The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mblk
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

God Glorifies Himself Through The Everlasting Damnation of Sinners (devils and mankind) in Hell.

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 2 votes the winner is...
mblk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 451 times Debate No: 61842
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro


BY ACCEPTING THIS CHALLENGE, MY OPPONENT AGREES TO fOLLOW THE RULES AND GUIDELINES AS STATED BELOW AND MAY SUBMIT AN OPENING ARGUMENT OR PASS ON THE FIRST ROUND.

Excerpted from my opponents debate request for this challenge: (edited for proper nouns to be capitalized)

"I'm an atheist, but I promise not to battle you with arguments allegedly disproving your God. I shall stay on the topic and declare my position as "Hell is not fair, and God is not good if He leaves people to burn there". My arguments are as follows:
(Note: I am assuming you are talking about the christian God (i.e. Yahweh))
1. It is (infinitely) unfair to be punished eternally for a finite amount of acts of evil
2. It is stated that your God possesses omniscience (among other superpowers), therefore at the moment of creating each and every individual, he is aware that this individual will go Heaven or Hell, no matter what he does in his lifetime. (So there is no free will, because if there were, it would go against God's prediction)"

For this debate, I will ask that my opponent remain on topic using these two well stated points only: "Hell is not fair" and "God is not good", and the supporting opening statements:

"1. It is (infinitely) unfair to be punished eternally for a finite amount of acts of evil
2. It is stated that your God possesses omniscience (among othersuperpowers)therefore at the moment of creating each and every individual, he is aware that this individual will go Heaven or Hell, no matter what he does in his lifetime. (So there is no free will, because if there were, it would go against God's prediction)"


Rules agreed to upon acceptance:

1) The word "God", being a proper noun (the name of a person) shall always start with a capital G. "God" in this debate is the only true God who created all things, who was complete in Himself and self-existent with no beginning and no ending. This shall be considered as the generally understood definition of God: A person, implying He has personality, and that He is eternal, complete in Himself, and self-existent. God shall always be referred to in the masculine form as He is the Father of all that is created. Being God, He created all things by His Word according to His will and required no help from any 'mother' or any other being or thing in so doing.
As it is my habit to capitalize most of my references to God, such as "He" created all things, or "He" created all things by "Himself", these capitalizations shall not be held against me as grammatical errors though technically;they are. My opponent will not be required to capitalize words that are not proper nouns.

2) The word "Hell" shall always be capitalized as a proper noun; the name of a specific place. Hell in this debate will be descibed as the commonly understood place which burns forever with fire and brimstone, where people who are there remain in torments. "Heaven" shall also always be capitalized as a proper noun, the name of a specific place; commonly considered to be God's domain.


The problem in most of these debates is that the arguments become too scattered to be productive. The guidlines here are to try to keep the debate narrow in focus and remain on topic for or against the Debate Premise of "God Glorifies Himself Through The Everlasting Damnation of Sinners (devils and mankind) in Hell."

Copy and pasted direct quotes may contain spelling errors. Those errors will count against the person who is quoted in consideration of awarding spelling and grammar points by the voters. No spelling errors in this opening round challenge should count agasint either opponent.

ROUND 1 IS FOR COMPLETE AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDING, AND ACCEPTANCE OF RULES AND FOR OPENING ARUMENTS

BY ACCEPTING THIS CHALLENGE, MY OPPONENT AGREES TO fOLLOW THE RULES AND GUIDELINES AS STATED ABOVE AND MAY SUBMIT AN OPENING ARGUMENT OR PASS ON THE FIRST ROUND.

mblk

Con

As imposed by Pro, I shall only make use of the following 2 arguments:

1. It is (infinitely) unfair to be punished eternally for a finite amount of acts of evil

2. It is stated that God possesses omniscience (among other superpowers)therefore at the moment of creating each and every individual, he is aware that this individual will go Heaven or Hell, no matter what he/she does in his/her lifetime. (So there is no free will, because if there were, it would go against God's prediction)


Argument 1:

Quoting the title: "God Glorifies Himself Through The Everlasting Damnation of Sinners (devils and mankind) in Hell."

"Everlasting damnation of Sinners" this means, that whoever disobeys God during their lifetime will be tortured forever.

I have two main problems with this:

  1. How can a just God torture someone infinitely if the evil this person did was, actually, finite?

  2. How are God’s rules for getting into Heaven fair?


Example (a): A man* captures his neighbor and tortures him every day for 10 years until he is caught and sent to jail. He, after 40 years in jail, eventually dies and subsequently goes to Hell. There he is tortured every day for 10 years (Note: I am not saying nor do I mean to imply that this is in any way a fair trade, I only use this example as a mean of simple illustration). After the 10 years, he is tortured for another 10, and then for another and so on forever. Even though this man did horrible things in his finite life, it doesn't mean that it is fair for him to be tortured forever.



One of my main oppositions to God’s rules for getting into Heaven is the fact that atheists are doomed to burn in Hell forever. As the great philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell said, after being asked what he would say if he was wrong about God’s existence, was confronted by Him when he died, and asked why he had not believed. He simply replied "I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!' " (1)


Example (b): A man* decides to be an atheist after he, having actually read the Bible, realized how improbable†, irrational† and immoral† his former Christian beliefs were (†Note: I am not using this as an argument but merely as an example for the above). He continues to live his life morally, volunteering in very poor countries and helping everyone he can. He is loved by all of his family, who remain Christians, but don’t judge him for his beliefs. He then dies after a long and ethical life. Subsequently he goes to Hell for not believing in God, while his family goes to Heaven.


How is it fair for this ethical and morally correct man to be tortured forever, having done nothing wrong?

How is it fair for the loving family to be separated of their loved one forever, and forced to live eternally in his absence?



Argument 2: God knows, when creating every single person, whether he/she will go to Hell or not.


An omniscient God knows at the moment of creating every single individual whether he or she will go to Hell or not.

There are, according to my sources, around 2.2 billion Christians around the world (2). That's, more or less, 33% of the world population. Why would a just (or intelligent) God create another 67% (around 4.8 billion people (3)) that will just go to Hell, no matter what they do? Or does God expect (this is paradoxical, as God cannot expect anything whilst being omniscient) everyone to turn to Christianity in the end?



Sources:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...

(3) http://www.worldometers.info...


*The fact that I used men in both my examples does not imply anything or present any argument. I chose to use the masculine gender as due to force of habit. Polemic thereabout should be unnecessary. No further thought should go into this.


Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

My opponent is veering a bit from his agreement to remain wiithin the two points he agreed to argue in. For this reason, I will ignore his question: "How are God’s rules for getting into Heaven fair?" If God has rules for getting into heaven they have not been spelled out here and are not part of this debate. This debate is about my assertion that God glorifies Himself through the verlasting damnation of sinners in Hell. My opponents question, "How can a just God torture someone infinitely if the evil this person did was, actually, finite?" is within the debate parameters, and I want to encourage my opponent to try to keep the debate focused.

My opponent also veers from his agreed to boundaries in:

One of my main oppositions to God’s rules for getting into Heaven is the fact that atheists are doomed to burn in Hell forever. As the great philosopher and atheist Bertrand Russell said, after being asked what he would say if he was wrong about God’s existence, was confronted by Him when he died, and asked why he had not believed. He simply replied "I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!' " (1)


Again, my opponent is going on about God's rules for getting into heaven, which rules if there are any are not part of this debate. For this reason, I will ignore the atheist Bertrand Russell and the sidetrack of posting an argument saying there is not enough evidence to believe God is there. My opponent agreed to argue only wiithin two clearly stated points which I quoted him on in the debate challenge. Evidence of God's existence is not part of this debate.


God glorifies Himself by leaving sinners in Hell because He made the way for them to be saved from it but they chose to go their own way. The way for them to be saved from Hell is that He took their death, He paid for their sins Himself so that if they receive Him as their Saviour, their sins were taken away when He took their death. If they chose to take their own sin into death themselves, then it is their own choice that takes them into Hell. God shows His justice by letting them pay for their sins in eternal death as they chose to die for their own sin and rejected God's payment for their sin when He died in their place. To those who are in Hell, they will not see God is glorified in leaving them there. They will not see God loves them. They did not believe God is glorified before they went to Hell, and they will not believe He is glorified when they are in Hell. They will forever say the same kinds of things my opponent is saying in this debate and it won't do them any good. They will be tortured by their own thoughts as much as by the fire of Hell.



Yes God is onmiscient and He knows if you will trust Him or not. He knows if you will be saved from Hell or if you will burn in it. I do not know. I do know that you can be saved from it. If you choose to go your own way saying you are not lost and you do not need to be saved from Hell that is your choice. You won't say that after you are in Hell if that is where you end up. The people who know their sins are forgiven and their lives have been bought by God's own blood which He paid for their sins through Jesus Christ will see God's justice against sinners who did not care what God did for them, and He will be glorified through the testimony of those who are cast away forever in Hell. A sinner is a sinner forever, not finitely. If your sin is not taken away, it carries with it the penalty of Hell which is where sinners are cast away like garbage to rot in the dump. When God became a man to die in your place, He took your sin on Himself and paid the full price. You can never pay enough because you are infinitely a sinner. Infinite is without end. You will always be a sinner unless God takes your sin away. If you won't receive Jesus who rose from the dead and left your sin behind in the grave, then He won't live in you and you will keep your sin on yourself and it will keep you out of Heaven forever. You will be cast away in the fire of Hell, and God will be glorified by the fact that you testify in Hell to His righteousness and His justice. If you receive Jesus, you recieve the gift of God which is eternal life. You make the choice to believe on Jesus and be saved from Hell, or to take your own sin as you are infinitely sinful and pay for it in Hell.
God offers the same gift to all of the billions in the world. Yes, most will refuse God's offer and choose to take their death on themselves and enter eternity as infinite sinners, and they will be cast away in Hell forever.
My opponents agreement in arguing about God's omnicience was to argue that ". (So there is no free will, because if there were, it would go against God's prediction)" My opponent has gone far off topic repeadedly intruducing arguments that are not part of this debate, and failed to remain focused on His two points agreed to in the challenge. In pointing this out, I am runniong out of characters. Please argue as agreed in the rules.
mblk

Con

I am very sorry, but due to excessive school work I am unable to post this round's argument. I apologize once again and assure my opponent that I will post my argument in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro



My opponents words ""I'm an atheist, but I promise not to battle you with arguments allegedly disproving your God. I shall stay on the topic and declare my position as "Hell is not fair, and God is not good if He leaves people to burn there". My arguments are as follows:
(Note: I am assuming you are talking about the Christian God (i.e. Yahweh))
1. It is (infinitely) unfair to be punished eternally for a finite amount of acts of evil
2. It is stated that your God possesses omniscience (among other superpowers), therefore at the moment of creating each and every individual, he is aware that this individual will go Heaven or Hell, no matter what he does in his lifetime. (So there is no free will, because if there were, it would go against God's prediction)"


Rules my opponent agreed to upon acceptance:

For this debate, I will ask that my opponent remain on topic using these two well stated points only: "Hell is not fair" and "God is not good", and the supporting opening statements:

"1. It is (infinitely) unfair to be punished eternally for a finite amount of acts of evil
2. It is stated that your God possesses omniscience (among othersuperpowers)therefore at the moment of creating each and every individual, he is aware that this individual will go Heaven or Hell, no matter what he does in his lifetime. (So there is no free will, because if there were, it would go against God's prediction)"

My opponents ramblings about an esteemed atheistic philosopher who says there is not enough evidence for God is a direct violation of my opponents agreement. As my opponent has forfeited the previous round and failed to keep his argument as he said he would in "but I promise not to battle you with arguments allegedly disproving your God.", I will extend my previous arguments and remind my opponent that arguments that are simply atheistic-"there is not enough evidence for God" were excluded from this debate and you promised not to introduce them. You boldly violated your promise and ignored the rule for your arguments in this debate. In your next round, please answer my arguments in context of the two points you promised to focus on. You have said nothing about free will after you promised this would be one of your two points of argument, and your argument about God's rules for getting into heaven is not related to your 1st point of contention.

You have sinned against God, you are infinitely a sinner. You have acted against God. The things you did in violation of His law were moments, you did them because of what you are.....a sinner, and that is not a finite thing. What you are is what you are forever. Your death is not finite, it is forever. God's death in the form of God the Man, the Son of God, paid infinitely for your sin which is infinite against God. The only thing finite is the time you have before you pay for your sin with death. This is infinite. You enter eternity and it is infinite. You pay infinitely if you reject God's payment in your place. You can never make full payment because you will forever remain what you are, a sinner.
You will always think bad and talk bad and do bad from time to time, infinitely because it is your nature. God glorifies Himself by leaving people like you in torments of Hell because He created you and you are defying Him. He shows He is righteous in leaving you in Hell if you choose not to believe you need to be saved from it because he took your death. He shows He is good by punishing evil and forever preventing those who did evil from doing it again in any place that can disturb His creatures who serve Him willfully. If you willfully defy Him, He defies you and you lose infinitely because he is infinite and you are trying to deny Him of His infinite glory.

God knows if you will believe Him and trust Him or not. This does not excuse you from choosing to not believe Him. You are making the choice by your own free will. God gave you free will because He wanted creatures with reasoning, imaginative, creative, and communicative powers like His own so He could enjoy having them with Him He knew before He created you that some like you would defy Him. He knew He would have to pay for their crimes so they could be excused from being executed to Hell forever. Because He never sinned like you and me, His death was infinite payment for our sins. You can't be against God and live free. If you choose to stand against God, you are going to be cast down to Hell. God glorifies Himself by upholding your existence in Hell as you chose to finalize your death in a bad attitude against Him. He is giving you time to reconsider in hope that you will change your mind and decide to believe Him and believe on His resurrection and Call on God to save you in the name of the Saviour who died in your place.

I have kept my argument in direct opposition to your agreed to points. Please keep your arguments direct in focus as you said you would.
mblk

Con

I admit that I did, indeed, get carried away in arguing against the fairness of God's rules, and you are, according to the debate rules, free to ignore the argument and question (even though I find it to be a cop out, but whatever).
You are very much mistaken in saying that I argued against God's existence, as what I did was merely to use a quote from a recognized philosopher to enrich my argument about the unfairness of His rules regarding atheists. I wont waste any more time on this but do suggest you read carefully.
Onto rebuttals, then.

You mentioned that if one is to accept God as their Savior, any sin will be taken away and they will go to Heaven. So are all those inquisitors in Heaven? They were all acting in the name of your God, when they were committing hundreds of murders and torturing thousands.

"Infinitely a sinner". Right. Sin is forever, actions aren't, but who cares about actions. Right? So the actual thing you do doesn't matter, right? It's just the 'infinite' title God gives you. Who cares about what you do? It's all about redeeming. You can do anything, as long as you redeem. If a man were to kill a a bunch of little kids, but then repented in the eyes of God, he's fine, forever.

Quoting your argument. "When God became a man to die in your place, He took your sin on Himself and paid the full price."
Err... Full price? How so? Is he still being tortured in Hell as we speak? Or what do you mean with "the full price" death? Oh come on, that's not even a fraction of the price. Where's his eternal punishment? Has he been "cast away like garbage to rot in the dump"?

You seem not to have understood my second argument on free will and what not. I'll try to make it simpler for you and will even get to polish it by quoting you!

OK then...

Right now God is busy at work making new humans! He is, undeniably, omniscient. I'll take the time to define terms. merriam-webster.com defines "omniscient" as "knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge". Knowing everything. Everything. That includes future, past, everything. So, getting back to God, He knows, right now, as he decides how He creates the next human, all about his life. He knows whether he will marry, have kids, what the name of his first pet will be, his email password, everything. He also, in His infinite knowledge, knows the fate of this person. He knows what religion he'll turn to, if he does, He knows whether this person shall be a sinner or not, He knows whether he will or not go to Hell. Let's say He sees into the future, and sees that this person will be born to a Muslim family, and indoctrinated as one. He then sees that he will never turn to anything else but Islam and that he will die and go to Hell. Why create this individual?! Why?! How is it fair?! God knows that he will end up in Hell, so why do it? There's no changing the man's mind, God already saw that he would go to Hell.

You wrote:
"You will always think bad and talk bad and do bad from time to time, infinitely because it is your nature."
My nature. My nature which was personally and thoughtfully designed by God Himself. He wrote in my file, from the moment He created me. "This person will go to Hell". How is this in any way fair? And don't you tell me that I can still give myself to Him or any of that. That kind of argument has been forever destroyed in my last stanza.

Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Your admittance of ignoring the rules which were established according to your own words and promise, along with your refusal to apologize and insist that I should argue with you in tangents you promised you would not introduce in this debate should be loss of conduct points from all voters. The fact that you forfeited a round after you wasted my time with your rule violations should doubly clinch all conduct points for me. I will request that the moderator enforces this cleer conduct win for me. Voters may feel that since they accept no proof of God's right to rule over them, you win the arguments. Atheists will almost always vote against a person like me simply because they must do so in order to cling to their disbelief and their hope of negating their existence by defeating/negating God. Because of your poor conduct and refusal to apolgize, and then insult me for declining to follow your rule-violating rabbit trail, you will not get another debate with me, and I advise readers to noice your conduct so they know what to expect from you if they take you up in a debate challenge.

One final thing....The things you have done wrong have permanently altered yourself and people around you. The effect of yoru wrongdoings is eternal, and eternal punishment is fair and square, and necessary to stop you from doing wrong and further negatively affecting yourself and others around you. God glorifies Himself by justifying your existence in Hell forever showing He is righteous, just, and good. What good is God if he does not give punishment equal to the crime? Your crimes have eternal effects by changing the things and people involved. Your time is finite, but the fact that you are a lawbreaker is infinite and the things you have done testify against you forever, and Hell testifies forever to God's goodness and glory as the Creator of all.

Because you have lied and continue to go off on rabbit trails which you agreed woudl be violations of the rules for this debate, I will stand on the arguments I have given. I thouroughly adressed the two points you promised to focus on and you have worked hard to stay off of the points you promised you would debate in.
mblk

Con

So... That's it? You forget about my last post, don't refute any of my points and just say that because your feeling were hurt and I sort of went of topic and "refused" to apologize, the debate ends? And no, the fact that I forfeited a round doesn't mean that anything should clinch. I explained my reasons and apologized for my lack of time.

I encourage you to buck up and post your rebuttals and stop being so immature. If it makes you feel any better: I'm sorry I slightly veered off topic and was provocative by saying that it was a cop out not to touch that point.

What makes you think that theists don't similarly cling to their beliefs and vote against me based only on their ideas and not on my arguments?

Just as you say that voters should vote against me due to conduct, I say they should vote against you due to ending the debate and not answering my points.
Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

I answered repeatedly from different angles your opening argument/challenge points which were copy and pasted from your own words along with your copy and pasted promise not to introduce an atheistc arguemtn..which you promply ignored and violated. I ignored your sidetrack issues which you introduced to the debate after you specifically promised you would not introduce those issues. Because I have remained focused on your two points, and you have pretty much ignored my arguments as you went off in violation of the rules, insutling me for not going off topic with you after you promised to remain on topic, I will offer no furrther arguments and suggest you redeem yourself a bit by offering a focused discussion of my ansers to your two points. If in only one round, even only the last round, you put up a focused discussion without violating the rules you promised to adhere to, I will give you another debate along these same lines, maybe with a different topic
mblk

Con

Er... So you didn't even read my post where I clarified that the mention of Russell wasn't meant to argue against the existence of God, but rather to support an argument, which I'll admit, was slightly beyond my initial two?

Trust me, I am not interested in ever debating you again, sir. If you want to face the truth and see a rebuttal of your arguments please refer to my second to last post.

In conclusion I would like to encourage you to not cop out of future debates because your feelings get hurt or an opponent veers slightly, that's not how it works and leads to nothing.

And by the way, I think that the way you refer to atheists and you general threatening tone should cost you behaviour points.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mblk 2 years ago
mblk
Also, could you please post the format for the rounds other than round 1?
Posted by mblk 2 years ago
mblk
Do excuse me, Pro, but I don't quite agree with your rules. I find it unfair for my arguments to be limited to only those two, due only to the fact that those were the ones I showed when asking to be challenged. I agree on all other rules, I don't really mind capitalizing "God", "Hell", etc. my only suggestion, or rather condition, is that the rules be changed in a way that does not force me to stick to only those two arguments. I don't see why this could not be done, as I have already said I shall stay on the topic and not draw upon arguments against the existence of God.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
LifeMeansGodIsGoodmblkTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make a valid argument for his point. Conduct would go to Con had he not missed a round.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
LifeMeansGodIsGoodmblkTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate seems unscorable to me. First, because the contentions that were set up in R1 make no sense in light of the resolution itself, and second because Pro refused to engage Con in some of his arguments, claiming them to be outside the originally agreed-upon bounds of the debate. I disagree rather strongly with that assessment. Pro, Con's arguments were in line with the contentions as noted by you. They may not have been in a direction you would prefer, but they certainly weren't wildly off-topic. That said, Con gave up an entire round. This debate was just too much of a mess for any good scoring, IMHO.