The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

God Does Not Answer to Us

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 59779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




For starters, let me just say that I DO believe that God created the ENTIRE universe. You may not but if you were to believe something so ridiculous, would you question God? As an entire human race we could not collectively create the universe, we couldn't even create Mt. Everest (we can barely climb it). So to you who says "if I were God, I would have created a juster, less cruel world..." I would ask you to create your new and improved universe. Nobody could possibly do that? My point exactly. If the Sistine Chapel was never restored, would you blame Michelangelo for the centuries worth of wear and tear to the ceiling? Would you say "ya know Mikey, I think you could have done a little better with the coloring in some areas..." No you wouldn't. Mostly because you could not come close to matching his artistic greatness and it would be idiotic to blame him for the results of aging to his work.
Have you ever seen a North Korean come face to face with their merciless dictator? Tears of joy come streaming down their face and they worship him. Would you have the same reaction? No. Why? You haven't been prohibited from knowledge. Why does their dictator prevent them from knowledge? Fear. He knows if other options were available, he would not receive their adoration. God could have gone about it this way. He could have created us to all walk around saying "Praise the Lord!" like robots but he didn't. Why? He has nothing to fear. He afforded us the ability to choose something other than Himself and we did. What came about because of this? Sin. The land became cursed. As a result, sickness, war, famine, pain, and discontent became a part of life on this cursed land.
If you were to believe like I do that God created the universe, you would have to say he is inconceivably complex and big. His love is manifested in many ways that are too lofty for our simple minds to comprehend. Why do I believe in the Judeo-Christian God? The first Chapter of the New Testament gives a genealogical account of who Jesus came from.
Jesus was not a man of power or wealth, he was born in a barn. He didn't have a revelation and make a pamphlet or write a book and pass it out to people to convince them of who he was. He said "follow me." It's a historical fact that he had large crowds follow him. The crowds didn't say "Jesus, we loved your writings!" they gathered around him as a result of the things He was DOING. One of the things He was doing was claiming to be God. Even two thousand years ago, that was a hell of a claim. A claim so audacious that people would have turned for the exits as soon as they heard it UNLESS that claim was being backed up. The crowds didn't scatter, they grew. The Bible clearly states that Jesus' disciples were still quite skeptical of Jesus being God. They didn't start spreading the gospel when he died on the cross, they were dejected. Peter denied knowing him. When did this change? The resurrection. They didn't just go from doubters to believers, they made it their lives' purpose to spread the Gospel and died horrendous deaths as a result. How does a man without the help of money or power become the most historically significant person to ever walk this earth? Maybe he wasn't just a person.
There is nobody that has all the answers... Christian or non-Christian. I would just ask those who "would have done a better job" at creating the universe, to get started on Universe 2.0. If you believe what I believe, it would be utterly foolish to assume the role of God or for me to view the Bible as something about me instead of God. God is here for God and because of God or Love is here for Love and because of Love. His love might not match Hallmark or Hollywood's definition of love, but He created the universe so I'm gonna go with his definition of love. The beauty of it all is he allows us lowly people to be a part of His will.
My questions are 1. Where is your better creation of the universe?
2. Since you are incapable of creating a better universe, why do you think a Being that is capable of such a feat should have to answer to you and your expectations?


Con has clarified in the comment section, we are debating this question: "Is god beyond our reproach?"

Reproach: " address (someone) in such a way as to express disapproval or disappointment. "
So are we rationally justified in being dissapointed with god? I think so.

The Problem Of Evil(Epicurean Paradox):
P1)God exists.
P2)God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
P3)An omnibenevolent god would wish to preventall evils.
P4)An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
P5)An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
P6)A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
P7)If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
C1)Evil exists (logical contradiction).
If there's a tri-omni god there should be no evil, but there's evil.
Nature of reproach
P1) If god is beyond reproach, god is all perfect
P2) A perfect being, does everything all perfect
P3) God created the universe
P4) The universe is not perfect
C1) God is not perfect
C2) God is beyond reproach

P1: The only way we can't be disappointed with a being is if there is nothing to be disappointed at.
The only way this can be the case is if the being is perfect.
P2: Self explanatory. If he was not perfect all the time, he would be reproachable sometimes.
P3: asserted by pro
Composition Of The Universe:

Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for conscious life, given that only a small portion of earth is hospitable.
percent of known conscious life in the universe:
There are 10 truly conscious animals.
There are 8.7 million species.(probably more)
0.00000115% of known life has the consciousness were operating under.
0.03% of the universe has heavy elements(which life needs)
less than 0.00000115% of the universe should have life that is conscious.
So life presumably needs water, so I how good is god at producing water? VERY VERY BAD.

"Two percent of the water on earth is glacier ice at the North and South Poles. This ice is fresh water and could be melted; however, it is too far away from where people live to be usable. Less than 1% of all the water on earth is fresh water that we can actually use."
1%! The best this god could do is 1%.
God is awful at producing life.
C1 and C2 necessarily follow.

Poor Communication:
The God of the bible is really really really bad at communicating.
He has had all eternity(literally) to convince people of his existence.
If his goal is to convince eveyone of his existence, he has failed.
There are like 1000 religions. If god was good at communicating, there would be one religion.
Also why is this god so hard to find?
If god was good at communication, he'd be easy to find.

This god is not kind.

Unkind Terms Of Salvation:
"Romans 10:9-10
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

So not going to hell is contingent upon believing Jesus is lord. Per the previous definition of kindness, GOD is unkind in requiring worship in order to not go to hell.

P1) The truly kind don't require reciprocity
P2) God requires reciprocity
C1) God is not kind

Defense of P1- The definition presented. If one requires reciprocity, one is merely behaving in a rational egotistical way, which is understandable for a human, but not for a god.

" In ethical philosophy, rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest"

Humans and other Earthly organisms behave in this way, due to evolution and to meet needs.
It's basic behavorial biology, organisms act to meet three ends:
1. Individual selection
2. Kin selection
3. Sexual selection.

So what's the conclusion?
It's that humans very rarely, if ever, engage in disinterested altruism, thus they are rarely kind in the truist sense.

The problem is that GOD doesn't need to act to meet this end or any ends, thus there is NO excuse to require reciprocity.

P1) Humans act towards ends because they have needs
P2) Humans arn't purely kind because they must require reciprocity to meet needs
P3) God does not have needs
P4) As a result of god not needing anything, god shouldn't require reciprocity
P5) God requires reciprocity
C1) God is not kind

P1 and P2 is well established by behavorial biology.
P3 is true by virtue of god's attributes.
P4 naturally follows.
P5 negates god's kindness.
C1 is the neccesary conclusion.

So I think this proves god isn't kind.

Sending people to hell is unkind, I hope I don't have to explain why.

Is god morally justified in sending people to hell?

P1) That which is good, promotes overall well-'being
P2) God sends people to hell
P3) Hell does not promote overall well-being
C1) God is not morally justified in sending people to hell

P1) Act as if your actions will become universal laws
P2) God sends people to hell
P3) A universe in which people are sent to hell is a less favorable universe than in one in which people are
C1) God is not morally justified

Hell is infinite suffering for a finite act. This only renders god immoral and unkind.

God is bad at communication.
God is unkind.
God has not dealt with the problem of evil.
Debate Round No. 1


You addressed my statement of God is Beyond Our Reproach, but you didn't really address anything else I said. As far as imperfections in the universe, I stated that God allowed for there to be something outside of him to come into existence that we could choose and we did. As a result, the land became cursed.
Now let me address what you have said:
The Epicurean Paradox defies logic. With that argument one could say "darkness exists therefore the sun does not exist." Is the sun responsible for darkness? Or is the absence of the sun responsible for darkness?
Are you omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent? You must be to argue your points. You cannot state God is omnipotent, omniscient without giving sovereignty to God. That defies logic unless you yourself possess the same qualities as God?
Correct what God has done if you have a problem with it. You can't? Because of his sovereignty? He is not here for us. He is here for God. You are not God, cannot correct what you think God has done wrong no matter how much disapproval you have. He is beyond your reproach. Your reproach means nothing to Him. Where is the universe you created? Show me one single tree you created on your own. Show me one ocean, mountain, river, or jungle that is here because of you. He is out of the realm of your reproach. You are bound by gravity, physics, and the natural law he created. He does not answer to you and never will. Your reproach changes nothing therefore God is beyond it. You are a mere man. When the ignorant argue with the omnipotent, they further prove their ignorance.

2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"


Pro has missed the point -.-

" The Epicurean Paradox defies logic. With that argument one could say "darkness exists therefore the sun does not exist." Is the sun responsible for darkness? Or is the absence of the sun responsible for darkness?"

Do you honestly think this is analagous?
The sun is not conscious, biotic, tri-omni? Yes the absence of light is responsible for darkness.
However, your response is a red herring.

Equivocation/ Shifting The Goal Posts Fallacy.
Pro has commited two fallacies.

He is confusing Reproach with Correct.
I have to substantiate that god is not beyond reproach, I don't have to correct anything.
But good try at cheating :).

I can't play basketball better then Lebron James, but I can still be disappointed in him.

Once again
Nature of reproach
P1) If god is beyond reproach, god is all perfect
P2) A perfect being, does everything all perfect
P3) God created the universe
P4) The universe is not perfect
C1) God is not perfect
C2) God is beyond reproach

Maybe this time pro will not commit logical fallacies and will give an adequate response to the Epicurian Paradox.
Maybe also he will commit on why god is so bad at communication.
Debate Round No. 2


God is all perfect and he does everything all perefect; however, God does not do everything. Say right after Da Vinci signed his name to the Mona Lisa someone came and gashed it with a knife.
1. If Da Vinci is a great artist, he creates wonderful artwork.
2. Wonderful artwork has no gashes in its canvas.
3. Da Vinci created the Mona Lisa
4 The Mona Lisa has a large gash in its canvas
5. Da Vinci is not a great artist.
See the flaw? No? Let me explain further
Every action of God is perefect; however, not every action is of God.
The Epicurean Paradox is flawed because you can't acknowledge God is tri-omni and say what he "would" do. That's like saying someone who won 5 million dollars would buy a Mercedes and a new house. Statements like these are flawed because they are based on vast assumptions. A person who won 5 million dollars could give it all to the poor or could spend it all on drugs, there is no invariable action associated with winning 5 million dollars other than becoming a millionaire. Likewise, there is no invariable action associated with being a tri-omni God other than being a tri-omni God.
About God being a poor communicator...
Imagine you contract an highly contagious/deadly disease and you are quarantined and everyone who enters your room has to put on masks, shields, glasses, and other protective equipment that muffles the sound of their voices, their voice is so muffled you can't understand a single word they are saying. What to blame? Poor communication skills, protective equipment, or the disease? Without the disease there is no protective equipment therefore there are no muffled voices. Sin is the disease which introduces a barrier between us and God like the protective equipment that muffles God's voice.
Also, the sun creates light and darkness. Just as money creates wealth and poverty.

God and his actions are perfect and beyond reproach; however, not every action is God's.


I thank pro for this debate, but he has failed in fulfilling the BoP.

We are debating is god beyond our reproach?

P1) If god is beyond reproach, god is all perfect
P2) A perfect being, does everything all perfect
P3) God created the universe
P4) The universe is not perfect
C1) God is not perfect
C2) God is not beyond reproach

If I can find one non-perfect action, then god is not beyond reproach.

Pro's objections are not good objections.

First off Da Vinci is not omnibenevolent. Omniscient, and omnipotent.
If he was and wanted people not to destroy his art, his art would never be destroyed.
Pro says: ", there is no invariable action associated with winning 5 million dollars other than becoming a millionaire. Likewise, there is no invariable action associated with being a tri-omni God other than being a tri-omni God."
God is ALL good, ALL powerful, and ALL knowing. The omni traits are absolutes. He must always act in accordance with them.
So the Epicurean paradox is valid.
God can destroy evil, he knows how to, and he must want to since he is all good.
This god must just be lazy then.
There is no conceivable way that evil exists, if a tri-omni god exists.

Pro's communication analogy is flawed because I am NOT a tri-omni god.
God has ultimate free lunch. He doesn't have to sacrafice anything for anything else.

Once again, any bad things we do are not our fault if god is omniscient. It's his.

Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.
C2) Your acts are predetermined

Immoral acts by god:
"He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."
2 Kings 2:24

"The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."
Genesis 7:24

God ordered 2 bears to kill 42 children; and flooded the earth for not believing in him. Although he knew they would disbelieve. That's just mean. The god of Abraham is petty not perfect.

Pro has not fulfilled the BoP.
I showed the universe in it's totality, is not perfect.
We don't effect the universe in it's totality, so that means god is not perfect.
I showed god is not a very good comunicator.
Pro did not address the problem of hell.
Pro tried to move the goal posts.
Vote con.'t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by patrick967 2 years ago
"For starters, let me just say that I DO believe that God created the ENTIRE universe. You may not but if you were to believe something so ridiculous, would you question God?"
Yes, yes I would.
Posted by intellectual 2 years ago
I would say God does not answer to us because he does not exist. I think the contender has done a good job of this. He has shown that if God does exist he is not worthy of our worship, as he does nothing when people and animals suffer in agony. Sure we cannot create a universe (yet) but look at what we have built. I am as impressed with computers and the Internet as I am the universe. I think humans have every right to ask God to answer to us (if he exists at all). The Instigator does not have an argument. He sounds like the fundamentalists who believe that God is to be feared.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
I messed up again -.-
C) god is not beyond reproach
Posted by Jwmart21587 2 years ago
22 It is he who sits above the CIRCLE of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens ...
Posted by Firelife 2 years ago
Let me remind you the bible says the world is flat so...... Yeah about that.......
Posted by stackerz21 2 years ago
God is very true because of exorcisms =)
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
C1: God is not beyond reproach*
Posted by Jwmart21587 2 years ago
Fair question. Lots of rambling. If we are honest, we all question him; however, I'm saying he is beyond our reproach.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
what's actually being debated here?
Are you saying that god is perfect and beyond question?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate! I find no problems with either sides conduct or s&g. Both sides had good arguments but con blew pros out of the water; his arguments were better presented/ structured, he provided many sources (visual and sources) etc. Con was also to negated much of pros arguments.