The Instigator
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
brontoraptor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does God 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: 6/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 243 times Debate No: 92565
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

PowerPikachu21

Con

I argue that God does not exist.

Definitions:

God; The omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being that created the Universe.

Exists: Having objective being.

Omnipotent: Able to do anything that is not logically paradoxal (such as the unliftable rock).

Omniscient: Knowing of anything and everything.

Omnibenevolent: Not wanting harm to come to anyone, and very loving.

Rules:

1. If Pro wishes, they can make an argument Round 1.
2. Burden of Proof is shared.
3. Pro has to make an argument, not just say "God drives me to X".
4. Forfeiting a round counts as a loss.
5. I'll accept kritiks.
6. No new points in the final round.
7. Pro must show God is as the definition suggests. I must show this can't be the case.

With that, who suggests God exists, as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?
brontoraptor

Pro

Stephen Hawking-

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"

*

You can't have a universe without it being created, you can't have spontaneous creation without physical laws, and you can't have physical laws without a universe.

(The Grand Design)


Spontaneous Creation ---->

Physical Laws ---->

Universe ---->

Spontaneous Creation ---->

Physical Laws ---->

Universe ---->

Infinitely...

*

(Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time)

-If time travel is possible, the tourists from the future would already be here...

(John 8:58)

-Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I am...

Of all the endless possibilities of what God could have chosen to happen, this is the only one that could possibly have ever existed.

(Let There Be Light) -


*

From no time or space, there was a point, a burst of light(The Big Bang), an expansion, and will be a reversal, ending in a "Big Crunch".


(2 Peter 3:10)

-But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will vanish.

(Revelation 22:13)(Christ)

-I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

*

According to the Hawking model, there was nothing before the big bang, not space, matter, nor even time. If you adhere to this model, and God exists, without time, He needed no beginning.


*

God would be defined as "one of which nothing greater can exist.", This being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. If the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality if reality(space, time, multiverses, quantum fields, etc) is infinite. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible, one which exists both in the mind and in reality. If this is the model Pro chooses, then he must explain to us how the highest conceivable being cannot exist in a finite set.

If Con says reality is not infinite, then in his mind reality is finite. Meaning, reality is the equivalent of a basketball or a lake that exists in nothing. It has boundries, yet nothing around it. Pro must tell us how this is not "magical thinking" if it is his proposed model.

*

I have a model, but it's a Creationist model for how either/or can exist.

In computer programming, a loop is a sequence of instruction s that is continually repeated until a certain condition is reached. Typically, a certain process is done, such as getting an item of data and changing it, and then some condition is checked such as whether a counter has reached a prescribed number. If it hasn't, the next instruction in the sequence is an instruction to return to the first instruction in the sequence and repeat the sequence. If the condition has been reached, the next instruction "falls through" to the next sequential instruction or branches outside the loop. A loop is a fundamental programming idea that is commonly used in writing programs.

Certain types of infinite loops are ones that lacks any exit routine . The result is that the loop repeats continually until the operating system senses it, some other event occurs as programmed by the loop, thus infinite randomness, and on and on infinitely.


*

Physicist, James Gates, and his fellow researchers, found within the mathematical equations used to describe the universe.

What they found was computer code.

And it isn’t just random 1’s and 0’s either. Bizarrely, the code they found is code which is used in computer browser operating system software.

"Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Code."

Block Linear Self Dual Error Correcting Codes are vneeded in the exchange of digital information as they monitor code sent and measure it against what is already known, self adjusting as needed in order to accurately transmit and receive the correct information.


Type I codes are binary self-dual codes which are not doubly even, and every codeword has even Hamming weight.

Type II codes are binary self-dual codes which are doubly even.

Type III codes are ternary self dual codes. Every codeword in a Type III code has Hamming weight divisible by 3.

Type IV codes are self-dual codes over F4. These are even.
Debate Round No. 1
PowerPikachu21

Con

I thank brontoraptor for accepting this debate. First, I'll post my argument.

Argument:

Point 1: Evil exists

This is a common argument against God, and I agree with this argument.

We all know people rob, murder, rape, and torture. There’s no reason why these should be happening. Especially since God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

If God was omnipotent, he can remove evil from the world. If God was omniscient, he’d know these acts are immoral. If God is omnibenevolent, he’d want to stop evil. So either he’s unable to stop evil, doesn’t care about evil, or perhaps both. So I ask Pro: Why is God letting people murder and rape? Hitler didn’t need to exist, yet he did.

Point 2: Perhaps it’s because we sin?

Most theists would say “It’s because we choose to defy God”. I say to this; how come God isn’t interfering? I mean, we sin. It’s our nature. We get drunk, talk about bad things on the internet, and choose to not believe in God. If God truly did create humanity, then why does He let us defy Him? If it’s because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, why won’t God tell me “Hey. You won’t reach Heaven if you defy me” or something like that? Maybe it is God that has forsaken us? If that is the case, he can’t be benevolent, therefore God.

Point 3: His omnipotence.

I’ve only shown at best, God does not care. My argument doesn’t end yet, though. We must decide if God is omnipotent. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that’s not paradoxical. If God is omnipotent, that means he’s capable of lying. If God can lie, then he could’ve lied about his omnipotence. If he lied, then we can’t be certain he’s omnipotent.

To put it simply, Pro needs to show that God is capable of lying, and also showing he is indeed omnipotent.

Rebuttal:

Now that I've casted doubt on the existence of God, I'll refute my opponent's case. Do not underestimate me.

"You can't have a universe without it being created" But what did the Universe come from? Or rather, who did it come from? It could've been God, sure. But Pro needs to show that this same God is also omniscient and omnibenevolent.

My opponent wants me to buy his first evidence. 1) I would have to ask my parents, 2) I don't really want to buy it anyways, and 3) I shouldn't have to.

Underneath "The Grand Design", there's topics with arrows. I have no idea what those mean.

"If time travel is possible, the tourists from the future would already be here" Oh! I know this! A syllogism!

P1 If time travel is possible, tourists from future would come
P2 There are no tourists from the future
C1 Therefore, Time Travel is impossible!

Yay! Not sure what I did, to be honest.

"Of all the endless possibilities of what God could have chosen to happen, this is the only one that could possibly have ever existed." Therefore...?

Then, a message "from the future". I didn't choose to watch the entire video, just a few pieces at 1.5x speed. I think it's just saying "Everyone's happy". Therefore...?

Big Bang. I do not doubt it, but it doesn't show how God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which is Pro's burden.

And Pro's saying the Universe will collapse after some time. Therefore...?

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will vanish." But God can stop this from happening, right? But according to Pro, this is certain to happen. Therefore, God is unable to stop the world from ending, therefore failing to be God.

"If you adhere to this model, and God exists, without time, He needed no beginning." So If I agree, and God does exist, he nedded no beginning? Well tell me, does God exist? I disagree with the Hawking Model. So God had a beginning, which was what? It has to be another God. What caused that God? An endless supply of Gods! So If I merely doubt the Hawking Model, God had a beginning? Sounds cool. It helps me fulfil my burden a bit more.

"God would be defined as "one of which nothing greater can exist." " So nothing could be greater than God? If he is truly that great, then how come I never saw him? If he is powerful, then he could at least enter my dreams. So something greater could exist, therefore God isn't God.

"This being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God." So... what does he look like? If he exists in my mind, I should know what he looks like. But I've never heard nor seen him in "person". So there goes that idea!

"If this is the model Pro chooses, then he must explain to us how the highest conceivable being cannot exist in a finite set." You're Pro! Explain how God can't exist in a finite realm. Oh? You actually meant me? Well, I don't choose this line of reasoning, so I'll just go to the next statement.

"If Con says reality is not infinite, then in his mind reality is finite." If reality is infinite, then Pokemon exist. Pokemon don't actually exist in our realm, therefore it's unlikely that our realm is infinite. So, yeah.

"Meaning, reality is the equivalent of a basketball or a lake that exists in nothing. It has boundries, yet nothing around it." Uh... yes. I suppose that is what I'm talking about.

"Pro must tell us how this is not "magical thinking" if it is his proposed model." You're Pro, right? Yeah, you are. Show this to be true!

Then, computer. How does programming relate to God just *Poof!*-ing the Universe into existence?

Anyways, according to the metaphor, God had issues making the Universe. If he had issues, then he can't be omnipotent and omniscient, therefore God.

Then he talks about loops. So what's the loop? And what does computer programming have to do with God?

And more computer stuff. This is all off topic. This hardly even qualifies as a kritik, even! I want Pro to just start his argument over.

Closing thoughts:

Look back at the rules. Pro's burden is to prove an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, deity exists. So far, he has done nothing towards this goal. I, however, used logic to show that God probably doesn't have all 3 of these qualities, therefore isn't God, as per the definitions. I don't know how Pro's argument can go into this topic, so I want him to make a brand new argument. He has 3 more chances. Will he fulfil this? I'm actually doubting it.
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
1)Evil exists
2)If God truly did create humanity, then why does He let us defy Him?
-
If evil and defiance ability did not exist, in theory, current Anti-theists could argue God was then not allowing free will. In reality, this would not make us people, but robots. If God seeks our love, then that love can only be given freely, or it is not love. Thus, evil must exist to prove it is love at all.


Peter had betrayed Jesus, yet Jesus was only worried about one thing.


(John 21:16)
Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."


(John 21:17)
The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."


Even more to the point, Christ was asked what it was that God wanted.


(Mark 12:30)
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength."
*
Con:
Why is God letting people murder and rape? Hitler didn’t need to exist, yet he did.


1)If God is omniscient then He sees all paths and all final outcomes. If one particular outcome births the best final outcome, then it will be the one that exists, even if in between there are dark colors. If He allows any change in variables, the final good result would never happen.


2)To define the love of those who have love for Him. If when faced with serious challenges, you still love Him, that defines your love and gives it real worth. Imagine looking at someone who gave up their own comfort to defend you or sacrificed of themselves for you. Your admiration for them could be genuine because you actually KNOW that they love you. There is no easy way to define and prove that someone genuinely loves you without darkness pressing up against them.


3)It also defines His love for us. How do we know He loves us?


-I can show you. (Short video)




-Or I can tell you.


(1 John 3:16)
By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us.
*
Con:
-If God is omnipotent, that means he’s capable of lying.


In a mathematical set, the set of all integers, (..., -1, 0, 1, 2, ...), is a countably infinite set; and


The set of all real numbers is an uncountably infinite set.


If the axiom of choice holds, then a set is infinite if and only if it includes a countable infinite subset.


Definition:
"If a set of sets is infinite or contains an infinite element, then its union is infinite. The powerset of an infinite set is infinite. Any superset of an infinite set is infinite. If an infinite set is partitioned into finitely many subsets, then at least one of them must be infinite. Any set which can be mapped onto an infinite set is infinite."




God would be the highest conceivable being. The highest conceivable being is omnipotent, and has no proposition to lie by default of infinity, by being infinite, or the greatest conceivable being. If the being spits out fallacies or errors, then the being is flawed, thus not the highest conceivable being, nor God.


(Titus 1:2)
In the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time.


(Numbers 23:19)
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?


See also:
(Hebrews 6:17-18)
*
Con:
"Therefore, God is unable to stop the world from ending, therefore failing to be God."


Nope. He commands its end at His time of appointment according to Himself.
*
Con:
"Finite sets"


A finite set could produce the highest possible being within its particular finite structure, thus being God. If Con adheres to this model, Con must show us how something can exist inside of nothing and give us an example.
*
Con:
God is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.


He is, and He told us what was to come in prophecy.


-A false Prophet would come, renounce Christ, set up an image to his false god, his followers would bow to it, his followers would behead Christians, and his god would be set up at the Temple Mount. The Christians would be overcome. The gospel would be preached in all the world. There would be a falling away from Christianity.


Muslims bow to the Kaaba stone. (Video)




Here is specifically the exact graven image they worship and bow down to.


http://www.crystalinks.com...


Allah was set up at the Temple Mount after the Muslims conquered the area. The defeat was prophesied. The setting up of the false god was prophecied.


Muslims are beheading Christians in droves.




Revelation 20:4)
I saw the souls of those who had been BEHEADED because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not WORSHIPED the beast or its IMAGE.




(Matthew 24:14)
The gospel will preached throughout the whole world.


It has.


There will be a falling away from God.


It's happening.
Debate Round No. 2
PowerPikachu21

Con

I thank brontoraptor for posting his 2nd round. I have made some good points, and Pro's going to have to refute them. However, is he successful?

Defense:

1) Evil exists:

I have shown that God could've just let us live a peaceful life, therefore putting his omnipotence and benevolence into question. Pro responds with "If God seeks our love, then that love can only be given freely, or it is not love. Thus, evil must exist to prove it is love at all." So God can't make us love him? Then he is not omnipotent, therefore God. If he's omnipotent, then he can do anything, including having us love him, and not be able to sin. Yet, that's not true in this world.

"Peter had betrayed Jesus, yet Jesus was only worried about one thing." Irrelevant. Jesus is not God. Jesus is merely a prophet. Peter betraying a prophet is not the same as me questioning God, which God isn't doing anything.

"If one particular outcome births the best final outcome, then it will be the one that exists, even if in between there are dark colors." You can't just trust God's decisions, they have to be clearly justified. Hitler slayed thousands of Jews, and overall he's known as a monster. Pro can't just say "God had a good reason", he must show said reason.

"There is no easy way to define and prove that someone genuinely loves you without darkness pressing up against them." Unless you're supposedly omnipotent, and able to have people love you.

Personally, if I was omnipotent, and wanted people to love me, I'd create a world where the citizens worship me. I could also give them free will, but still love me. THis is not paradoxal, therefore omnipotence can accomplish this. Why didn't God do the same thing?

"It also defines His love for us." So did we sacrifice ourselves for God? If he's omnipotent, he doesn't need sacrifices. Death does not need to exist if a perfect world, which God could've created. If he didn't make a perfect world, then either he was unable to, or didn't choose to.

The omnipotence problem:

I said God is capable of lying, therefore we can't be certain that he is indeed omnipotent. Pro responds with saying numbers are infinite. What does this have to do with God lying?

He responds with "The highest conceivable being is omnipotent, and has no proposition to lie by default of infinity" Meaning God has no reason to lie, if he is omnipotent.

Then, Pro makes an interesting statement, "If the being spits out fallacies or errors, then the being is flawed, thus not the highest conceivable being, nor God."

This is a contradiction.

P1: If God exists, he is omnipotent, and he is the perfect being.
P2: God is omniotent, he is able to lie.
P3: God is the perfect being, he can't make flaws with his statements.
P4: God is able to lie, yet can't be flawed with his statements.
C1: God cannot possibly be the perfect being, since he's flawed with lies.
C2: Since God is not the perfect being, he cannot be God.
C3: Therefore, God cannot exist.

If God can't lie, then he is not omnipotent, therefore God. If God can lie, he isn't perfect, therefore God. So it is impossible for God to exist. Pro must counter this logic.

"In the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time." Here, Pro concedes God's incapable of lying. God is unable to lie, therefore he's not omnipotent, therefore not God.

"He commands its end at His time of appointment according to Himself." So God is the one causing the world's end? Why? God's ending the world, so he's definitely NOT benevolent. Unable to stop the end is one thing. Being the one ending the world, why should be call him benevolent? He's malevolent if anything!

"Con must show us how something can exist inside of nothing and give us an example." I say the world is finite. Basic logic can conclude this. He's asking how something can exist in nothing. I say: The Big Bang existed. But the Big Bang is not omniscient, or even having emotions.

The Tri-omni God:

Pro concedes that God is Tri-omni. What evidence does he have?

"A false Prophet would come, renounce Christ, set up an image to his false god" Doesn't say how Tri-omni God exists.

"his followers would behead Christians" Could be avoided with Tri-omni. It hasn't, therefore not Tri-Omni.

"The Christians would be overcome. The gospel would be preached in all the world. There would be a falling away from Christianity." Therefore? If Christianity is decreasing, then surely God would want to do something about it, right? He didn't! He doesn't care!

I don't care about Muslims (don't mean to sound racist). I only care about evidence for a Tri-omni God.

So less people are believing in God. God wants to be loved. People are executing Christians, which is pure evil, in the eyes of God. Yet, God approves! What?

So, in short, God malevolent! He is willing to let people torture, such as the Muslims Pro is telling us about! Thanks for giving me information helping me, Pro. If God is malevolent, he definitely CANNOT be God.

Conclusion: Pro doesn't seem to be able to show God's omnipotence, omniscience, nor benevolence. I'd say vote for me.
brontoraptor

Pro

Con:
"So God can't make us love him? Then he is not omnipotent."

Con must show that you can force love and it actually be love. Just because you can force someone to love you, that doesn't mean you do because it would be flawed and not love at all.

*

Con:
"Jesus is merely a prophet."

You must have read a different Bible than us.

John 8:58--"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

Exodus 3:14--"And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

John 20:28--"Thomas answered and said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!"

Phil. 2:5-8--"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Matt. 28:9--"And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him

*

Con:
"God wants to be loved. People are executing Christians, which is pure evil, in the eyes of God. Yet, God approves! What?"

(Matthew 13:30)
"Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"

Good was brought into the darkness to define good and judge evil and is only cut off once all things are accomplished.

*

Con:
"Therefore? If Christianity is decreasing, then surely God would want to do something about it, right?"

Not if He allows free will. Con seems to think forcing slavery makes you better than free will. Hmm...scary...

*

Con:
"If God exists, he is omnipotent, and he is the perfect being."

Con:
God is omnipotent, he is able to lie.

Con has given us an example of faulty logic. If He is perfect by Con's own definition, He cannot be flawed, thus cannot speak errors. Lies are errors from the truth. If He lied, He would not be "perfect" by Con's own definition.

Con:
"God is the perfect being, he can't make flaws with his statements."

Con proves my point.

*

Con:
"If God can't lie, then he is not omnipotent, therefore God. If God can lie, he isn't perfect, therefore God. So it is impossible for God to exist. Pro must counter this logic."

He can lie because He's omnipotent. He chooses not to lie because He is perfect.

*

Con:
"The Big Bang existed."

So what caused that? Magic?

*

Con:
"I say the world is finite. Basic logic can conclude this."

Meaning it has boundries. Now explain to us what is outside of a reality with boundries. Nothing?

*

Con:
Being the one ending the world, why should be call him benevolent.

Morality is subjective. Morality is not black and white. Being kind is not a quality of a perfect being. Why? A perfect being is fully just, not fully kind at all times. If someone started killing people around you with an axe, would you put on a grin and offer up a smile? I hope not.

*

Con:
"Pro responds with saying numbers are infinite. What does this have to do with God lying."

Infinity equals the highest conceivable, perfect being, meaning they can lie, yet never do.

*

Con:
"In the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time." Here, Pro concedes God's incapable of lying."

The verse does not say "God cannot lie. It says He does not lie.

*

Con:
"If God is malevolent, he definitely CANNOT be God."

If God were nice in all cases, He would be flawed. To never show strength would be a weakness, not a virtue of perfection. Benevolent simply means "good".

Con must now define good, and since Con claims no God exists, Con cannot objectively define good without God.

*



*

Con:
"Tri-Omni"
1)omnipotent-
He knows the future. He is all good. And by infinity causing infinite things, the highest conceivable being must exist by default of the mathematical law of infinity. All things exist in infinity.

If Con says there is no beginning, that means infinite time exists. Infinity equals infinite things. Infinite things equals a creator.

If Con says there was a beginning to all things, then Con believes in magic. Con believes a beginning just popped into existance from nothing and nowhere.

2)omniscient-

He told us the future with stunning accuracy, as I displayed in round 2.

3)omnibenevolent-
Con cannot define good because objective morality is nonexistant in atheism. In atheism we are just random animals with no purpose, there is no meaning, no good, no evil, just pitiless indifference. So, I get to define it.

Good: To be skilled at getting desired results.

Example:
Michael Jordan was good at basketball, thus he won 6 NBA championships.

God is good because He gets His desired result in the end.





Debate Round No. 3
PowerPikachu21

Con

Sorry for my late posting. With that, let's get into my defense.

Defense:

Evil exists:

"Con must show that you can force love and it actually be love." God is supposed to be infinitely powerful, therefore able to create love.

If I wanted to, I could create a small program with characters that love me. Yes, they're characters, therefore have no real emotion, but stick with me. To God, the world is a program, but with real people. If I can make characters love me in a game, and God is more powerful, then he should be able to create love within us. So I ask Pro: how come God can't make true love with his omnipotence? If God is unable to do something that I can do a minor version of, then God is not all powerful, as per the definition of Omnipotence.

When Pro said Jesus had been betrayed, I said that it's irrelevant, because Jesus is not God, merely a prophet. Pro claims I read a different Bible. Personally, I haven't read any Bible, and it was just my interpretation. More quotes, but they show nothing that says Jesus is equal to God.

Evil preists:

I said, and I quote, "God wants to be loved. People are executing Christians, which is pure evil, in the eyes of God. Yet, God approves! What?"

"Good was brought into the darkness to define good" But good can still be good without evil. There doesn't have to be negatives to make a positive.

"and is only cut off once all things are accomplished." Hold It! What things are being accomplished? I thought God wanted only good things. So it's all part of his plan to spread evil? Malevolence, I say!

"Con seems to think forcing slavery makes you better than free will." I never said God needs ot enslave humanity. There can still be free will without evil. Couldn't God just make us only able to love, not able to choose hatred? That's what I would've done. I would be a better Perfect God than the "real" God is.

Syllogism concerning God:

Here's the syllogism in question:

P1: If God exists, he is omnipotent, and he is the perfect being.
P2: God is omniotent, he is able to lie.
P3: God is the perfect being, he can't make flaws with his statements.
P4: God is able to lie, yet can't be flawed with his statements.
C1: God cannot possibly be the perfect being, since he's flawed with lies.
C2: Since God is not the perfect being, he cannot be God.
C3: Therefore, God cannot exist.

Why don't you stop looking at sentences, and focus on the paragraph? First, Pro says my first two premises are faulty. They're merely stating facts, and reaching a conclusion later on.

Now, is something wrong with my conclusions? Pro says "He can lie because He's omnipotent. He chooses not to lie because He is perfect." So can God lie? You don't have to choose to do something to be able to do it. If he isn't able to choose, he can't lie, therefore he's not omnipotent.

So here's a big question: "Is God able to choose to lie?" If yes, then he can't be perfect, therefore God. If no, then he is not omnipotent, therefore God.

Finite World:

I agree with a finite world, however it's not really relevant anymore, I believe. Unless I missed something, we've dropped the impact of the argument.

Back to God being evil:

"Morality is subjective. Morality is not black and white." But why does there have to be black; evil? Why is God unable to make it only white; good? I'm sticking to this argument until Pro tells us why God is unable to create only good.

"A perfect being is fully just, not fully kind at all times." I'm guessing Pro's dropping the "omnibenevolence" part. If God is omnibenevolent, that means he is always caring, as per the definition. He can only be perfect if he matches the definitions in Round 1.

"If someone started killing people around you with an axe, would you put on a grin and offer up a smile?" Apparently God would gladly terrorize his own creations. And I wouldn't be happy if I was being terrorized.

1, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3... Not very fluent of a debate, is it? Back to the syllogism!:

"The verse does not say "God cannot lie. It says He does not lie." If he does not, he isn't exactly able to, See the main part of this argument.

Malevolence!:

Okay, you can partially blame me for not correcting the arguments.

"If God were nice in all cases, He would be flawed." Pro never showed this to be true. If he was benevolent, he would be good at all times.

"Con must now define good, and since Con claims no God exists, Con cannot objectively define good without God." That is false. I do not need a tyrant God to tell me what's moral or not. Good is what makes people happy. Utilinarism, if you will. God torturing people creates unhappiness. And no, God does not count as 1 quadrillion happy people.

Tri-Omni Trial:

We will be finishing my round with seeing whether God really is tri-omni.

Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. God isn't able to do everything, because he is unable to lie. Lying would break his perfection. Not lying would break his omnipotence.

Omniscience: "He told us the future with stunning accuracy, as I displayed in round 2" Wait, you did? Oh, I guess the bible quotes about rebellion. Still, he would've done SOMETHING about it, right?

Omnibenevolence: "Con cannot define good because objective morality is nonexistant in atheism." But apparently there is objective morality in thiesm. According to God, torturing is moral, as that's what God has done. I ask you: Is torture good? I heavily doubt this. And Utilinarism states that the greastest good is moral. People are unhappy when tortured, therefore torture is immoral. And, again, God does not count as 1 quadrillion votes.

Pro continues to straw man athiesm. Athiesm is merely the disbelief in God, not the belief that we have no reason.

Then, Pro defines "good". But he never gave me a chance. He didn't ask Round 2. He asked Round 3, then asnwered his own question in Round 3.

He defines good to be: "skilled at getting desired results". 1) This doesn't take into account morality, therefore is irrelevant. And 2) Pro messed up when he chewed me out.

Read this quote, which is right before Pro's definition: "Con cannot define good because objective morality is nonexistant in atheism. In atheism we are just random animals with no purpose, there is no meaning, no good, no evil, just pitiless indifference".

Morality isn't related to a desired result, unless the desired result is, of course, the moral action.

But what is moral? Why, whatever causes the least unhappiness, and the greatest happiness, of course!

Conclusion: We've clashed well. However I have shown that God cannot possibly be omnipotent and benevolent at the same time. If he isn't omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, he is not God. Pro has, again, failed to take down my arguments. I won't lie, he did make some decent points, but only decent.

Good game, and vote sufficiently!
brontoraptor

Pro

1)Con: "To God, the world is a program, but with real people."

Con admits that God exists.

*

2)Con: "he should be able to create love within us."

It would not be freely given love, thus of no value. I love God. Con chooses not to by choice.

*

3)Con: "how come God can't make true love with his omnipotence?"

He did, and lots of it. I love God. Con chooses not to. There are many who love God. It looks like His plan worked.

*

4)Con: 'If God is unable to do something that I can do a minor version of, then God is not all powerful, as per the definition of Omnipotence."

Con's minor creation is neither conscious, human, nor able to choose via real free will. Beyond that, this is paradoxial. Can God make a married bachelor? A round square? A tall short person? A happily depressed man...

*

5)Con: "Pro claims I read a different Bible. Personally, I haven't read any Bible, and it was just my interpretation."

If Con has never read any Bible, Con has no interpretation.

Christians believe Jesus is God in the flesh because He said He was and raised the dead multiple times, raising even Himself. The Bible says He is God manifested in the flesh.

*

6)Con: "More quotes, but they show nothing that says Jesus is equal to God."

"Jesus is God in the flesh" is a fundamental concept in Christianity.

Matthew 1:23 - “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulders. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

2 Peter 1:1 - "To those who have obtained precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

Here's a website with a list of however many more Con wants.

bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html

*

Con: "So here's a big question: "Is God able to choose to lie?" If yes, then he can't be perfect, therefore God."

Define "perfect" from the Atheist view. In Atheism lying would have no defining power or authority to declare anyone "not perfect", but simply making an instinctive choice based on biology and physics alone. Besides, to be able to lie and never do it is perfection.

*

7)Con: "I agree with a finite world."

Then explain to us how reality can exist with nothing outside of it. Explain to us how a basketball can hang inside of nothing.

*

8)Con: "I'm sticking to this argument until Pro tells us why God is unable to create only good."

Define "good". If good is defined as "What God wants", then anything He creates is good to Himself by default.

*

9)Con: "I'm guessing Pro's dropping the "omnibenevolence" part. If God is omnibenevolent, that means he is always caring, as per the definition."

Nope. You can be caring and not be nice at all times. I'm not nice to my dog when he tries to escape the yard, and for his own safety, but I never am uncaring towards him.

*

10)"Apparently God would gladly terrorize his own creations. And I wouldn't be happy if I was being terrorized."

Con said earlier that Con has never read any Bible in order to claim God "terrorizes people" so...citation and example needed.

Children may feel "terrorized", but it is meaningless as to whether the parents are caring, good, or moral. The child is simply being weak and unaccepting of correction by choice.

*

Con: "The verse does not say "God cannot lie. It says He does not lie." If he does not, he isn't exactly able to, See the main part of this argument."

I don't walk through the streets naked fondeling myself. I don't molest sheep. It doesn't mean I am not capable if I wanted to. Will I ever do it? Nope. Therefore I am perfect concerning never molesting sheep or fondeling myself naked in public.

*

Con: "If he was benevolent, he would be good at all times." Define "good". What I think is good, what Con thinks is good, or what God thinks is good? Muslims think it is good to stone adulterers to death. So is it?

*

Con: "Con cannot objectively define good without God."- That is false. I do not need a tyrant God to tell me what's moral or not."

You do for objective morality. And if Con claims subjective morality? Then Con must realize that 1.7 billion Muslims are under Sharia which commands a hand be chopped off for theft, okays 6 year old children as brides, and sees no problem with cutting the head off of an apostate. They deem these things as good. If Con had been raised Islamic, Con's definition of "good" would change.

*

Con: "Good is what makes people happy."

So if molesting sheep or toddlers makes you happy it is good...according to Con.

*

Con:"Omnipotence: The ability to do anything. God isn't able to do everything, because he is unable to lie."

He is able to lie, yet doesn't which allows omnipotence and perfection
Besides, it is paradoxial and unpermissable by Con's own rules lacking logic. It's the equivalent of saying you can have a married bachelor.

*

Con:"Lying would break his perfection. Not lying would break his omnipotence."

He doesn't lie. He could if He chose to. He doesn't choose to per perfection and by focus of omnipotent self control.

*

Con: he would've done SOMETHING about it, right?

Why? He chose to allow this version knowing it has the best final results of all possibilities that end with finalities He deems satisfactory.

*

Con: According to God, torturing is moral, as that's what God has done.

Con claimed Con had never read the Bible. Con gave us no verse or example demonstrating God doing anything.

*

Con: Pro messed up when he chewed me out.

I never chewed Con out. I have no emotional tie to debates or I wouldn't do them.

*

Con: But what is moral? Why, whatever causes the least unhappiness, and the greatest happiness, of course!"

So Jeffrey Dahmer eating people and putting their skin on his face was "good" because it made him happy according to Con.

*

In Con's last decleration, Con admits that my points were "decent" which is synonymous with "good", which I interprate as "wonderful", thus I perceive Con feels I won the debate. Thanks Con!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ErBoy 5 months ago
ErBoy
Con's closing statements are really edgy -_- that might affect my vote...
Posted by PowerPikachu21 5 months ago
PowerPikachu21
@FollowerofChrist I might read your debate. But remember that your debate was about any god. My debate talks about a specific God; the "Triomni" God, so brontoraptor has a greater burden than CamSox had.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
you would be wrong of course; already debating topic here!
http://www.debate.org...

Stop by and learn something.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 5 months ago
PowerPikachu21
@Samcoder1 No, I do not believe God exists. That's just the common definition for God. @Toviyah Alright. I guess I can change that.
Posted by Toviyah 5 months ago
Toviyah
I'll accept if you take out 'from the Bible' from the definition of God, and change the definition of omnipotent to 'Able to do anything metaphysically possible'.
Posted by Samcoder1 5 months ago
Samcoder1
'God; The omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being from the Bible'

'With that, who suggests God exists, as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?'

Well you, apparently.
No votes have been placed for this debate.