The Instigator
HeraldSarah
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
mfigurski80
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Does a loving, Christian 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 1 vote the winner is...
HeraldSarah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 394 times Debate No: 77998
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

HeraldSarah

Con

In this case, my definition of God is a singular entity who is completely good, all-powerful, and all wise.
If this God exists, then why is evil so abundant in the world? Terrible things happen throughout time, a continuous stream of events with "bad" and "good" events happening constantly. An analogy given in "The Case for Faith", a book written by Lee Strobel, brings up the argument that Peter Kreeft made, which describes the following scenario: A bear is caught in a trap, and a human attempts to help it. The human sedated the bear, and then has to further would the bear slightly to release the trap. From the bear's point of view, the human is hurting and trying to harm the bear. However, the human is actually trying to help.
Peter Kreeft made this analogy to try to explain the "evil" in the world. However, this analogy falls short when an all- powerful God replaces the human and humans replace the bear. God is all-powerful, so shouldn't God be able not only to remove the trap and heal the bear, but also stop the trap from ever existing? The existence of "evil", when it causes harm to innocents, stands as evidence contradicting the existence of this God.

If evolution is not real, why does so much evidence for it exist?

If God is completely "good", then how could he have condoned the slaughter of innocent children in the Old Testament? Or genocides? What about Noah's ark, when God killed almost every being on Earth?

Why do people go to Hell for believing the wrong thing? Just as much evidence is shown for other religions. How are humans supposed to know which choice will save them from eternal torture?

Why are people tortured in Hell if God could "redeem" them?

Many people follow different Gods and religions, and some none at all. What sets the standards for morals and ethics?

If God is always good, why does he let innocents suffer? He is all- powerful, and could erase their suffering in a heartbeat.
Thank you for your interest in this debate
mfigurski80

Pro

I accept the challenge provided to me by the instigator under the understanding that the full RESOLUTION reads: "A loving, Christian God does exist".

CON's definition of God: "A singular entity who is completely good, all-powerful, and all wise". I accept this definition as well.

Some simple rules that CON has to accept before they become active:
1) No trolling
2) No kritiks
3) No deconstructional or offensive statements.
4) All arguments must be presented in first and second rounds.

I feel confident that these rules will prevent subversive "tactics" from either side. Again, CON has to publicly announce his acceptance before it becomes active.


*END OF SETUP

POINT 1: Non-existant objects
Yes, I'm going to argue the existance of non-existant objects, wich in itself is sort of contradictory.

Let's use Santa as an example. As we all know, Santa does not exist (*crowd gasps*). From that knowledge we can conclude that Santa is non-existant. And, adding more words, Santa is a non-existant object. See where I am going? We can use this logic further, by claiming that there is a non-existant object, namely Santa. So... Santa does exist, but as a non-existant object.

In fact, there is a whole philosophy on non-existant objects, and many famous thinkers of this century have taken the time to deepen this seemingly preposterous field. (1)

So, just to review where we've gotten to so far:
a) Santa does not exist
b) Santa is a non-existant object
c) There is a non-existant object, namely Santa.

Let's think about this for a second. Let's say Santa indeed does exist, what would he be like? He would be cheery, happy, with a white beard, red nose, and a voice that sends jollyness through one. All the fake Santa's at the mall are like that, so the real Santa must be like that too.

But, alas, no Santa exists. But the non-existant Santa has all those traits; he is jolly and kind and has a white beard and red nose. How could he not?

Let's apply this metaphor to the debate. As stated by all Atheist around the world, God does not exist. So I would find no quarrel with anybody if I say that God is a non-existant object. And then, following the steps above, there must be a non-existant object, namely God.

Again, what traits would God exhibit, if He did exist? As provided by the definition: "completely good, all powerful, and omniscent". If the "existant" God displays these trait, then the non-existant God must display these trait as well!

Now, what might an omnipotent, and all powerful being do if he didn't exist? Wouldn't it be logical to create himself first? This is why any universe in which God doesn't exist has to have God. Atheism self-destructs, God has to be.

Those who know of St. Thomas will know that this is a complicated proof for "God is the uncaused cause".

POINT 2: Religion and Humanity
According to academia.edu, religion is a prime factor that holds today's society together (3). The author illustrates 12 definate positives that religion has, and shows how this holds the world in relative peace.

POINT 3: Ontology
St. Anselm has shown through simple logic that God exists (4). Here is the thought process:

a) God is most superior, nothing greater can be imagined.
b) Beings that exist in reality are better than those that don't exist.
c) Therefore, if a being exists in mind and in reality, it is greater than if it existed in only mind
d) If God, the most superior being, can be imagined, one can imagine something greater. An existing God.
e) Yet we cannot imagine something that is greater than God, for God is most superior
f) Therefore, God exists.

Let me explain the rapid jump to "f". If you exclude the last point, you are led into an infinite series of logical loops that will not end until one applies the last point.

POINT 4: Sheer Numbers

84% of the world believe in a God (5). How could this many people logically believe in a fallacy? People have had near-death experiences, people testify to have seen God, and testimonies are usually accepted by courts and evidence of existance. Explain this very curious statistic.

(1 http://www.unc.edu...)
(2 http://www.ushistory.org...)
(3 http://www.academia.edu...)
(4 http://www.iep.utm.edu...)
(5 http://www.washingtontimes.com...)

*REBUTALLS

"If God exists, then why is evil so abundant in the world?" - First I would like to define "evil". According to St. Augustine, evil is simply a parasite and not a thing in itself. Like a hole, a hole is simply the lack of something else. Evil is the lack of goodness.

Secondly, let us all recognize that there are two types of evil: moral and natural.

Moral evil is men commiting sins against one another. This is easily explained and does not actually conflict with God, but shows that humanity isn't perfect. It is a side-effect of free choice.

Natural evil is things like tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. Natural evil is explained as well, and the answer is clear in Genesis. God kicked Adam and Eve, therefore humanity, out of a world lacking evil, because of their moral shortcomings. Some say that this is because humans are evil in themselves, and cannot exist in an evilless world. However you view it, we have evil in our world and this is admitted by the Bible and by God.


"If evolution is not real, why is there so much evidence for it." - You don't have to believe in Creationism to believe in God. Even the Old Testament doesn't preach this, it simply says "and so it happened". It does not say how, or why, or anything in between. Evolution is part of God's work, as that is how "it happened".

"Why do people go to Hell for believing the wrong thing?" - They don't. The bible does not state this anywhere, it simply pushes others to believe in Jesus Christ.

More widely accepted is a theory illustrated by C.S Lewis in his final book of "Narnia". God is one, God is all, one can believe in God under any name he wishes. During the final day of "Narnia", Aslan the lion (God) stands in front of the doorway to paradise as all the creatures rush on. He meets the eye of every single one, and he gets one of two responses.
a) the creature is joyed to find that He exists. It then passes through the door towards paradise.
b) the creature is devasted to find that He exists. It runs away from Him, and is never seen again.

We will decide our own fate, and we will know that if we decide wrong bad things will happen. So we judge ourselves fairly, and off we go.


"Why are people tortured in Hell if God could redeem them?" - While God is technically omnipotent, he doesn't break promises. Evidently, God promised that humans would have free will and wouldn't be subjected to his commands, which is taught by the Bible. And so the people who go to hell want to stay in hell, knowing that they deserved hell, and will want nothing more of God, for they know that God is their opposite. Therefore, it is impossible to do without breaking his promise.

"Many people follow different Gods and religions, and some none at all. What sets the standards for morals and ethics?" - All the Gods combined. Again, one cannot do a good deed in the name of the Devil, for it will be counted to God. Nor can you do a good deed for anything else, for it still counts to God. So it doesn't matter which diety you worship, for you always worship the same omnipotent diety who created you.

"If God is always good, why does he let innocents suffer? He is all- powerful, and could erase their suffering in a heartbeat" - Because of the presence of evil, or rather, the lack of good. I explained it before.

*MESSAGE
Many thanks for creating this debate. I, however, might not be available for an extended period of time after the weekend. Please respond promptly, and we'll see how far we can take this debate before I have to leave.
Debate Round No. 1
HeraldSarah

Con

1) No trolling
2) No kritiks
3) No deconstructional or offensive statements.
4) All arguments must be presented in first, second, and third rounds.
I accept the aforementioned rules and will abide by them.

Refutation:
Point one, non-existent objects:
Pro uses the statement that Santa does not exist to provide evidence for Santa"s existence. In truth, the concept and idea of Santa exists, but Santa himself does not exist. Pro contradicts himself by saying first that Santa does not exist but later saying, "Santa does exist, but as a non-existent object". Because Pro bases this conclusion off of Santa"s non-existence, Pro"s logic does not follow and is incorrect. Pro contradicts himself, proving himself wrong. Pro is trying to prove that because God doesn"t exist, this means God exists.
If Pro wishes to expand upon causation, I will gladly debate it with Pro.
Point two, religion and humanity: Pro"s argument attempts to demonstrate that religion has a good impact on the world. This is irrelevant to the debate topic, which is "Does a loving, Christian God exist?" This is a tangent and irrelevant.

Point three, ontology:
Pro states:
a) God is most superior, nothing greater can be imagined.
b) Beings that exist in reality are better than those that don't exist
c) Therefore, if a being exists in mind and in reality, it is greater than if it existed in only mind
d) If God, the most superior being, can be imagined, one can imagine something greater. An existing God.
e) Yet we cannot imagine something that is greater than God, for God is most superior
f) Therefore, God exists

Refutation
b) This is a statement of opinion, as one object being better than another is a matter of opinion. Also, a being that doesn"t exist cannot be compared to an existing being. That"s like comparing apples and oranges, or like asking people who will win the 2016 United States" presidential election: Hillary Clinton or Thomas the tank engine.
c) As stated before, a non-existent being cannot exist. A non- existent being also cannot be compared to an existing being (I"m sorry for being so repetitive).
d) As God is in this case the most superior being, nothing greater than Him could be imagined. There is also nothing to compare God to. That"s like showing someone a perfect cucumber and asking them to imagine a better cucumber.
e) Pro supports my claim from line d
f) Because of the formerly listed logical fallacies Pro makes, the conclusion Pro draws is inaccurate.

Point four, sheer numbers: Please note that this debate is specifically about the existence of a Christian God. Pro"s argument, when viewed in this light, is turned against Pro. Only 32% of the world"s population is Christian [http://www.pewresearch.org...]. That means that 68% of the world population does not believe in a Christian God! How could 68% of the world- or approximatly 4,984,920,540 people at the time I wrote this according to my own math and data from http://www.worldometers.info... - be wrong?

Defense:
1) Pro fails to provide reasoning for evil"s existence, merely agreeing that evil exists. Allowing this evil to exist would contradict God"s qualities, as God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. God could remove evil"s existence from the world, or, if one accepts Pro"s definition of evil- the absence of goodness- then God could fill the world with good because He is all-powerful. Beyond this, because God is all-good, He would be required by His very nature to eradicate evil.
2) I will drop the evolution debate because this debate is on the existence of God, not the truth of the Bible, as I did not explicitly state that the existence of the Christian God would require the Bible to be true. If Pro wishes to bring this argument back up, I will be happy to debate it.
3) The Bible does say that non-believers will be cast into the lake of fire, or Hell.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." "Revelation 20:15
The lord replied to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book -- Exodus 32:33
He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18
Pro provides no evidence to support his claim about reality being like Narnia (a fictional world in a book series). The Bible says that unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire. As such, Pro makes an assumption directly contradicted by the Bible, the book Christianity is based off of.

4) Why would anyone who was evil enough to be thrown into Hell not try to gain entry to Heaven? Also, if non-believers were thrown into Hell, they would believe because they are in Hell and have been judged by God. Would this not mean they gain access to Heaven? Pro"s argument does not make sense. An all-good God would not condemn people to eternal torture based on non-belief. God would be unnecessarily inflicting pain upon people whose only sin was picking the wrong religion or faith. How are people supposed to know which one is right? An all-good God would be incapable of an act of revenge or punishment such as eternal torture.
5) Standards for morals and ethics differ throughout the world and have changed throughout time. Would an all-good God not have enlightened people to what is wrong? If not, He would be punishing people for unknowingly committing crimes. As such, unless Pro proves that morals are the same everywhere and have been the same forever, an all-good God cannot exist.
6) If God is all-powerful, he could create good. Pro did not provide an explanation for the existence of evil in the world.
Pro did not provide reasoning for the occurrence of genocides or other acts of cruelty committed by God, and so I extend that argument.

Over to Pro
mfigurski80

Pro

mfigurski80 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
HeraldSarah

Con

I extend all my arguments.
mfigurski80

Pro

mfigurski80 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mfigurski80

Pro

mfigurski80 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
Anyone who votes, please vote based only on the given arguments and not on the forfeit.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
@tejretics
Thanks! I'll be sure to do that. Does this also apply for the tablet/ mobile version of the site?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@HeraldSarah -- When you C/P your argument, first click "rich text" above the argument box. All formatting errors, e.g. apostrophes replaced with quotes, are avoided.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
I will be waiting as long as possible before extending my argument to give mfigurski80 the best possible chance to continue this debate, as he did not specify when he will be back.
@mfigurski80
Feel free to refute my argument in round 4 even if you have forfeited the other rounds, but please do not offer a new argument then, as per the rules.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
@mfigurski80
Excellent!

I apologize for all my apostrophes being switched with quotes. Because of technological issues, I had to switch word processors 4 times, and I assume that's when the exchange happened. I'll make sure that doesn't happen next time.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Sure. No new arguments in round four, but the rest are fair game.

And you can ask anybody you want once we finish. I don't mind at all.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
@mfigurski80
Is there anyone in particular you would like to vote on this debate? I was considering asking tejrectics or salam.morcos, but I want to make sure that's o.k. with you.
Posted by HeraldSarah 1 year ago
HeraldSarah
@mfigurski80
As there are 4 rounds in this debate, could we extend the no new arguments rule only to round 4? I would like to present any new evidence I have in round 3, and that way you can still refute it in round four. Beyond this, I have no objections to the rules.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
HeraldSarahmfigurski80Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.