The Instigator
Jaemk9
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Does the God of the bible exist?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 97806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Jaemk9

Pro

I believe that the God of the bible exists. I would love to debate anyone whether you agree with me or not. I am not here to debate anything else but simply whether or not a higher being and God of the Bible exists.
MagicAintReal

Con

I accept.
Thanks for the debate Pro.
Pro didn't bother providing definitions, so I will.
Thanks again Pro.

Definitions

god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

creation - the process of bringing something into existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

process - a series of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

series - a number of events of a related kind coming one after another.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

after - in the time following an event.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

exist - have objective reality or being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...


*My Position*

Therefore I reject the resolution, because the universe wasn't created, and the god of the bible is too immoral to be the source of all moral authority.
Debate Round No. 1
Jaemk9

Pro

Let me begin by giving a response to what my opponent has said:
By saying that God is not the source of all moral authority, then I must pose a few questions to you. What is the source of morality and by what standard do you say that God is immoral? By saying that God is immoral you acknowledge that there is a standard of moral obligation. God is able to do these things in the bible because he is the essence of good. Whatever does not meet this standard he has, has severe consequences. If one says that reason is the ultimate standard of morality then that means that they believe themselves to be God. That also means that there is a hierarchy of humanity because someone must have created morality which means that they were above the moral obligation

I would like to move on to my own points:
By saying that God does not we must take a few things into account into our natural world. Naturalists say that all things in this world come from natural laws and there is nothing supernatural that exists. By saying there is no God immediately you take away all that is supernatural all that cannot be explained. The one who creates the computer is not inside the computer but rather outside of it. If I could fully explain why God did some things or why he does not help those who are hurting or why evil exists then I would be God. If atheists had all the answers they would be God would they not? I do not want to be associated with a God that is so small that can fit inside my own brain.
MagicAintReal

Con

Pro had no issues with the definitions I provided 1st round.
These definitions then should be used when gauging this debate.
Does an agent of the temporal creation of the universe exist as the source of all moral authority?
Nope, and here's why...

*Creation Is Temporal*

Since god is defined, in this debate, as the creator of the universe, this proposed agent is using creation, which is defined, in this debate, as using a series of events that are necessarily linked by time...one *after* the other.

It seems pretty clear that creators necessarily precede their creations.
In order for precedence, there must be time.
If there is no time between a creator and its created product, then there is no precedence, and I argue one cannot discern between creator and created product without time for precedence.

Seriously.
Pro, can you explain the difference between a creator and its created product without time or temporal concepts like precedence?

The reason this is significant is that spacetime originated at the big bang, at the origin of our universe.
To say that some agent used a temporal process to create time is in fact a contradiction.

How can a time based process occur before time originated?
It can't.


*The Biblical God Is Immoral*

From what I can gather, the god of the bible is the ultimate author of it, so what we find in the bible is morally approved by him.

According to the god of the bible in Exodus 21:20 - 21:21:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

Apologists typically throw out that the idea "slave" is being used to mean "servant" or "butler."
Ok, so god's cool with you beating a butler as long as you don't kill them BECAUSE they are your property?

If we're to believe that the author of these ideas is the source of all moral authority, then is it moral to own other humans as property?

Pro, do you believe that it is moral for humans to own other humans as property?

God also adds in Deuteronomy 22:13 - 22:21:
"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity' [and]...the charge is true and no proof of the young woman"s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father"s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing...by being promiscuous while still in her father"s house. You must purge the evil from among you."
https://www.biblegateway.com...

So, the alleged source of all moral authority, god, is not cool with women having sex before marriage, and if this does in fact occur, he commands all of the men of the town to stone them to death?

I'm speechless.
One would expect the source of all MORAL authority to be, I don't know...moral.

Pro, is stoning a promiscuous girl at her father's doorstep moral?


*Responding To Pro*

Pro inquires:
"What is the source of morality?"

My response:
This seems like something that Pro should be explaining, but I'll answer.
Actions that lead toward the homeostasis of conscious creatures that experience the heights of human consciousness are more moral than actions that lead away from the homeostasis of conscious creatures that experience the heights of human consciousness.


Pro continues:
"by what standard do you say that God is immoral? "

My response:
Beating a human to near death because they are your property doesn't lead to the homeostasis of conscious creatures; it leads away from that.

Pro, do you believe that owning a human you can beat to near death is moral?
Why/why not?


Pro asserts:
"God is able to do these things in the bible because he is the essence of good."

My response:
Other than bare assertion, what reason do we have to believe that god is the essence of good?
Slavery and women stoning isn't helping him out any.


Pro reasons:
"If one says that reason is the ultimate standard of morality then that means that they believe themselves to be God."

My response:
Aside from this baffling logic, what does reason being the ultimate standard of morality have to do with this debate?
Pro, you really should just make your case, not attempt to negate a case you haven't seen in this debate.


Pro demands:
"By saying there is no God immediately you take away all that is supernatural all that cannot be explained."

My response:
Please demonstrate something supernatural, whatever that means, and explain why committing an argument from ignorance fallacy defaults to god.


*Conclusion*

1. Time originated at the origin of our universe, so when there was no universe, temporal (time-based) processes, including creation, didn't occur; there was no time.

2. The god of the bible condones owning other humans as property, which also grants the permission, from god himself, to beat human property as a form of punishment; this is immoral.

3. The god of the bible commands that all of the men of a town stone to death, at her father's door, a woman who has been promiscuous; this is immoral.

4. Pro either has to apologize for his god's immoral endorsements, or Pro has to argue that human property beating and women stoning is moral.

5. No time, no creation, no creator; slavery, abuse, and stoning, no morality.

I reject this particular resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
Jaemk9

Pro

In the beginning God created, this word created is key, The heavens and the earth. Now for anything to come into being there has to be an origin and it is completely illogical for anything to simply pop into existence without someone or something creating it. God created Time (the beginning) the heavens (space) and earth which is matter. These are the things that make up the universe. This is all is stated in Genesis 1:1. This discovery was made by scientists relatively recently, However the bible was written over 4,000 years ago. This means that there was some sort of supernatural knowledge being passed down. Regardless of what one thinks about what caused the other to come into existence it is all somewhat irrelevant because if one says that earth simply came to be it is defying logic. There is always an origin. There is always a creator. On earth we see the same thing. You create a stool, the stool can not create itself. It is impossible to bring life into something dead or to bring life from nothing without a creator or an origin. It defies logic.

My opponent and many other atheists love to use this argument that because God says to stone those who are adulterous or to hurt your slaves but don't kill, that makes him immoral. This sort of situation and set of laws have to be looked at very thoroughly. Now I don't blame my opponent. In fact I think that it is a troubling situation to any person, christian or not. God is a holy God and will not allow any sin to be left untouched at the time. There were sacrifices at the altar in order to pay for sin and to pay for moral failure. The cultural background must be looked at. At the time people did not feel guilty for sleeping with people of the same family and did not feel guilty for sleeping with many different men. To say that the Israelite community was being minimally progressive is true. It cannot be denied that at the time slavery brought about no guilt and was not seen as moral failure. God was telling the Israelites to not kill their slaves and indeed feel guilty even slightly if they do kill them. This is for that time, progressive. Now at this time it is not because we have gotten further along in society. Jesus in the New testament rewrites the Law. He brings morality to a whole new level. He says "You have heard it said do not commit adultery but I say to you, even if you look at a women lustfully you have already committed adultery." For this time this was extremely progressive. Again the surrounding countries were completely immoral. God was putting down what was the standard of morality. When God said to stone adulterous woman it was because of the immoral act that the Israelites had to do this and precisely because God is a Holy God who requires perfection which is why he brought Jesus to come be a representation of perfection for us. God was not saying "Go stone everyone in the vicinity in Israel. If you see someone, anyone, stone them." That would be immoral. God was however stating that Immoral acts need a punishment. I will go as far as saying that Israel had set up the first primitive law and order and government.
MagicAintReal

Con

Thanks for that response Pro.
This round I plan to address Pro's assertions.
I also plan to address Pro's lack of a response to questions I have posed.

*Creation*

Pro asserts:
"In the beginning God created, this word created is key, The heavens and the earth."

My response:
Since creation is a temporal process, Pro needs to explain how god used this time-based process to bring about the origin of time itself, which is also the origin of the universe.
How could time be used before it was created?
This is why "created" is key.


Pro asserts more:
"for anything to come into being there has to be an origin"

My response:
I would argue that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle negates that claim by showing that from empty space, with zero energy, sub nuclear particles appear and are annihilated randomly and spontaneously.
Quantum Mechanics has shown that from no energy, energy can come, and that macro-scale physics don't apply to vacuum fluctuations and their virtual particles.
http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com...


Pro reasons:
"it is completely illogical for anything to simply pop into existence without someone or something creating it."

My response:
The sub nuclear particles and their forces associated with vacuum fluctuations "simply pop into existence without someone or something creating it."
Quantum fluctuation is a principle of quantum mechanics, allowed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org...


Pro contradicts:
"God created Time (the beginning) the heavens (space) and earth which is matter."

My response:
What Pro is saying here is that god used a series of events, one after the other, in a time-based process, to originate time itself.
How could there have been a series of events, one after the other, if time wasn't existent?
How did god use time, before he allegedly created it?

Also, other than assertions Pro, just you saying that god created earth and space isn't an argument, it's mere assertion.


Pro brings evidence:
"This is all is stated in Genesis 1:1."

My response:
Why should we consider the bible to be authoritative on matters of the universe or morality?


Pro stomps his feet:
"There is always an origin. There is always a creator."

My response:
Well Pro, you haven't shown that there can be a creator without time, namely because you've already agreed that creation is a time based process, and somehow you still assert that god used time before he created it...it's baffling really."

So, following your above assertions, if there's always a creator, then who created god...wouldn't that assertion "there is always a creator" apply here?
If there is, then your alleged creator of the universe has a creator to whom we could assign agency in the creation of the universe, thus negating the god of the bible, who according to you must have a creator, as the true creator of the universe.


*Morality*

Pro generalizes:
"My opponent and many other atheists love to use this argument that because God says to stone those who are adulterous or to hurt your slaves but don't kill, that makes him immoral."

My response:
Call us crazy I guess...

Pro furthers:
"This sort of situation and set of laws have to be looked at very thoroughly."

My response:
You're right.
After a nice thorough look at them, I think we should throw them out, because it seems that stoning women to death and owning humans as property to be beaten isn't very conducive to civil society...good thing we took a thorough look at those laws from god, right?


Pro concedes:
"In fact I think that it is a troubling situation to any person, christian or not."

My response:
Yes, you are demonstrating the clear distinction between how you determine morals (stoning is bad) and how the bible determines morals (stoning is good).
You are evidence of how we don't use the bible for our morality, because we both agree that stoning is an evil practice, and the bible instructs it.

Pro hedges:
"The cultural background must be looked at. At the time people did not feel guilty for sleeping with people of the same family and did not feel guilty for sleeping with many different men."

My response:
Why is god's morality susceptible to cultural background or particular times in history?
Shouldn't god's morality be timeless an uninfluenced?

Pro continues:
"It cannot be denied that at the time slavery brought about no guilt and was not seen as moral failure."

My response:
Yeah, when god says something is ok to do, people who believe in god don't feel guilty; the feel they're following god's instructions.
If Pro is saying that slavery was once moral, then Pro has done two things:

1. Pro has conceded that god's morality is changeable as time goes on from culture to culture, which doesn't show god being the source of moral authority.

2. Pro has also equated slavery with a moral failure which puts Pro in contrast with god; even Pro's own source of morality isn't the god of the bible.


Pro points out:
"Jesus in the New testament rewrites the Law."

My response:
Why did something god wrote have to be rewritten if god is the ultimate source of morality?
The answer is that god doesn't exist, ancient people wrote the bible, slavery is immoral, and humans tried to correct that by writing the new testament.
God's law shall not be changed!


Pro babbles:
"When God said to stone adulterous woman it was because of the immoral act that the Israelites had to do this and precisely because God is a Holy God who requires perfection."

My response:
Nothing says perfection like a good old stoning.
Just to be clear, I asked Pro if stoning adulterous women was moral and he responded that god requires perfection.
That made me throw up a little.

Pro reasons:
"God was not saying 'Go stone everyone in the vicinity in Israel. If you see someone, anyone, stone them.' That would be immoral."

My response:
Right, that would be immoral, but stoning adulterous women is a sign of god's desire for perfection?
Why is it ok to stone adulterous women but not everyone?

Pro concludes:
"God was however stating that Immoral acts need a punishment."

My response:
Except here, he exclusively says that the immoral act of owning someone as property and beating them *should not* be punished:

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...


*Conclusion*

God didn't create the universe because of the temporal inadequacies of that claim, and the god of the bible is immoral given the stoning of women and the condoning of unpunished slave beating.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Matpat// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: -________________________________________________________________________-

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
***********************************************************************
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@fred70 I'm sensing some sarcasm, no?
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
I'm in nail biting suspense.
No votes have been placed for this debate.