The Instigator
LogicWizard
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
suzyy97
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Christian God Paradox

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
LogicWizard
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 61506
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

LogicWizard

Pro

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?" -Epicurus

Since I first read this quote, I could not find a fault in it, so I would like "Con" to prove that god is indeed omnipotent and is not malevolent, or to sufficiently disprove another part of the quote.

BoP is on Con, he/she must prove a fault in the logic of this quote.

Terms:
1) First round is for acceptance, and for opening arguments, as I have made mine.
suzyy97

Con

God is all-knowing and all-powerful. He does not tolerate evil, meaning that evil will not go unpunished. God Himself can not associate with evil, because He is separated from it. This is actually a matter of free will. If God wanted to eliminate all evil, where would be our free will? God is a God of love, and He will not force us to love him. God is a God of mercy, and this is how we are reconciled when we ask Him for forgiveness. I suggest reading "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. (also, this is my first debate and I don't really know the usual procedure of how these take place, sorry!)
Debate Round No. 1
LogicWizard

Pro

It's fine, this is also my first debate!

"God Himself can not associate with evil"
I'd like to point out that any claim of 'cannot' proves the absence of omnipotence. Something that is all-powerful can do anything and everything.

"God is a God of love, and He will not force us to love him. God is a God of mercy, and this is how we are reconciled when we ask Him for forgiveness."

If he is a god of love, and if he is indeed omnipotent, why does he not eliminate evil? I think we can agree that evil is bad, bad things are indeed bad, and fewer bad things is always better, so less evil is always better. (
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've neutralized your two points.

Also, thank you for the suggestion, I will research the book, even if I don't decide to read it.
suzyy97

Con

very good points!! however, where do you get your idea that "evil is bad"? If no god existed, morality and the sense of morality would not exist either. Moral values and duties impulse themselves on us. Who do you hold yourself accountable to? Christians hold themselves and those around them accountable to God. If no god existed, why would people get a sick feeling in their stomachs when they tell a lie, for instance? The human conscience points to God. The idea that murder is wrong is a "public truth." How does the public know it is wrong? Sure, killing off one's own race does not seem like a productive thing to do, but that doesn't mean it would be wrong in a world existing with no god. If humans came up with the morals we have today, they would constantly be changing, as human experience would be changing. Nothing would remain stable. Without God, there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. But these things to exist, therefore God, who gives these things to us, exists also.
Debate Round No. 2
LogicWizard

Pro

Your claims are not relevant to this debate.
You are making a case that God is the source of morality, and that God does indeed exist.

Assuming he is omnipotent, God could eliminate evil if he chose to do so. Since evil exists, and he has chosen to allow it, this would mean he is malevolent. I am not claiming that he doesn't exist. I do agree with your statement that morality is important, but it is not on the topic of this quote.

I'd very much like to be proved wrong, but these haven't convinced me yet. I hope you can change my mind with some rock-solid logic in the next rounds.
suzyy97

Con

you are correct in saying I got off-topic, which I do apologize for.
"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God." - C.S. Lewis.
In summary, God does not need to follow the human definition of logic. He does not need to make sense to our mere minds which cannot comprehend His mind, or thoughts. This is where Christians bring trust into their faith.
Debate Round No. 3
LogicWizard

Pro

LogicWizard forfeited this round.
suzyy97

Con

suzyy97 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
LogicWizard

Pro

LogicWizard forfeited this round.
suzyy97

Con

shall we call it?
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LogicWizard 3 years ago
LogicWizard
I apologize for not being able to post, I was stuck without internet access for three days. Although this was a good debate, I have not been convinced that the quote is faulted yet. Thank you for debating with me anyway!
Posted by LogicWizard 3 years ago
LogicWizard
v
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
I don't know that more words are better. Man tends to complicate things. Just look at our laws. We have upwards of 50,000 laws to enforce the ten commandments.In fact, it takes more intelligence to say something with few words.
Posted by LogicWizard 3 years ago
LogicWizard
Jonbonbon, you're right.

You completely convinced me that more than 2,000 characters is needed to make a supportive argument... but then I saw you only used 700 to do it, so you've re-convinced me that 2,000 is a suitable limit.

In all seriousness, I do understand the need for a higher limit in some debates, just not in this one. The reason is you do not need to support P1, P2, and make a closure. All you need to do is present the thought process you went through to decide the quote is false. This will discourage excessive grandiloquence, or what I call "fluff", which is adding extra words to make the argument seem more impressive. It will also limit the use of logical fallacies to influence a reader, which take up space.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
Gods power is unlimited. But legally he cannot use it where it is not invited. Just as government has the power to jail anyone they want. But legally they are restrained. America has the power to stop much of the things done by bad people, but legally they are refrained by borders .It is up to the people in any given country to throw bad people out that rule over them.And it is up to the individual to resist the curse , If they will not resist it, then what can God do?
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
You need to support your logic.

For example, if I provide a logical argument:

P1
P2
C

then I've provided a logical argument in like 50 characters (assuming I typed out taglines for the premises and conclusion). However, I must support point 1, point 2 and the conclusion. I can't just say it and not back it up.

There are also philosophical and theological points that need to be elaborated on. To say the point doesn't mean you've presented an argument. It's like reading the title of a book and saying you know the plot. You need to have the freedom to explain your point thoroughly and properly.

700 characters to say that, and I didn't even really elaborate in my reasoning as far as I could have. How do you expect someone to prove you wrong on something which you firmly believe while they're restricted to the most basic statements they can make?
Posted by ErkaustNoAme 3 years ago
ErkaustNoAme
Omnipotence is a flawed concept as it as. Think of the paradox "Can an omnipotent being limit it's own power?".

In common terms, would God be able to create an object that he cannot lift?
Posted by LogicWizard 3 years ago
LogicWizard
Jonbonbon, I set the limit at 2,000 because this is a logic argument. Opinions do not need to be supported with statistics, references, and quotes. 2,000 characters is more than enough to explain a logic-based reasoning.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
cheyennebodie
God is able, we will take the land. That is what Caleb and Joshua said. God's willingness to help us depends on us making a move in that direction first. If you are not in his family, he doesn't have the right to just force his blessing on you. No more than I have the right to force myself in my neighbors house and force him to stop killing himself with booze.Even if I had a 357, which would be more than enough power to stop him.

When God gave dominion ,to Adam, over all the works of his hands, this natural universe, he gave it to him in such degree that Adam now owned it, God did no longer have title deed to it.So, when Adam committed treason, God was on the outside looking in.His hands were tied legally. Now don't ever get the idea satan is as powerful as God. God could just annihilate him . Burn him to a crisp. But if he had done that he would have destroyed man too. Man now belonged to satan.They were now joined at the hip, so to speak.

It would be like if I gave my son a house. Title deed and all. What he could do there I had no say whatsoever.If he fouled up his life, I would have to be invited in to help hi clean up his mess. God is in that very same situation. If you do not invite him in to clean up your mess, he will not force himself on you.He has enough power to heal every body in the whole world all at once. But he can only release it to those who ask and receive it.He will not infringe on your right to be sisck, or broke or fearful, or hateful, or living an any of the rest of the curse. He will let you die. In fact he will let you go to hell.

I think the dumbest thing any man or woman will ever do is go to hell. He made it easy not to. Just believe in your heart that he raised Jesus from the dead, and make him your lord. He is already lord of all. Just accept him and he will accept you.Reject him and he has no choice than to reject you.
Posted by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
2,000 characters isn't enough for a proper argument. In five rounds that would be the same as one round in a standard debate on DDO (which is usually 10,000 characters). 2,000 is hardly enough to build an idea to where you can make an argument. For you it's easy cuz you just say "you haven't satisfied the burden of proof" in eight different ways, but it would be much better to have long arguments over a debate with three rounds of actual debating than to read really short points over five rounds of someone attempting to build an argument. If you don't have the patience to read a response, then I find it hard to believe you actually care which side is right.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
LogicWizardsuzyy97Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides forfeited. As to arguments: Con's final round was a direct appeal to nonsensicality. That is simply uncompelling (and, incidentally, is NOT what Lewis was saying).