The Instigator
SarcasticMethod
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does God, as defined here, exist?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 84329
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

SarcasticMethod

Con

Does God, an almighty and all-good being that made the world, and judges people, exist?

I am taking CON. Burden of proof lies on PRO.
First round is for definitions and opening statements.

God: an almighty and all-good being that made the world, and judges people.
Almighty: Within the laws of logic, can do anything.
All-good: Acts with untainted goodness.
World: Everything.

Though I do not hold the burden of proof, I can provide a logical argument for the impossibility of this God - the classic argument from evil.

P1: The world contains evil - that is, the opposite of good.
P2: If God existed, he would be able to stop all evil (see definition - almighty)
P3: If God existed, he would be obliged to stop all evil (see definition - all-good)
C1: If God existed, evil would not exist (from P2 and P3)
C2: God does not exist (from P1 and C1)
gryephon

Pro

Well, probably the best evidence for God is the words of God himself, the Bible bears record of it. As it reads “I am the Lord your God...”as is seen in exodus 20:2, also in Genesis 17:1 mentions him being almighty. Jesus mentioned in Mark 10:18, where it says God alone is good. This does fit your list of being almighty, good.


Premise 1 is problematic with conclusion 2. If God does not exist, there is no evidence of evil actually existing, it's just our subjective opinions, with nothing that transcends either opinions to objective morality. While I don't like this way your defining evil, but if your defining it as the opposite of good, then evil exists simply because God exists, God wouldn't be able to destroy it because it's logically impossible to destroy it, .one cannot kill that which cannot be killed (hence it would be outside of the laws of logic).


I disagree with P! And C1, and it's largely due to the story of Noah. As everyone probably knows the story, God flooded the world in judgment of mankind's wickedness and spared the life of a man and his family from utter damnation. So I agree with premise 2, as God logically can end all evil by geociding planet earth. But there is a problem with premise 3 going into the conclusion, God might be an exceedingly merciful God which is why evil still exists.


While that more or less answers the question of why it still exists, but then the question pops up is why would evil begin to exist? From my understanding, evil simply exists as a by product of our free will, God wanted to create theses kinds of being, hence why evil does exist.

Debate Round No. 1
SarcasticMethod

Con

"Well, probably the best evidence..."
This argument assumes that Biblical evidence is always true. Please prove this.

"If God does not exist...evil...[is] just our subjective opinions..." So? We can say that people call evil what ever makes them unhappy. By that logic, evil definitely exists, and is also subjective. Besides that, why do you think this premise is true? I could just as well say that if God does exist, even His interpretation of what is good might not be objective. Think about it like this:
P1: If God is almighty, he must know everything that can be objectively known.
P2: Good is either subjective or objective.
P3: If goodness is subjective, moral solutions cannot be objectively known.
C1: From P1 and P3, if goodness is subjective, God does not know what is always morally right.
P4: If goodness is objective, moral solutions can be objectively known.
C2: From P1 and P4, if goodness is objective, God knows what is always morally right.
P5: We can only say that goodness is objective if God knows what is always morally right.
C3: From P1 and P5, the only way we can say goodness is objective is if we already assume goodness is objective (Circular logic). This means that we can't assume goodness is objective only because God exists.

"...one cannot kill that which cannot be killed."
This is simply a category error. Evil can't be killed because it isn't a living thing, but it can obviously be stopped or reversed.

"...God might be...exceedingly merciful..."
That's a terrible excuse. If I could stop evil, but I simply chose to be 'merciful', I would be allowing evil to happen, which is in fact evil!

"...our free will, God wanted to create theses [sic] kinds of being..."
Flaw 1: Free will might not exist. I am of the opinion that it doesn't: http://www.debate.org... .
Flaw 2: Is it not an evil act to sacrifice perfect morality for 'free will', a concept with an unknown moral value?
gryephon

Pro







"Well, probably the best evidence..."

This argument assumes that Biblical evidence is always true. Please prove this.

Well the Bible is pretty authoritative by itself. By it kings have ruled. Prophesy is way to accurate to be written through the inspiration of mere mortals. Take Isaiah 43:5-6 and Psalm 107:2-3, they tell that Israel would return from the the east and west, north and south. And that's exactly how they returned... first from Arab countries in the 1940s (eastern), western Europe, in the 1980s Russia finally gave them up (the north), and then the bunch of immagrants from the south.

Daniel 12:5 indicates knowledge and travel would increase. 2 Peter 3:3-4 predicted uniformitarianism. There is more I can bring up in the next round on Biblical authority, not all is limited to prophecy.


"If God does not exist...evil...[is] just our subjective opinions..."
So? We can say that people call evil what ever makes them unhappy. By that logic, evil definitely exists, and is also subjective. Besides that, why do you think this premise is true? I could just as well say that if God does exist, even His interpretation of what is good might not be objective. Think about it like this:

P1: If God is almighty, he must know everything that can be objectively known.
P2: Good is either subjective or objective.
P3: If goodness is subjective, moral solutions cannot be objectively known.
C1: From P1 and P3, if goodness is subjective, God does not know what is always morally right.
P4: If goodness is objective, moral solutions can be objectively known.
C2: From P1 and P4, if goodness is objective, God knows what is always morally right.
P5: We can only say that goodness is objective if God knows what is always morally right.
C3: From P1 and P5, the only way we can say goodness is objective is if we already assume goodness is objective (Circular logic). This means that we can't assume goodness is objective only because God exists.

Saying that evil is whatever makes you unhappy (essentially saying evil is unhappieness) creates a big whopping size fallacy in your argument. Just because your unhappy with something doesn't mean that something does not exist. I might be frustrated with say president Barack Obama over things he did in his term, but that doesn't mean Obama doesn't exist. God created all things for him and by him, not for you. Your happiness is therefore irrelevant to his exsistance.

Well, I do “sort of” agree with P1. Yes I lean towards the belief that God knows everything that is objectively known. Not from being almighty, but being all knowing. But my problem is with P2, it's just flat out a false dichotomy. I believe morality is a subjective objective, as in it's subjective to God, but objective to us. Why? Because God created all things, it is he who decided the purpose and function of things created, and we are his creation. This is why good and evil is subjective to him, and not to us.


"...one cannot kill that which cannot be killed."
This is simply a category error. Evil can't be killed because it isn't a living thing, but it can obviously be stopped or reversed.

Well I sort of agree with you, both of our arguments are one giant category error. The problem with this debate is that there is no definition of good. From my point of view, God is good. So saying God doesn't exist, is say good does not exist, and vice versa.

If God is not good. Good and Evil should be banned from the English language as being utterly confusing words. As it practically means distasteful. Say the first premise “P1: The world contains evil - that is, the opposite of good..” can simply be translated to “I've find the world distasteful”... and then the conclusion "C2: God does not exist "


"...God might be...exceedingly merciful..."
That's a terrible excuse. If I could stop evil, but I simply chose to be 'merciful', I would be allowing evil to happen, which is in fact evil!

I do agree with you, if your always being merciful for all eternity there might be some evil in that. But stopping all evil by killing everyone instantly that does evil is kind of heartless (the only way to stop evil in an instant that i'm aware of). If a good God does exist that is fairly merciful, there is probably a judgment day so people have time to repent.



"...our free will, God wanted to create theses [sic] kinds of being..."
Flaw 1: Free will might not exist. I am of the opinion that it doesn't: http://www.debate.org...... .
Flaw 2: Is it not an evil act to sacrifice perfect morality for 'free will', a concept with an unknown moral value?

Free will is kind of a tricky topic, as it is confusing. We obviously don't have Abselute free will, we're not omnipotent, so not everythjing we chose will always happen. Somethings are predetermined like our gender, and parents are some examples, so free will is not univeral on things within. You do not have free will aganst your own free will, so your stuck with your history and psychological continuity. When your young, you are slave to your own desires, hopefully later your mature into less selfeshness so your no longer are slave to your own desires but this does not always happen. I do believe there can be drugs out there that can influence your autonomy.

Yes there are things people are in bondage too, but among these things we are in bondage to does not mean you can't chose to accept or reject God. While I think it is true free will is not universal, but to assert that you have absolutely no control over yourself is flat out wrong, you can change!

Flaw 2: No it is not. “Evil acts” is an ambiguous term here. When God created the world, he didn't create it perfect, but good. The diffence between good and perfect is one has problems in it (good), the other doesn't have any real ones (perfect). While I say not any “real”problems with the perfect one, a not so real problem with perfect, it's purposeless because it's problemless. When you eliminate all evil from exsistance, there's no real point for God to exist. I'll give you an analogy, when you eliminate all the sick and injured from the universe, there is no longer any purpose for the doctor because there is no sick and injured.

Does that make any sense? One would sacrifice perfection to gain a purpose to exist. It's utterly boring to exist without reason. Mortal free will agents provide an avenue that creates it's own problems, enough so there is purpose for you, me, and God. Sure your get some bad apples with some good ones, but that's the beauty of it all.

Debate Round No. 2
SarcasticMethod

Con

On the predictions of the Bible:
Many modern theologians enjoy finding broadly interpretable passages in the Bible and tailoring them to modern events. Prophecy in the Bible is so vague and open-ended that it could be taken to mean anything! The Isaiah and Psalm quotes almost certainly mean that the Jews will return to their land from all directions. Daniel literally says nothing about knowledge or travel, and to assume that there will be more knowledge and travel in the future is practically tautological. Uniformitarianism is so basic and easily predictable that it's a fundamental part of inductive logic, now and in the past.

"Saying that evil is whatever makes you unhappy (essentially saying evil is unhappieness) creates a big whopping size fallacy in your argument. Just because your unhappy with something doesn't mean that something does not exist. I might be frustrated with say president Barack Obama over things he did in his term, but that doesn't mean Obama doesn't exist. God created all things for him and by him, not for you. Your happiness is therefore irrelevant to his exsistance."
I never said that what makes me unhappy doesn't exist. I'm saying, whatever makes most people happy, shouldn't exist! Doesn't and shouldn't are two very different things. What I'm saying here is, what humans call morality is based on opinion and preference generalized over the population. Any morality beyond that can't be known by us.

"I believe morality is a subjective objective, as in it's subjective to God, but objective to us."
How does that even work? When I say subjective, I mean, dependent on someone's viewpoint. In your worldview, morality depends on God's opinion. What you are essentially saying is that morality is subjective, and it comes from God. Does this mean that, if God had commanded us to rape and mutilate, those things would be moral?

"From my point of view, God is good. So saying God doesn't exist, is say good does not exist, and vice versa."
That's just a weird tautology. Your argument seems to be like:
1. Goodness exists
2. Goodness can't exist without God
3. I justify 2. by saying that Goodness = God
4. Therefore God exists.
This argument is useless and cannot contribute to the debate.

"But stopping all evil by killing everyone instantly that does evil is kind of heartless (the only way to stop evil in an instant that i'm aware of)."
That's not just wrong. It's ing psychopathic. In theory, I imagine God taking the human moral drive (the feeling that mentally healthy folk have that urges them to do the right thing) and making it powerful enough that crime is reduced to zero among the mentally healthy, and then proceeding to cure all mental illness, so that everyone is good. This doesn't actually make the human mind into some kind of robotic slave - we already have strong urges, like hunger, thirst and libido, and they don't make us mindless robots.

"to assert that you have absolutely no control over yourself is flat out wrong, you can change!"
I won't restate my entire debate (see Round 2 for link), but I can provide a short summary: All human action arises from desires, and we have no control over the origins of our desires. It's a watertight argument, if I do say so myself.

"a not so real problem with perfect, it's purposeless because it's problemless. When you eliminate all evil from exsistance, there's no real point for God to exist. I'll give you an analogy, when you eliminate all the sick and injured from the universe, there is no longer any purpose for the doctor because there is no sick and injured."
I think that a lack of meaning in the universe can be classified as a real problem. What else could it be? Besides, your argument that God has no reason to exist in a perfect world is actually an argument for my side:
P1: A perfect God would not make a creation any less than perfect, because it would contradict his very being.
P2: A perfect world doesn't need a God to exist to keep it perfect, because perfection can't be ruined by definition.
P3: If the world is perfect, God doesn't exist anymore.
P4: By the act of creation, God commits suicide.
C1: Either God never existed, or he's killed himself.
You seem to think that God is creating a deliberately flawed creation just so he can pass the time punishing the parts that go wrong. That's not the action of a perfectly good being, that sounds like a bored, humanly flawed sociopath with too much time to waste. What a disappointment.
gryephon

Pro

gryephon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SarcasticMethod

Con

I'm unhappy that gryephon has forfeited this round. Extend all arguments.
gryephon

Pro

gryephon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SarcasticMethod

Con

Extended.
gryephon

Pro

gryephon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by gryephon 11 months ago
gryephon
rofl.
Posted by TheRealGod 11 months ago
TheRealGod
I exist and I'm judging all of you right now.
No votes have been placed for this debate.