when absolutely necessary in Christianity [4]. If we look at Hinduism (which coincides with the definition because there is one God that is represented in many forms - not many Gods) [5]. In Hinduism you are solely responsible for your actions and your Karma effects that. God does not intervene at all in Hinduism whilst you are alive. Only once you die God intervenes and decides and weighs your karma to determine your next life [6]. The system of karma is in place to punish those that do wrong. My opponent’s elaboration of this premise proves that he can do this and it proves that he has but it does not prove that he is willing to at this point in time.

MP2 - I agree with this premise.

MP3 - This is a massive jumping of conclusions. Let me present the following analogy. If I believe that stealing is wrong and it is proven true then this belief is righteous. I don’t then go killing or murdering everybody that disagrees. Just because a certain belief system is proven to be righteous, it doesn’t mean that you are then allowed to kill and cause terror in the name of that belief. As proven in the initial arguments presented above, many of the religions that believe in a God that falls under my opponent’s definition also believe in nonviolence and pacifism. Most notably, Christianity and Judaism (two of the biggest religions). My opponent provides virtually no justification for this premise.

MP4 - I also agree.

MP5 - I agree here too

MP6 - This is true, he could, however as proven already, many religions believe that God only involves himself when absolutely necessary (ie. to spread the word of his existence or to eliminate original sin).

MP7 - I agree.

MP8 - I don’t entirely agree here. Free will could be one reason but there are also many other options. This world might be a test (as Islam states). It would ruin the system of heaven and hell. Satan often plays a role too. So free will certainly isn’t the only reason why God doesn’t just change everybody to be good.

MP9 - I’ll begin by quickly reminding my opponent that they need to correct the formal logic regarding this contention. Now I’ll get onto my rebuttal for it. My opponent’s justification for this premise is weak. It is important to note that God has only ever intervened when it is necessary. For example, he begins by appearing to spread the word of his existence. He then (according to Christianity) appeared so that people could get to heaven because before Jesus came there was no way that people could go to heaven. It was impossible [4]. View my rebuttal on premise 1 for further rebuttal.

Before the bridge was built people could not unite with God. Instead they went to hell (ie. fell down the hole as the metaphorical picture shows). Going back to the example of Hinduism. God is not willing to intervene in Hinduism and it is for free will related purposes. MP1 fails so this premise is unjustified.

In addition to this, theistic satanists and general believers in Satan often also argue that it isn’t God that creates the evil. It is Satan. Some satanists even go as far as to say that Satan is God’s equal and is also omnipotent. Due to this evident contradiction neither of them can kill or eliminate each other. Therefore since some believers in God also believe in an omnipotent Satan this also means that evil can exist that God cannot prevent because otherwise there would be a universal paradox. The result of which could be detrimental. Two omnipotent beings both trying to create opposites. This is why there is good and bad. Satan’s presence and God’s.


I have provided my own argument and my rebuttals to the relevant premises. I thank my opponent once again for instigating this debate and I hand it back over t him for his rebuttals to my arguments and his counter rebuttals to my rebuttals. The resolution is affirmed, vote pro.







Debate Round No. 2


Re: ‘Argument on the Condonement of Righteousness’ (Con):

I agree with all premises presented, but hold contention with the validity of the conclusions. The conclusions of my opponent’s argument rely on the assumption that if religious beliefs are in line with God has intended them to be, that those religious beliefs reflect God’s will. This is certainly not the case, because (a) God could want those beliefs to exist as they are to achieve a particular end and (b) as my argument expresses, any omnipotent/omniscient who did not wish something to be so, would certainly change it.

Additionally, in C2, Con uses the word “wrong” which is somewhat ambiguous. If this is intended to mean “contrary to what God wants”, then this is exactly what my argument is expressing, as mentioned above in (b). These points that Con’s argument alludes to are covered more in-depth by my defense, below. To conclude, this argument is founded on assumptions which render the conclusion a mere assumption, thus, invalid.

Re: ‘Argument of Righteous Bloodshed’ (Pro):

Defense of MP1:
I am willing to revise the tense of this statement to be past-tense: “God has previously been willing to intervene with influential knowledge.”

I am only seeking to show that God has previously intervened by influencing people (as referenced by MP6). This primarily matters towards countering the common response that God does not wish to infringe on free will (as referenced by MP9), because if this constitutes a violation of free will, then God has shown that He has been willing to do so in the base. The contentions regarding motive are addressed in the Defense of MP8 & MP9, below.

With this rephrasing, I ask my opponent if we are in agreement, now.

Defense of MP3:
My opponent misunderstands the intent of this premise, which has led to a misrepresentational analogy. The intent is to consider an individual belief and to ascribe the property of righteousness to bloodshed in accordance with that particular belief. As an example, if God had originally made it known that He wanted everyone to do the Hokey Pokey and Bob held that belief, then performing the Hokey Pokey is righteous; NOT killing everyone who doesn’t perform the Hokey Pokey. That belief would be considered separately - only if God had made it known that He wanted that killing, would it be righteous. This premise is essentially tautological (which is why there was no real justification provided).

Additionally, Con’s statement about non-violent religious doctrines does not pertain to this premise. P3: “if a [non-violent] religious belief is righteous, then all bloodshed in accordance with that belief is also righteous”. But since that belief entails no bloodshed, this statement is rendered null.

I feel this should clarification should elicit agreement.

Defense of MP6:
Since this premise only makes claim that it is merely possible for God to correct mistaken beliefs (in a manner previously employed) and doesn’t pertain to motive, I do not perceive any contention to it in my opponent’s argument.

Defense of MP7:
My opponent has provided statements regarding Satan possibly preventing God from correcting mistaken beliefs, so I felt this was better treated as a contention to this premise because it essentially argues that God is unable to make this corrections.

Satan is a scapegoat; an antagonist that’s crucial to the narrative. Let us address this by asking one question: “Is Satan an equal rival to God: omniscient and omnipotent?” If the answer is “no”, then Satan only came into existence and continues to exist as a result of God’s will. Since any infinite force (God) will absolutely overcome any finite force (Satan), God could effortlessly pacify, nullify, or otherwise deal with Satan.

If the answer is “yes”, then two pertinent conclusions can be drawn. One, if this is the case, then Satan is a god, in of and himself, which renders this proposition a polytheistic scenario, which is outside the scope of this debate. Two, if two beings of the exactly equal power (infinite) and identical knowledge (everything), are in contest, then a stalemate is guaranteed, because two equal forces will cancel each other out, meaning that they don’t have power over anything, which is paradoxical. Say, for instance, God and Satan wished to move a rock in opposite directions. Whose action takes precedence? If either one is, then they are more powerful than the other. If neither does, then neither has the power to move the rock, so neither is omnipotent.

This applies to any proposed adversarial force. In regard to this, I will ask my opponent if this premise is acceptable given this debate’s restriction to a monotheistic notion of God (as defined in Round 1: Assumptions).

Defense of MP8 & MP9:
Firstly, the explanations regarding Satan and theistic Satanism is addressed in Defense of MP7.

My opponent states that there could be other reasons (other than free will) that God would be unwilling to correct mistaken beliefs, and I agree. However, God is able to correct them and, therefore, is necessarily unwilling to do so because of these reasons. We cannot claim to know the intentions that the true God has for this world (or such details as Heaven and Hell), especially since we cannot identify which religion (if any) accurately depicts Him (taken from P2 of Con’s argument).

Whatever His reasons may be, they’re part of His plan, especially since He is omniscient. God knows full well, for example, that Person X will mistakenly believe that God wants him to kill Person Y, and follow through with this action which He believe is wholly righteous. God, being capable of modifying/configuring his plan in any way, could have easily arranged it so that Person X would not have been misled or deceived by incorrect knowledge that led to the killing of Person Y. Since God then necessarily chose this arrangement (nothing would have existed, otherwise), the occurrence is in accordance with His will. If, say, Person X’s belief is mistaken in actuality, then the very existence of that mistaken belief and the consequences of it are what God wanted.

Regarding the specific explanation provided by my opponent accompanied by the image, I will present an analogy. Say that you set up a test in which a thin tightrope rope is tied between two platforms, and there is a mouse on one platform. Beneath the rope is a fire; certain death for the mouse. The mouse is pressured to cross the rope as the platform beneath it continues to increase in slope. If it makes it across, it is saved. If not, it falls into the fires, below. Let us compare your scenario and God’s scenario:

(a) You are each the one who constructed the parameters and conditions of the test; it wouldn’t have existed otherwise.
(b) You are each responsible for the subject’s position in the test.
(c) You are each capable of altering the experiment to ensure the subject’s safety, should you desire it.
(d) Unlike God, you do not know beforehand whether the mouse will fail or succeed. We’ll assume you can.
(e) Unlike God, you cannot instantly, effortlessly, and subtly alter the conditions of the test to achieve the desired result. We’ll assume you can.
(f) Unlike God, you are subject to unknown variables and interferences. We’ll assume you aren’t.

Given the above, if the mouse falls into the fire, it will be only because you wanted it to fall into the fire, since you are in full control.

Correction to logical representations:

Corrected logic for MP9: (Ax)((Fgx&((Bxg&Mx)>Rx))

(MP9) Justification
+P2) Bag&Ma [Assumed CP]
+P3) (Bag&Ma)>(Lga&~Wga) [MP7,UI]
+P4) Lga&~Wga [P2,P3,MP]
+P5) ~Wga>(Rav~Fga) [MP8,UI]
+P6) Rav~Fga [P4,P5,MP]
+P7) ~Fga>~Ig [P1,UI]
+P8) Fga [MP1,P7,MT]
+P9) Ra [P6,P8,DS]
P10) (Bag&Ma)>Ra [P2-P9,CP]
P11) ~Fga>~Ig [P1,UI]
P12) Fga [MP1,P11,MT]
C) (Ax)((Fgx&((Bxg&Mx)>Rx)) [P10,P12,CJ,UG]

(C) Justification
+P2) Fga&((Bag&Ma)>Ra) [MP9,UI]
+P2.5) Ra [P1,P2,MP]


Thanks Chaosism!

Condonement Of Righteousness

My opponent states that God could want those beliefs to exist as they are to achieve a particular end. The key word here is could. My opponent must speak on the behalf of ALL God’s that coincide with this definition. Many Gods that coincide with my opponent’s definition of God have expressed God’s will [1][2][3]. This means that we know what God’s will is in some religions and my opponent must account for all religions not only the ones that don’t describe God’s will.

Wrong isn’t ambiguous in the context. By wrong I simply mean anything that goes against the will of God. The argument stands as a result.

Argument Of Religious Bloodshed

MP1 - I agree to the rephrasing that has been made to the first major premise. As a result there is nothing for me to refute here.

MP3 - There was no misunderstanding on my behalf. My opponent has misunderstood what

I said here. The premise states that if a [non-violent] religious belief is righteous, then all bloodshed in accordance with that belief is also righteous. Let’s make some substitutions here.

If dancing, a (non violent) religious belief is righteous. Then all bloodshed in accordance with that belief is also righteous. These are the exact words of the premise except I’ve substituted the nonviolent belief with a nonviolent belief (so it coincides). So we can see that this is faulty. If my belief in something is righteous and is nonviolent then that does not warrant bloodshed in accordance with it (as my opponent suggests in this major premise). It needs justification. It says the word: all bloodshed in accordance with that belief is also righteous. This is unexplained.

MP6 - I agree. I was merely pointing out that he probably wouldn’t.

MP7 - Satan can be God’s equal without being another God and creating a polytheistic scenario. The definition of God in this debate includes the words “creator of the universe”. This means that Satan can still be omnipotent and omniscient without contradicting the definition of God. The fact that Satan and God are equal is not a contradiction. The definition of omnipotent specifically references to being able to do anything that is logically possible. The word ‘logically’ is key here. If they both went to move a rock nothing would happen and this would not violate omnipotence since if the rock moved, this means that it would contradict the laws of logic. This does not violate omnipotence. The same is with the world. One tries to create good. One tries to create evil. Therefore nothing happens and it is up to us - free will.

MP8 and MP9 - My opponent ignores the situation that I presented regarding the fact that God is only willing to intervene with freewill when it is crucial (in circumstances such as when spreading the word of his existence is necessary. I extend this argument.

Due to the fact that God only intervenes with free will only when necessary (as explained further last round), this means that it makes sense that God doesn’t intervene with individual scenarios. This would completely get rid of free will which God wants. God, in many beliefs has given us free will. There is absolutely no point in free will existing if God is correcting wrong behaviour.

Regarding the specific scenario given, the analogy provided fails. The mouse analogy doesn’t account for the fact that it all depends on how you behaved in your previous life and what you believed in. You are in control of your actions and what you believe (hence why we have free will in many religions that believe in a God that falls in line with the definition presented). This means that it is not what God wants. God knows how you will behave. That does not equate to him controlling how you will behave.

Think of it like this. You are control of the parameters (and you have told the subject what these parameters are in a holy book for example). We do not know what the result will be. God does. God can change the variables and the parameters but he doesn’t (at least not to our knowledge he doesn’t). We generally aren’t subject to unknown variables. Holy and religious books usually say that action x is bad and will thus cause you to go to hell. There are no unknown variables. We know what they are. Therefore, if we were creating an accurate analogy then it wouldn’t be because we wanted the mouse to fall into the fire. We would know whether the mouse would fall or not but we wouldn’t necessarily want it to do so.

My opponent’s burden is not fulfilled. The resolution is negated.




Debate Round No. 3


Re: ‘Argument on the Condonement of Righteousness’ (Con):

While it’s quite true that I cannot know God’s will directly, we can deduce conclusions from observation and the definitions we’re using. I said, “God could want those beliefs to exist as they are to achieve a particular end”, but (assuming an intended ends), this is necessarily the case. Below, under Defense of MP8 & MP9, I provide strong support for this conclusion, based on God’s omniscience. There can be no unknown variables to God, and everything is necessarily part of His plan. And since He is able to control every variable in that plan (omnipotence), then every part of that plan is in accordance with His will, or else He would have had a different plan or changed that variable. This is also further support under Defense of MP8 & MP9, below.

To conclude, my opponent’s argument fails to fully account for God’s omniscience and omnipotence; the conclusions drawn from it are invalid, thus, invalidating the argument.

Re: ‘Argument of Righteous Bloodshed’ (Pro):

Defense of MP3
I’m at a loss as to from where our misunderstanding is stemming. To reiterate again: “If someone hold belief X and X is in accordance with God’s will, then bloodshed in accordance with X (exactly what that belief entails) is righteous.” This premise entails universal quantification (“for all”) which applies to any given religious belief. If a belief is righteous, then all bloodshed that’s directly encompassed by that particular belief is considered righteous. Considering non-violent beliefs is still valid even if it creates a zero-result (no bloodshed), albeit irrelevant or non-applicable. It would be akin to saying “no person in this building is required to do their job, today”, when it’s distinctly possible that some people in this building don’t have a job. The statement is still valid where applicable. Note also that non-violence is not addressed in the antecedent.

Therefore, this premise, being pretty much tautological in nature, stands without further justification.

Defense of MP7
I will grant my opponent the second point I previous forwarded regarding opposing omnipotent beings. However, my opponent appeals to the Round 1 definition for “God” in order to establish “creator of the universe” as a qualifier. However, the word “God” is capitalized (while the others weren’t) which indicates that this is intended to be a proper noun. Satan or any other proposed omnipotent adversary would still qualify as a god: “(In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity” [1]. If this qualifier were upheld, then any polytheistic religion would not qualify as such unless multiple gods were responsible for creation. For instance, it would be absurd to not consider Zeus a god in Greek polytheistic mythology, even though he was not at all involved in the creation of the universe [2].

Therefore, my opponent’s objections to this premise indeed transform this into a polytheistic scenario, which is specifically outside the scope of this debate, as defined in Round 1. As such, this premise stands.

Defense of MP8 & MP9
Firstly, in regard to a point previously forwarded by my opponent (that I missed in R2), that “…it would ruin the system of Heaven and Hell”: that constitutes a logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Consequences [3] because this consequence does not impact the hard truth of the matter. It might be different if we knew that Heaven and Hell existed, though.

The analogy I presented was part of an argument that undermines the examples put forth by my opponent in the previous round: since God is omniscient and the creator of all thing in the universe, the nothing is not foreseen and planned. Even at the time of creation, God necessarily knows all of the consequences that would result from His actions. For example:

1. Prior to creating the universe and the elements of it that would eventually lead to Steve Johnson’s religiously-motivated murder of people, God necessarily knew that would be the result.
2. God still willfully created the universe in this way such that Steve Johnson will commit this religious murder of people.
3. God, knowing the elements infinitely well that led up to this result, did not intervene to prevent it from occurring (when He could easily have done so).
4. God necessarily wanted this to occur since it necessitated His willful action to occur at all AND His unwillingness to prevent it.

Regarding free will, my opponent states: “Due to the fact that God only intervenes with free will only when necessary (as explained further last round), this means that it makes sense that God doesn’t intervene with individual scenarios”. When God previously intervened to make mankind knowledgeable of Himself (MP1), He already knew the implication of revealing that action (being omniscient), and necessarily knew, nay, planned, for that knowledge to be distorted, perverted, misunderstood, or otherwise altered. At any given point, those who were misled by this could have easily been corrected (MP6). As per the above syllogism, that is what He wanted.

My opponent continues, “This would completely get rid of free will which God wants. This claim is only supported by the apparent existence of free will; there is no way to know this without knowing God’s will. To preempt an argument that ‘most religions claim this, therefore it is true’, this would constitute an Appeal to Popularity fallacy [4]. Much more evidence is needed beyond popularity of belief, which would require direct knowledge of God's will.

My analogy can easily be expanded to address previous lives scenario that my opponent presented: God is in full control and knowledge of ALL aspects of anything’s entire existence. My opponent’s expansion falls apart when we consider that there are unknown variables: since there are so many conflicting religious doctrines and no way for us to determine which is true (if any), it is certainly not reflective of reality. Further, my opponent fails to realize that the mouse exists as it is because it was necessarily and willfully created to be that way. God, being omniscient, cannot create unknowns. So, yes, God does determine what the mouse will think and do, including that which will lead to it falling into the fire.

Therefore, these premises stand true with the negation of my opponent’s contentions.

I have intricately shown that, using formal logic, the conclusion logically follows if all of the premises are true. My opponent and I have come to agreement on the truth of the major premises MP1, MP2, MP4, MP5, and MP6 following further clarification/justification. Above, I have defended the remaining premises, MP3, MP7, MP8, & MP9, showing that they are true. This also supports the negation of my opponent’s argument, which has been done. The resolution has been affirmed.

Since it is impossible to directly know the will of God, we’re limited to deductive, logical conclusions. As an analogy, say a coin flip is concealed. If we determine that if it’s heads then X is true, and if it’s tails then X is true, then we can logically conclude that X is true without knowing the results of the coin flip. My argument does this by analyzing mistaken and unmistaken religious beliefs, which logically constitutes all religious beliefs. Since my argument shows that God wishes for these beliefs to exist (whether mistaken or unmistaken), then they are necessarily in accordance with His will.

[1] [Definition]

Thank You:
I extent my gratitude and appreciation to famousdebater for debating this topic with me, regardless of the outcome. Thank you!


Condonement of Righteousness

I honestly don’t understand the logic that my opponent presents here. I am fully aware that God is omnipotent and omniscient. How does omniscience and omnipotence mean that everything that God does is in accordance with his will? This links back to Satan argument. Satan stops divine intervention. I will leave this at that. I believe that this argument all comes down to both major premise 8 and major premise 9 (MP8, MP9 and possibly MP7 too).

Argument Of Righteous Bloodshed

MP3 - My opponent isn’t making sense here. The logic presented is comparable. If I believe in the Christian God and the Christian God exists then that doesn’t mean that bloodshed in accordance in it is righteous. If I believe in something comparable to Christian God, let’s say David Cameron (UK Primeminister - due to a comparable sense of authority with both figures). That doesn’t warrant bloodshed in David Cameron’s name. Even if a large group of people didn’t believe in David Cameron that wouldn’t change whether or not bloodshed is justified in accordance with it. Furthermore, the Christian God (as I have previously shown) strongly promotes non-violence, pacifism and to love thy neighbour and more importantly love thy enemy. This is one of the most important teachings in Christianity and is considered by many as crucial in order for God to accept you into heaven. This is clearly against the will of the God of Christianity (as I have already expressed in previous rounds). Ergo, this premise is invalid.

MP7 - My opponent’s rebuttal here is insufficient. He does a great job of pointing out the flaws in his definition and then he proposes that it is ridiculous so we ought to not consider “creator of the universe” as a qualifier. This is unfair. I accepted this debate agreeing to my opponent’s proposition of the definition of God including the qualifier of being the creator of the universe. I do not find it fair that my opponent can simply change the qualifiers involved simply because he now notices a potential contradiction. I stand by my point that Satan is potentially stopping God from intervention; that Satan is not God and that this premise fails. My opponent, under their burden, must prove that this premise stands in all circumstances coinciding with his definition of God. Even if my opponent doesn’t account for one possibility that stands under his definition and that I presented then the premise fails as it insufficiently fulfills his burden. This is the case here. The premise does not stand.

MP8 and MP9 - My opponent’s rebuttal to the “heaven and hell” argument is flawed. It is not an appeal to consequences. An appeal to consequences does not equate to a valid contradiction. There would be no purpose to the system of having a place for good and bad people if God caused people to be good and bad. That would be ridiculous. An example of an appeal to consequence would be

“X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.” [1]

Regarding my opponent’s analogy I find it to be flawed in many ways. Firstly, my opponent doesn’t take into account the writings of holy books that act as contradictions. Secondly, even without considering this there is a contradiction. My opponent fails to account that

A - God does not necessarily want the world to be perfect as this would give the actions of people no meaning [2].

B - The elements of the world that have inspired religiously motivated violence have also inspired good actions as a result of religion. People have given to charity because their religion teaches it as righteous, the increasing number of scientific confirmation on theories such as evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc, are encouraging theists to look at possible alternatives and ways that a divine being could exist even with these events occurring. This ultimately widens our knowledge which is also seen as something that God (in many applicable religions) wants us to do [3].

Regarding free will, he knew that people would misunderstand that but whether they understood it correctly or incorrectly he knew that people would do good in the name of religion and in the name of God. He also knew that they would do bad but this was of their own free will (as God has given us according to many religions) [4]. He allowed us to use our free will to do what we wanted with our knowledge of his existence.

We know that some God’s under my opponent’s definition have clearly stated that free will exists and that it has been put in place. Christians believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. Muslims believe in free will. All 3 of these major religions believe in free will and this is confirmed by the words of Prophets and of God [4].

Okay. I’m going to drop the mouse scenario and put it into real life context. In real life the real life context there are no unknown variables (obviously) because God is omniscient. My opponent to explain his erroneous claim that God is in full control of everything that is in existence. This is not true, it is to a certain extent (ie. laws of physics, etc) but not completely. Since my opponent does not explain or justify this claim it should be considered as assertion and thus irrelevant.


I have negated my opponent's arguments. They had a massive burden in this debate and to be honest I don't believe that they have managed to fulfill it. They provided an argument in the form of a premise structure meaning that even if I defeat a single premise the whole argument fails as they are all necessary to reach the conclusion. They had to account for every possible God. I believe that my opponent did a great job attempting to defend the position (much greater than I though would be possible), however I do believe that due to the size of the BOP and massive difficult involved in fulfilling it I believe that I have won the debate. Thanks you again Chaosism for allowing me to debate this topic with you. This has definitely been an interesting debate. The resolution is negated. Vote Con!






Debate Round No. 4
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by famousdebater 7 months ago
Well it wasn't particularly problematic for me. I simply responded to the written content as opposed to the formal logic. I just didn't think that it really reinforced your point in the debate in any way. I don't know many people that know formal logic so I don't know how easy it will be for judges though.
Posted by Chaosism 7 months ago
..."If God exists, evil can't exist in the world. The reason for that is that if an 'omnibenevolent' God existed, he would destroy all evil in the world. So everything is righteous if God exists, and bloodshed must be righteous as well."...

I do not believe that this is possible, and would argue against this if it were the resolution.
Posted by Chaosism 7 months ago
I had the logic at hand and wanted to see what effects it would have and my original opponent (Fkkize) knows formal logic. I wasn't planning on doing that again, though. Perhaps, though, I should have held off this endeavor when I chose famousdebater. My apologies for the havoc it caused.
Posted by famousdebater 7 months ago
@Tej - are you voting?
Posted by famousdebater 7 months ago
Yeah, I don't think that the formal logic was entirely necessary here.
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago

Your argument was so tough to understand because of the "logical format" stuff. Cut that out next time and simply say -- "If God exists, evil can't exist in the world. The reason for that is that if an 'omnibenevolent' God existed, he would destroy all evil in the world. So everything is righteous if God exists, and bloodshed must be righteous as well."
Posted by Chaosism 7 months ago
@ Quadrunner
I didn't mean to ignore your comment. How could it ever be determined (a) which of the religious doctrines (if any) reflect the true laws that God bestowed upon mankind or (b) that these law necessarily reflect what He actually wants, rather than just saying that in order to achieve something else?

And essentially, yes, if God is the creator, is omniscient, and is omnipotent, then how could anything exist that violates His will? However, I think this argument is still valid without the omni- traits, so long as He is capable of knowing about and altering man's beliefs.
Posted by Chaosism 7 months ago
Thank you, famousdebater! I know I have to improve my elucidation. In any case, I still believe this argument is sound but that some clarifications and in order.
Posted by Chaosism 7 months ago
No worries, there. I did that, too; I had to scramble last round. :/
Posted by famousdebater 7 months ago
Sorry in advance for any spelling and grammar mistakes. I accidentally posted without proof reading.
No votes have been placed for this debate.