The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ashwin.sharma921
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God

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: 8/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,356 times Debate No: 25035
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

Rule: Con must argue from an atheist standpoint, not a "God is good" standpoint.

Science can not explain evil.

Why are people capable of murder, not just a little bit capable such as if we feel threatened, but capable out of pure malice and in large numbers (the Holocaust for example)? Some people even murder innocent children, even babies (and I'm not talking about abortion here, I'm talking about infanticide). That clearly is not a beneficial trait. It would have helped us greatly if humans had an inherent revulsion to murdering each other, and a desire to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. Cultures and societies would have come together a lot faster. Technologies and knowledge would've been shared. By now we would probably already have a colony on Mars.

There are a number of other things which would've been beneficial had we developed genetic mutations to avoid, such as rape and suicide. Suicide is particularly difficult to understand, since the individual is directly acting against their own survival, the individual selecting against him/herself!

Since all human behavior boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of supernatural intervention it is possible for genes to emerge that would stop these sorts of behaviors, but it didn't happen.

There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA.

God. There must be an all-powerful evil deity who continuously intervenes to prevent these sorts of beneficial mutations that would've otherwise occured due to natural selection. Nature alone can not account for all the evil in the world.
ashwin.sharma921

Con

Well, I thank Pro for introducing such a nice eye-to-eye debate which has an equally contending pro and con side. Before kick-starting with the opener, I would just like to point out by relieving my learned opponent as well as the almighty voters that the debate in any way does not intend to harm the sentiments of any section of the society.

Now, getting on to the debate. My opponent has unintentionally pointed out that the "con must argue from an atheist standpoint,not a "God is good" standpoint." but it makes me contemplate on the fact of proving something unrealistic. What I mean to say is that, it is impossible to contradict the fact that god is evil without assuming the "God is good" standpoint. Well, that's nothing to ponder upon. This statement may not actually seem to be as enthusiastic but I must admit here that it has an eloquent role particularly in this debate. This heightens the dual minded aspect of my opponent which simply is indefensible, that's all I can say.

My opponent clearly reflects upon the fact that we "in general" as people commit murders, rapes, thefts and various other sinful deeds, (which may be either to harm other people or damage in any way the bounties of nature's elements) which in other sense throws light upon the fact that god is evil. But, what I would like to advise my opponent is that the world is not as much evil as my opponent has tried to summarise. It in fact, consists of much more of divinity than evil. And of course, evil forms just one aspect of the modern world for which the definition PARTIALLY stands true, not even partially I must say. Consider an example:
" David Beckham is a world renowned footballer. He has won the hearts of many during his fantastic football career. But if he does not perform as well, in say, one or two games, does it mean that he has lost the ability to play?" Similarly, is evil the sole reason to admit the fact that god is evil? I mean, its only the one side of a coin, and it may even be misguiding enough. But, here I will question my so called knowledgeable opponent, "If something good happens with us we generally tend to thank god for the gift and of course bestow benevolence upon him, so does it mean that he is besmirched in times of evil? I mean, when we greet him with warm regards in good times, how can we become so cruel and relentless to neglect him and cry evil for him in evil times? And, nevertheless, life is always a pattern of ups and downs, and is always cheered with the way it is. So, god is none to be blamed for the evil that takes shape. It is the intention of humans that they resort to commit evil themselves and then berate god for all that what's been done.

And as for the success we would have achieved, as highlighted by my opponent, if humans had had an inherent revulsion to murdering each other; it would come when it has to and not you, me or even the president of a country has the power to encourage its development even if there is an eccentrically happy and peaceful relationship between we humans.

Oh, and my opponent abreast of his own remarkably scientific and technical knowledge and skills, this time has not struck the bull's eye. He obviously is quite overconfident with his knowledge about genes and much of the neurobiology, I must admit. He says that "all human behaviour boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of of supernatural intervention" or god, what he calls it, and it is just obvious that god didn't intervene in genetic mutations and natural selections, so this means that he wants us to continue with our original genes burdened with sin and guilt. And so, finally god is evil, according to him. But here what strikes me the most is that science has never preached the existence of god. I refer you to (http://atheism.about.com...). And being such an ardent follower of science, as understood by his allegations, my opponent should not emphasise on the supernatural power of god and claim him to stand responsible for the unchanged effect in DNA overtime. In other words, following the principles of science, my opponent must not haphazardly enmesh the beliefs of science with god himself and that's it.

So again it is the dual minded aspect of my opponent that has gained popularity here. So, I would now like to request my opponent to post his thoughts in the round II. His beliefs and contradictions are most welcome and I must admit that my opponent is surely the one, to be dealt with seriously.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

Con Has Violated The Rules

Con states "My opponent has unintentionally pointed out that the "con must argue from an atheist standpoint,not a "God is good" standpoint." but it makes me contemplate on the fact of proving something unrealistic. What I mean to say is that, it is impossible to contradict the fact that god is evil without assuming the "God is good" standpoint. Well, that's nothing to ponder upon. This statement may not actually seem to be as enthusiastic but I must admit here that it has an eloquent role particularly in this debate."

I clearly stated you must take a atheist standpoint in arguing against me. By definition an atheist does NOT believe that "God is good" nor does an atheist believe that "God is evil" or that "God is somewhat, somewhat evil". An atheist believes that there is NO God, which would still contradict the premise of this debate "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God".

Since Con has broken the rules I win, hands down unless Con wants to change course and start arguing from an atheist standpoint.

To spell it out for you an atheist arguing against the contention that "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God" would be trying to show that the amount of evil in the world is possible without intervention from an all-powerful being(a God) to cause the evil.

Rebuttal
"it is just obvious that god didn't intervene in genetic mutations and natural selections"
It is obvious that an all-powerful being never intervened in genetic mutations and natural selections? How?

"unchanged effect in DNA overtime."
Con offers up no evidence that DNA has never changed.

Regardless of your responses to these rebuttals, you will LOSE the debate if you do NOT switch your perspective to the one outlined in the rules for this debate.
ashwin.sharma921

Con

Thankfully, my opponent has remarked another aspect and has tried to give an all new arena to the debate. Particularly, here he has committed a blunder, I must admit. My voters will obviously become intrigued by the way the debate has taken form. Well, I certainly did not expect such an answer from my experienced opponent. You all might have noticed that in the very first round of this debate, my opponent had very emphatically pressed on the point that con should necessarily take on the atheist standpoint and now he says that
" By definition an atheist does NOT believe that "God is good" nor does an atheist believe that "God is evil" or that "God is somewhat, somewhat evil". An atheist believes that there is NO God, which would still contradict the premise of this debate "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God"."

So what he means to say is that I should take on the 'atheist' point of view ie. just as an atheist does not believe in god, even I should assume to have a 'NO' god standpoint and then contrast the fact 'Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God'. But if according to me there is practically no god, then how can my opponent remark that god is evil or divine?
Well, once again I have proved that my opponent is in a dilemma and has totally a dual minded aspect.

Ah, and my dear opponent has very rigidly commented
"Since Con has broken the rules I win, hands down unless Con wants to change course and start arguing from an atheist standpoint."
But oh, and that's what I should say at this point since being an atheist or a theist doesn't make any difference here, because I haven't violated the rules of the debate till now. Whatever I have said till now is true for both atheist and the theist side.

"To spell it out for you an atheist arguing against the contention that "Evil Proves the Existence of an Evil God" would be trying to show that the amount of evil in the world is possible without intervention from an all-powerful being(a God) to cause the evil."

Strawman. How can you say so? Well, I must say that what pro stresses upon here, will lead to an argument about the existence of god, whether or not god exists. But I will state what I should actually say here. As per the topic I should be saying that 'God exists, but is no evil' unlike what my opponent tries to state.

Proceeding on to the rebuttal round:
i) As for your first question I must say, you definitely look a scientist, and now since you are an ardent follower of science, you yourself must be knowing about the creation and recreation of generations and generations together. You talk about genetic mutations but have you lost your knowledge about the splitting of chromosomes, cytoplasm and passing of genes from one generation to the other. You have lost the knowledge of cell and nucleus division! So does god have any role to play in this process? I believe that its only the internal of a human which gives birth to the next generation. So how can you blame god for this process?

ii)" "unchanged effect in DNA overtime." Con offers up no evidence that DNA has never changed."
Here my opponent says (In round I):

"There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA.
God. There must be an all-powerful evil deity who continuously intervenes to prevent these sorts of beneficial mutations that would've otherwise occured due to natural selection. Nature alone can not account for all the evil in the world."

Have you provided any evidence for the statement you have just made?
So now after my explanation, I have eased my voters for the right decision making.

I would earnestly wait for pro's response soon.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

"So what he means to say is that I should take on the 'atheist' point of view ie. just as an atheist does not believe in god, even I should assume to have a 'NO' god standpoint and then contrast the fact 'Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God'. But if according to me there is practically no god, then how can my opponent remark that god is evil or divine?"

Because, the entire point of this debate is that I am trying to prove that "evil" or more specifically "The amount of evil in the world" is actually proof of God's existence because without God (which by definition is an all-powerful being, perhaps you are stuck thinking only of the Christian God, the word "God" does NOT imply any particular religion's deity) intervening there would not be as much evil in the world.

If you argue that "God is good" that completely defeats the purpose of this debate! That is why I made that rule!

I have a funny feeling that you KNOW that was my intention and you are playing dumb because you are a self-righteous, arrogant Christian fundamentalist who feels upset and offended that anyone could suggest that "God" may be evil.

Well, tough sh!t! I started the debate. I make the rules. You violated the ONE rule that I made. YOU LOSE!

More Nonsense

What do you mean "dual-minded"? Are you trying to win this debate with gibberish? Define what you mean!

"ardent follower of science"

Science is NOT a religion, and does NOT have followers. MOST people, people who are actually intelligent believe in science regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

And I NEVER discounted the little steps in the process. What I was saying is that evil tendancies such as suicide or murder go against natural selection. Therefore, those genetic traits should have been bred out. The only way they wouldn't have is with God's intervention to stop natural selection from playing out as it would in a godless world. An all-powerful being could do this in any way he sees fit, including interfering with what goes on in as you so elegantly put it "the internal of a human", because DUH he is all-powerful. If he wanted to intervene during the little steps identified by science (which we have physical proof of, so that's not debateable anyways!) he could. The existence of an all-powerful being and the scientific explanation for evolution, for genetics, for anything are 100% compatible unless we limit the definition of "God" to YOUR particular idea of "God" but I NEVER said that. You somehow got that idea into your head, because you are an arrogant bible-thumper who doesn't understand anything and thinks he has the right to go in and make up his own rules over the ONE that was made in the first place. You are disappointing and frankly you make me sick.

I'm done with this debate. I refuse to debate someone so willfully ignorant, and so arrogant as to ignore the rules. All arguments extended to the further rounds. I hope the voters are smart enough to recognize at I WIN given that you won't even follow the only rule I stipulated.
ashwin.sharma921

Con

"Because, the entire point of this debate is that I am trying to prove that "evil" or more specifically "The amount of evil in the world" is actually proof of God's existence because without God (which by definition is an all-powerful being, perhaps you are stuck thinking only of the Christian God, the word "God" does NOT imply any particular religion's deity) intervening there would not be as much evil in the world."

I feel my opponent is mistaken here. First of all, that's absolutely not the answer to my question? Perhaps he hasn't understood my question. My question actually was that, if he says in round I, that Con must argue from an atheist point of view (ATHEIST meaning THE ONE WHO FOLLOWS NO GOD), then how can he align himself against the fact that god is evil? And yes, as rightly pointed out by my opponent that god doesn't necessarily mean a religious deity, it means 'a supernatural power'.

The second thing I would like to point out here is somewhat even more disastrous to my opponent. I know that my opponent would refute to the fact if I don't provide an evidence for it. So here I will make it a bit more clear so that it makes it easy for my opponent to comprehend it.

"So it goes like this....
"There are a number of other things which would've been beneficial had we developed genetic mutations to avoid, such as rape and suicide. Suicide is particularly difficult to understand, since the individual is directly acting against their own survival, the individual selecting against him/herself! Since all human behavior boils down to neurobiology unless there is some sort of supernatural intervention it is possible for genes to emerge that would stop these sorts of behaviors, but it didn't happen. There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA.
God. There must be an all-powerful evil deity who continuously intervenes to prevent these sorts of beneficial mutations that would've otherwise occured due to natural selection. Nature alone can not account for all the evil in the world."

Well, this is exactly what my opponent said in the first round of my debate, to give a detailed account of the same. His scientific skills are heightened by the same. He feels sure of his knowledge about sciences. But I thought he would realise his mistake and would retreat. But, he didn't. He says that, had god intervened in genetic mutations and developed an inherent revulsion in the humans to murder etc. we would have even developed a colony on Mars. But I would like to say that biological experiments have proved that there are two types of traits in the humans, namely 'ACQUIRED TRAITS' and 'INHERITED TRAITS'. Inherited traits are the ones which are inherited through successive generations while acquired traits are the ones that an individual acquires during his lifetime. To specify, traits like murders, rapes etc. are not inherited by us through our forefathers but are rather based on the thinking of an individual and the individual develops those traits during his lifetime. So it is just not possible to say that had god intervened in the genetic mutations there would have been no crimes.
Here my opponent says,"There can be only one explanation for why natural selection did not eliminate these things from our DNA." in round I.
But my dear Pro, these things (murder, rape and crimes) cannot be eliminated from our DNA because as I said that these traits are not imbibed in the DNA but rather are acquired during the lifestyle so even if god would have intervened in mutations this would not have helped. If some of my voters who are unaware of this fact or are unable to understand what I just said, please refer to the following link (http://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us...).
So finally the only argument made by pro is least paid heed to.

"I have a funny feeling that you KNOW that was my intention and you are playing dumb because you are a self-righteous, arrogant Christian fundamentalist who feels upset and offended that anyone could suggest that "God" may be evil."

Well my opponent has strictly violated the rules of a debate. He adds a dash of Ad Hominem which is strictly impertinent to the rules of a general debate. You can't make personal appeals.

"You somehow got that idea into your head, because you are an arrogant bible-thumper who doesn't understand anything and thinks he has the right to go in and make up his own rules over the ONE that was made in the first place. You are disappointing and frankly you make me sick."

Again a bit of Ad hominem here.

"I'm done with this debate. I refuse to debate someone so willfully ignorant, and so arrogant as to ignore the rules. "

Again a pinch of Ad hominem. It seems as though my opponent can't live without having Ad Hominems.

"Well, tough sh!t! I started the debate. I make the rules. You violated the ONE rule that I made. YOU LOSE!"

I did not violate any rule. Well, to spell it out the rule was that I must opt for an atheist standpoint. But nowhere did I violate the rules. If I have I would humbly request my opponent to point out where I have violated the rules. After all my opponent has the capacity of copying and pasting all what I've written. He should paste the places where I've violated the rule and then I will make an attempt to justify it.

"What do you mean "dual-minded"? Are you trying to win this debate with gibberish? Define what you mean!"

Well my opponent will often say that all what I have written is a gibberish but I say, dual-mindedness means that a person tries to prove something without actually taking on that standpoint. He wavers with his mind. For example, you say that I should assume an atheist standpoint and also say that I should debate the topic 'Evil Proves The Existance of An Evil God'. How can you assume atheist point of view and then say that god exists but is not evil?

And by ardent follower of science I mean that you resort to scientific principles in every arena of your life. You follow science principles very ardently.

"I hope the voters are smart enough to recognize at I WIN"

Yes of course. They quite clearly understand who should win and who should not.




Debate Round No. 3
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
ashwin.sharma921

Con

I gave an argument but seems that pro doesn't have a solid answer to what I have said. Vote for CON. Pro has not written an up-the-mark debate. It's really unsatisfying.
Debate Round No. 4
MasturDbtor

Pro

MasturDbtor forfeited this round.
ashwin.sharma921

Con

Now, since my opponent does not have any argument that means he is defeated and I deserve my victory. He has completely nothing to defend himself, so vote for con.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MasturDbtor 4 years ago
MasturDbtor
Since that argument was trying to show that "God was good" distracting from the actual point of the debate.
Posted by ashwin.sharma921 4 years ago
ashwin.sharma921
can you explain what rule I broke by saying the example of david beckham
Posted by MasturDbtor 4 years ago
MasturDbtor
Your argument pertaining to David Beckham is where you broke the rule.
Posted by MasturDbtor 4 years ago
MasturDbtor
An atheist BELIEVES in no God. If you believe in God but don't follow God then that isn't atheism.
Posted by ashwin.sharma921 4 years ago
ashwin.sharma921
Okay, now that you all have allegedly blamed me for breaking the rule, can you yourself specify the evidence of the broken rule? You can't just prove yourself by saying that I have broken the rule an I am wrong because I have, you have to have a proof for everything you say. Am I right, my critics?
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
In no point did Pro say "you must be an atheist to accept this debate", he said "you must take an atheistic standpoint", as in not one focused around religion. He even specifically stated that you can't take a "god is good" standpoint (and later went on to clarify it was because he wasn't talking about any one religion, just a hypothetical deity), which you blatantly did. You can't look at a rule, break it, and say "that never happened".
Posted by MasturDbtor 4 years ago
MasturDbtor
The rule said "not God is good standpoint".

Ergo, yes you did break a rule.
Posted by ashwin.sharma921 4 years ago
ashwin.sharma921
oh hello my friends I have already specified that I haven't broken any rule. What I am speaking is both for theist and atheist
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
But yeah, after Con willingly broke the rules, and didn't change even when this was clarified and she was (generously) given the chance to change her argumentation, there's no way Con can win this debate. She may as well concede the upcoming rounds, because this debate has turned into a bickering over the rules, which Con has clearly violated and as such has not posted valid arguments.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I love how Con said you "uninentionally" posted that rule, it was clear you meant it :P

And Con, it is possible to take the argument without a "God is good" stance. I took one of the views but there are several more.
No votes have been placed for this debate.