The Instigator
DakotaKrafick
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

God, as portrayed in the Bible, is unworthy of worship.

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 6 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,570 times Debate No: 20909
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (6)

 

DakotaKrafick

Pro

≈THE PROPOSITION≈
The full proposition for this debate is as follows: "God, as portrayed in the Bible, is unworthy of worship." I shall be defending this statement, while my opponent will be refuting it. Therefore, it will be my opponent's duty in this debate to prove to the audience that the God of the Bible is, in fact, worthy of worship. And it will be my duty to prove to the audience that He is not.

≈DEFINITIONS≈
God: the main protagonist/antagonist of the Bible.
The Bible: for the sake of consistency, we shall both be referencing our verses from the New International Version.
Worthy: deserving of.
Worship: reverence and adoration.

≈THE DEBATE STRUCTURE≈
Round One: Acceptance only
Round Two: Presenting main arguments only
Round Three: Refutations of opponent's main arguments
Round Four: Refutations of refutations/closing statements

I thank my future opponent and the audience for making this debate possible.
phantom

Con

I thank my opponent for a most interesting debate topic. I would also like to thank him for graciously allowing me to use the New American Standard Bible instead of just the NIV.

Definitions accepted, I look forward to engaging minds.
Debate Round No. 1
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, phantom, for accepting. As he said, the version of the Bible we'll be using in this debate is the New American Standard Bible.

1) Undeserved punishing

1a) Adam and Eve

When God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, He had only rule for them to adhere to: Do not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Predictably, of course, they did anyway. And when God found out, He banished Adam and Eve from the garden, and cursed all of mankind for this sin (meaning their children, their children's children, their children's children's children, and so on until the rapture).

There are two things wrong with this scenario (well, technically three):

1. Adam and Eve committed a "wrong" act by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but they did so BEFORE they had knowledge of good and evil. Eating the fruit is what gave them knowledge of right from wrong (illustrated when they suddenly realized they were naked and had to cover their private parts), so they had no idea what they were doing was wrong until they had already done it. It is completely unfair and sadistic to create humans without knowledge of good and evil, except them to be good, and when they inevitably fail, punish them for it.

2. Adam and Eve's children had nothing to do with their parents' "crime". They hadn't even been born yet. But they, too, were punished for this act, something they didn't even do.

3. The crime most certainly did not fit the punishment, even if everyone DID play a role in the stealing and eating of the fruit knowing full well that it was wrong. It was just a piece of fruit. God could just make another one. It was utterly pointless of Him to ban the fruit (or even make it in the first place), let alone to punish them for eating it.

1b) The Plagues of Egypt

In Biblical history, God inflicted ten horrible calamities upon Egypt to persuade the Pharaoh to release his Jewish slaves. The tenth and final calamity was the murder of every first-born male in Egypt. After this, the Pharaoh finally conceded and freed the slaves. A lot can be said about God from this story:

1. God was either unable or unwilling (or both) to persuade the Pharaoh to free his slaves peacefully. Instead of diplomatic means, He chose to bestow ten horrible calamities.

2. God is like the mafia, only much more malevolent. Instead of hurting the guilty party (the Pharaoh), He aims His wrath at innocent babies and children.

1c) Tower of Babel

In Biblical history, when mankind was close to reaching its first great achievement through cooperation and determination (building a tower that would stand tall enough to reach Heaven), God turned their one language into several so they could no longer communicate, and scattered the people to different continents.

Supposedly, this is meant to be a history lesson on the origins of different languages and cultures. Personally, I take it as a moral lesson: God discourages human achievement and cooperation.

2) Natural Evil

2a) Natural disasters

According to Christianity, God created everything in the universe. In fact, He created the universe itself. Therefore, He also created tornados, earthquakes, floods (I'm sure we've all heard the story), tsunamis, et al. What possible reason would God have in creating these phenomena, whose purpose is only to cause disaster and harm to human beings?

2b) Bedbugs and Praying Mantises

I warn those with a weak constitution to skip this sub-point. The female praying mantis will devour its mate while simultaneously having sex with it. Bedbugs, on the other hand, are incapable of becoming pregnant or even having sex, unless of course the male does one thing: penetrates the female's abdomen with its penis and injects semen into the womb. That's right. That is the only way bedbugs can possibly reproduce, by violently raping each other, a process known officially as "traumatic insemination".

Tell me, phantom: what kind of a deity would create creatures like this? I can think of a few descriptive words: sadistic, cruel, and barbaric come to mind.

2c) Hell

God created Hell, a realm which serves no other purpose than to infinitely torment its residents. Some arguments stand for themselves, and I think this is one of them.

3) Backwards morality

3a) Jesus the scapegoat

Characterized by almost as poor judgment as punishing the innocent is letting the guilty go free, and that's exactly what Jesus was sent to do. Jesus died on the cross so that everyone could be forgiven for their sins. This bloody human sacrifice entirely alleviates any burden of moral responsibility from us humans.

Embezzled money? Raped children? Shot a stranger in the face? Doesn't matter; whatever you did, you are forgiven, because Jesus died for you.

God doing this, sending a sinless soul to his execution in order for the rest of us to be forgiven of the evils we've committed is appalling. It's comparable to a father, in response to his four rotten, trouble-making children, brutally beating and killing his fifth child, who had never done anything wrong at all. Then the four rotten children are for some reason forgiven. Shall I call social services or you?

3b) Salvation by belief, not action

Let us take a moment to be thankful for the fact that America (nor any other first-world country for that matter) was not founded upon Christian theology. Because if it had been, I can only imagine how many known criminals would be strolling the sidewalks and how many innocent people would be rotting in prisons.

According to Christianity, the way in which one goes to Heaven in the afterlife is not by being a good, moral person on Earth, but merely by believing in and accepting Jesus Christ. This means a person who committed his mortal life to promoting the betterment of mankind, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, educating children, and donating to the poor could be sent to suffer the torments of Hell for the rest of eternity if he failed to believe in Jesus Christ.

Conversely, a man who committed his life to hurting as many people as he possibly could as much as he possibly could could go to Heaven if he accepts Jesus in his final moments.

Theoretically, Heaven could be filled with sinners and Hell saints, because in the end, nothing you actually did mattered. What matters is what you believe. Your overall moral worth as a human being is judged by your thoughts, not your actions, and the grandest punishment imaginable (Hell) is reserved for the victimless sin of thought crime.

In conclusion, I have provided an in-depth analysis on why the Christian God is completely undeserving of reverence. I look forward to my opponent's response, where he will have to prove the wrong-doings I've mentioned were not actually morally wrong.
phantom

Con

I thank my respectable opponent for his response. This is not going to be as thorough as I would have liked as I haven’t had much time to write my argument and this is last minute.

As a way to get things started let me first point out the number of assumptions we must make.

1. Christianity is true.

2. God is real.

3. Everything in the Bible is absolute truth.

In standard I disagree with number three and my opponent of course agrees with none. Nevertheless we have to make all these assumptions in order to have any kind of debate here. My opponent has already clarified the first two will be presumed. The third I warrant also needs to be assumed for the fact that this whole debate is about the God ACCORDING to the Bible. Thus we have to assume everything it says is truth. I hope my opponent agrees with that.

I will first be making one argument with a few sub-contentions, then I will directly address the pros contentions. However all my arguments will tie into my refutations.

1. God according to the Bible?

In every single one of my opponents’ arguments he uses HIS OWN reasoning to conclude that God, as betrayed in the Bible, is sadistic, immoral, unjust, cruel etc…This is where we find the flaw in his argument. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with logically arguing whether Gods actions are morally permissible, but does the Bible ever say He is any of these? No, pro makes his judgments completely on his own reasoning. This is a debate on what God is according to the Bible. Thus any verses that directly apply Gods characteristics outweigh verses that only imply Gods characteristics. For example what if the Bible said, “God condemns all hypocrites to be tortured and buried alive”? What if it also said, “God is merciful, kind and just”? We have two verses that seem contradictory. On one hand we have an act that no man on earth would deem just. On the other hand we have another verse saying God is kind and merciful. Which do we take? Well if we presume the Bible to be absolute truth the only logical choice is that God is merciful, just and kind. I use this example to illustrate this debate. My opponent has presented many points that seem to imply an unjust, unfair and outright immoral God. But then we also have all the verses that say He is merciful, kind, compassionate and loving. In other words it’s, seem vs. say. My opponents verses seem to point to an unjust God. My verses directly say God is a just God. The way my opponent has set up the debate we have to assume God is morally perfect; regardless of what actions He has, according to the old testament, committed that seem atrocious.

Romans 2:4 - “Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”

Establishes that God is, according to the Bible, kid tolerant and patient.

Geneses 18: 25 – “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”

Psalm 11: 7 – “For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness;
The upright will behold His face.”

Psalm 100:5 - For the Lord is good; His lovingkindness is everlasting And His faithfulness to all generations.

The list is endless. I could show verse after verse that shows that God is morally upright. The Bible is full of appraising verses. So we see that according to the Bible God is morally upright and thus worthy of worship.

Here is another verse that presents an argument.

Romans 11:33 - “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”

Key word unfathomable. According to the Bible Gods ways are unfathomable and therefore we cannot presume to judge Him right or wrong in this debate by His ways. Though of course it is acceptable to make such judgments otherwise.

I will go over all of my opponents contentions and briefly summarize how they have been refuted.

“1) Undeserved punishing

1a) Adam and Eve

1b) The Plagues of Egypt”

My opponents own logic on whether this is morally wrong is outweighed by the verses that directly say God is morally upright.

“1c) Tower of Babel”

An uncharacteristically somewhat poor argument from the pro. He reasons that man were achieving a great success but God unfairly botched it up and thus He is not worthy of worship. This ignores the fact that building the tower was a morally wrong thing to do. Also why should God care about mans petty achievements?

Natural disasters

Pro claims that according to Christianity God created everything and thus this would include tornadoes, floods earthquakes and other such natural disasters. Key word is natural. All these are natural. They occur due to scientific reasons. God does not directly make them. My opponents evidence is non-existent.

Bedbugs and Praying Mantises

My opponent fails to bring up evidence that God is in direct control of evolutionary process.

Hell

Already been refuted but for the sake of it I’ll present annihilationism as a counter. My opponent claims hell is a place of eternal torment. I contend it is not. According to the Bible, the soul is destroyed after death for non-believers. When exactly it is destroyed is unimportant. It may be soon after or it may be on judgment day. But it is obvious that eternal torment is a false and unfortunate doctrine.


Mathew 10:28 very clearly supports the fact that God destroys souls and that He does so in Hell.

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die"
Ezekiel 18:20

"let him know that [a]he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. "
James 5:20

"but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, "
2 Timothy 1:10

But [a]we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the [b]preserving of the soul.
Hebrews 10:39

"and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;"
2 Peter 2:6

"But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in [a]the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, "
2 Peter 2:12

"But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men."
2 Peter 3:7

Be it clear that annihilationism is only a sub-counter, and my main counter is the same as before. See my opening argument.

I simply do not have time to directly address my opponents last two contentions. I apologize and will hopefully be able to do that next round. However while I cannot directly respond my refutations would be very similar to other rebuttals and I think any of the viewers as well as my opponent will know my contentions.



Debate Round No. 2
DakotaKrafick

Pro

Thank you, phantom, for your very formidable response.


The Three Axioms of the Debate

Let’s first take a look at the three axioms my opponent presented that he feels we must assume for the sake of this debate:

“1. Christianity is true.
2. God is real.
3. Everything in the Bible is the absolute truth.”

For the purposes of this debate, indeed, the second contention will not be challenged. The God of the Bible, YHWH, Jesus, Jehovah, Yeshua, Emmanuel, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Tetragrammaton, Optimus Prime, or whatever else you want to call Him, is assumed to exist.

And depending on your definition of “Christianity”, there will also be no objections to the first contention. (Personally, I find one of the most salient tenets of Christianity to be the supreme benevolence of God, but if that is unimportant for my opponent’s particular definition, then I concede on this matter.)

Now all that is left is the third and final contention. Should we, for the purposes of this debate, assume that everything in the Bible is the absolute truth? The answer, of course, is yes, but only if by “everything” my opponent means “only and all of the objective truths”, not “all of the objective and subjective truths”.

What I mean by “objective truths” and “subjective truths” is quite simple. Take this fictional testimony that was presented in a fictional court of law for example:

“Then the man took the axe and chopped all four of the children’s heads clean off. It was a noble and heroic act. He doesn’t deserve any prison time for it.”

Now imagine the original proposition for this debate had been “The man, as portrayed in this testimony, deserves to go to prison.” The first sentence of the testimony is an objective truth as it merely gives the witness’s account of the quadruple homicide. No matter how many witnesses had been present and watching the crime, this part of their testimonies would be nearly identical (so long as they weren’t abnormally mentally unhealthy at the time).

The next two sentences, however, are subjective truths, as they hold no meaning beyond the witness’s bias interpretation of the event. Had others given their own testimonies of the same event, we would undoubtedly hear different opinions on the matter: “It was gruesome,” “The blood looked cool,” “He doesn’t deserve the death penalty,” “He deserves to rot in jail,” etc.

Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, we should assume that all of the objective truths in the Bible are true (otherwise, we’d have nothing to go on to judge God’s character and worthiness of worship), but we should not assume all, or any, of the subjective truths are true (otherwise there would be no debate at all).


“According to the Bible”

My opponent objects to almost everything I’ve presented on the basis that I was using my own reasoning to reach my own conclusions. Of this I am certainly guilty, as I hope everyone would be. I am a fallible and subjective human being, but then so were the authors of the Bible.

As I’ve previously said, a subjective description of a person (or deity) is worthless in comparison to an objective one when we are trying to determine if this being is moral or immoral. However, my opponent seems to think not. He says that if we find two seemingly contradictory verses, one which says “God tortures all hypocrites” and “God is kind and merciful”, we should assume the second one is true. Apparently, my opponent thinks the reverse of the old saying “actions speak louder than words” is true.

With this, though, I must disagree. When judging someone’s moral character, it is far more important to take his/her actions into consideration than someone else’s already-formed opinion on the person.


Refuting my Opponent’s Refutations

Adam and Eve and The Plagues of Egypt

My opponent says that my logic is outweighed by the opinions of whoever wrote Genesis and Exodus. To say that logic can be outweighed by anything other than more logic is quite strange indeed. Be that as it may, as extensions of my previous arguments, I argue that the subjective verses are utterly worthless and certainly do not serve to outweigh my logic.

Tower of Babel

My opponent says I ignored the fact that building the Tower of Babel was a morally wrong thing to do, but provided no reason or explanation as to why it was wrong. For this, I urge my opponent to elucidate.

Natural Disasters

My opponent seems to be suggesting that natural disasters, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, were not created by God, but by the laws of physics. However, because God was the one who created the laws of physics, this shifting of the goal post is moot.

Bedbugs and Praying Mantises

My opponent says that I failed to provide evidence God created these creatures. Firstly, I’d like to ask my opponent: If God created the universe and everything in it, but not bedbugs and praying mantises, then who or what did? Secondly, Genesis [1:24-25] clearly says that God created all living things: "Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good."

Hell/Oblivion

My opponent says he doesn’t believe in the literal brimstone-and-fire interpretation of Hell. As the nature of Hell is not the topic of debate, I will not waste time disputing this point. However, I will point out that even if my opponent is correct and unbelievers simply fade away into nothingness instead of being tormented, it doesn’t help to make God seem any more just. Either way, He needlessly created an unpleasant fate for souls, be it Hell or oblivion.

Jesus the Scapegoat and Salvation by belief, not action

My opponent, unfortunately, didn’t have time to directly respond to these, so I will wait patiently until he does.

In conclusion, I have shown that we should believe the God of Christianity is unworthy of worship, despite the personal opinions of some of the authors of the Bible. I look forward to my opponent’s next response.


phantom

Con


I thank my opponent for his response.

Let me remind my opponent and the viewers that we must take things literally. We are arguing about what God is as portrayed in the Bible. If the Bible says that God causes children to die, than the Bible portrays God as someone who causes children to die. If the Bible says God sends people to hell than, God as portrayed in the Bible sends people to hell. If the Bible says God is good, than God, as portrayed in the Bible is good. If the Bible says God is perfect, than we must say that the Bible portrays God as perfect. If the Bible says God is worthy of worship, than God as portrayed in the Bible is worthy of worship.

Gods actions are many.

You can be a militant atheist who thinks the God of the Bible commits some outright horrible acts and still agree with my case.

Now let me attend to an issue that might come up. Some of the viewers, or my opponent even, might say that the Bible portrays God in many different ways but some of them are completely contradictory. In other words one might say, one verse says God is loving but what about this other verse that says God condemned whole cities to be destroyed? In that case you would not know whose arguments to side with. Thus you might be inclined to vote tie as you believe Gods attributes are contradictory and thus coming to a conclusion as to what the Bible really portrays God as is impossible. While I would respect a vote tie with this RFD, I do still wholeheartedly disagree.


Let me present an analogy. Suppose the following was written about myself;

Causing helpless old ladies to trip on the sidewalk brings me delight. I enjoys burning peoples houses down. I am morally perfect. Torturing little kids is a hobby of mine.


Now let's analyze how this statement portrays me.

1. Causing helpless old ladies to trip on sidewalks brings myself delight.
2. I enjoy burning people's houses down.
3. I am morally perfect.
4. I torture little kids as a hobby.

In some way or the other all of these have to be in harmony together.

My opponents arguments that the Bible authors based Gods characteristics solely of opinion is null. This is a debate on what God is according to the Bible. Thus according to what the writers said. It matters nothing whether they were right or wrong. If I say 2+2=5 that doesn't mean it is right, but if I say according to me 2+2=5 than that statement is correct. As portrayed by my statement 2+2=5

Whether you believe the Christian God is heinous or not, when


“Then the man took the axe and chopped all four of the children’s heads clean off. It was a noble and heroic act. He doesn’t deserve any prison time for it.”

Pros analogy as well is not altogether fitting. None the implications directly say of what the man is, only his actions. The Bible on the other imply Gods attributes.

So what do we observe about this man from the analogy?

As portrayed;

1. He has chopped off four children's heads
2. He doesn't deserve to go to prison.

I left out the part about the act being noble because that is what we observe about the act not about the man.

Allow me to present a more fitting analogy that is only slightly changed. I think my opponent may agree that it is more fitting.

“Then the man took the axe and chopped all four of the children’s heads clean off. He is noble and a hero. He doesn’t deserve any prison time for it.”

As portrayed from this;

1. He has chopped off four children's heads.
2. He is noble.
3. He is a hero.
4. He does not deserve to go to prison.

This clearly portrays him as someone who is noble and a hero. The question might be raised, can a heroic and noble man also go around chopping children's heads off? I would say that that is completely irrelevant. We must takes things literally and from a purely argumentative standpoint. On this factor we must conclude that as portrayed here, a noble and heroic man chops children's heads off. According to this testimony he chops children's heads off but he is also a hero.

/He says that if we find two seemingly contradictory verses, one which says “God tortures all hypocrites” and “God is kind and merciful”, we should assume the second one is true. Apparently, my opponent thinks the reverse of the old saying “actions speak louder than words” is true.//

Not applicable. We must assume everything that is said as true. Not literally true, but true for the sake of debate. True according to the resolution. Thus if we were to come across these two verses, we would assume that God tortures all hypocrites, and that God is kind and merciful. Of course neither of these we should literally assume. No one would believe God tortures all hypocrites and of course my opponent does not believe God is kind and merciful or that He exists even, but if we are asking ourselves what God is according to these verses, (as portrayed in these verses) we must assume these facts. According to these verses God is kind and merciful. The fact that these verses portray God as kind and merciful is irrefutable. Just because other verses might imply what God is from His actions does not mean that these verses must be discarded. Not a single time have I argued my case using verses portraying Gods actions. It is needless. I already have verses that say what God is. I already have a verses that outright says God is worthy of worship (as shown latter on in this argument). It is irrefutable that the Bible portrays God as worthy of worship because it outright says He is. My opponent has yet to bring forth any verse that says He is not worthy of worship. All my verses outweigh pros.

Adam and Eve and The Plagues of Egypt

My opponents points are outweighed because he makes many of his own personal conclusions. If I were to say 2+2=5 than as portrayed in that statement 2+2=5. My opponent can argue all day long that 2+2=4 but nothing will refute the fact that as portrayed in this statement 2+2=5.


Tower of Babel

My opponent is correct that I did not provide evidence of why this was morally wrong.



They wanted to build a tower that would reach heaven. God did not want man to be able to just come into heaven when they please, thus He disrupted it.

The only reason I don't use my mine contention to refute this is because I do not think it is a sound point otherwise.


Bedbugs and Praying Mantises

My opponent strawmans me here. I asked for proof that God is in direct control of evolutionary process. My opponent ignores this. God made whatever these insects evolved from. This does not mean He directed evolution to create what they are now.


Hell/Oblivion

Gods kingdom is for His people. Those who are not His people do not get to share His kingdom thus their souls are destroyed. God is a moral judge and as portrayed in the Bible a perfect moral judge. Thus His actions are justified.

Jesus the Scapegoat and Salvation by belief, not action

My main point outweighs these. No need to restate what I've already said many times.


I've realized that last round I spent too much time refuting pro and should have gone more into exactly how God is portrayed as worthy of worship in the Bible. This is however very simple.


“I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised,
And I am saved from my enemies."
2 Samuel 22:4

As portrayed in this verse God is worth to be praised. My case has been established; burden fulfilled.

Vote con
Debate Round No. 3
DakotaKrafick

Pro

"as portrayed in"

My opponent really seems to be grasping at semantic straws here. He says that, because the proposition says "as portrayed in the Bible", we must assume everything in the good book is completely true, even though I've already refuted this in my last round.

We don't have to assume all of the subjective truths are necessarily true (and indeed, we shouldn't) in order to form an opinion on the character of someone "as portrayed in" something for ourselves.

"But wait," I can already hear phantom typing, "The proposition says God is unworthy of worship according to the Bible, not according to ourselves."

No, this is a strawman. Take my fictional testimony for example once more: "Then the man took the axe and chopped all four of the children’s heads clean off. It was a noble and heroic act. He doesn’t deserve any prison time for it."

"According to" this testimony, yes, the man should be found not guilty and be set free. But "as portrayed in" this testimony, we can derive (from the objective truths) that this man clearly committed a crime and should be sent to prison for it.

Now it may seem like I'm the one playing semantics, but I'm not; I'm merely refuting my opponent's own semantical argument. It should be patently obvious to everyone that this was the original intended meaning of the proposition. Of all the terms I saw necessary to define in my introduction "as portrayed in" was not one of them (last time I'll be making that mistake, else risk wasting more time debating the propositions' words rather than God's character).

Now let's look at my opponent's examples. He says that no matter how much we disagree with this statement...

2+2=5

...two plus two DOES equal five "as portrayed in" the statement. This is, by all accounts, a perfectly valid argument. How it was meant to advance my opponent's position in this debate, however, I am unsure. 2+2=5 is an objective truth (an incorrect objective truth, but an objective truth nonetheless since mathematics are not opinion-oriented) and I've already said we must take these literally. If the proposition had been "Phantom's math, as portrayed in the statement 2+2=5, is worthy of being taught in classrooms" then we would consider the objective truth (2+2=5) and form an opinion on whether or not it is worthy of being taught in math class (hint: it's not).

Similarly, we must consider the objective truths in the Bible that portray God's character (punishing Adam and Eve, killing the first-born males in Egypt) and form an opinion on whether or not He is worthy of being worshiped (hint: He's not).

Further, my opponent lists four statements about himself to illustrate a point:

"1. Causing helpless old ladies to trip on sidewalks brings myself delight.
2. I enjoy burning people's houses down.
3. I am morally perfect.
4. I torture little kids as a hobby."

He says that in order to form an opinion on his character "as portrayed in" these statements, we must assume they are all in harmony with each other (meaning that they are all, somehow, true).

If you don't know how I'm going to refute this, then you haven't been paying attention so far.

The first, second, and forth statements are all objective truths while the third is a subjective truth and might as well be tossed in the garbage for the purposes of us forming an opinion on his character. As portrayed in those statements, my opponent is an old-lady-tripping arson who enjoys torturing little kids. Therefore, he is a morally-bankrupt lunatic, despite what the third statement has to say on the matter.

Of course, my opponent is still free to think he is morally perfect, despite the three objective truths, but he would be carrying a hefty burden in convincing the audience of that.

Refuting more refutations

I hardly feel these refutations are necessary, considering the heart of my opponent's arguments were semantical, but I shall do them anyway.

Adam and Eve and the Plagues of Egypt

Again my opponent references his 2+2=5 statement, which I've already addressed. We must consider the objective truths (such as God punished Adam and Eve and God killed the first-born males in Egypt) and form an opinion of God's character from them (murderous, heinous, unjust, etc).

Tower of Babel

My opponent defends God's actions here by saying the construction of the tower was an immoral act, as it would have allowed for "man to be able to just come into heaven when they please". I must say, I'm surprised my opponent shares the belief of those people that you can actually build a tower so tall that it would reach heaven. We know, of course, this is not true.

Bedbugs and Praying Mantises

My opponent accuses me of strawmaning him. Perhaps I technically did, but only because he committed a red herring first. Evolution is not the topic of debate here. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, so even if He did only create the creatures that bedbugs and praying mantises evolved from, He did so knowing what the result would be.

Hell/Oblivion

My opponent says that God is justified in destroying the souls of those who are not "His people" for "God's kingdom is for His people". What "His people" means has yet to be revealed. I feel as though my opponent is offering only a tiny iota of an argument per round, forcing me to press him on the issue until the last round when he finally reveals all (giving me no opportunity to respond).

If "His people" means "people who God, for one reason or another, wants to keep in His kingdom", then this does nothing to promote God's alleged morality. God's reasons for favoring one individual over another could be unjust (as most likely is as I've explained in my "Salvation by belief, not action" sub-point).

Jesus the Scapegoat and Salvation by belief, not action

My opponent has never addressed either of these points, so there has never been anything for me to refute. My two points stand unchallenged (unless he decides to finally challenge them in the last round when I would have no chance to refute him).

Con's burden fulfilled?

My opponent claims this verse proves God is worthy of worship:

"I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised,
And I am saved from my enemies."
2 Samuel 22:4

However, this is (must I say it?) a subjective truth. If my opponent really wishes to fulfill his burden, he must convince the audience why this verse should be taken seriously in light of all of the objective verses depicting God's character through His immoral actions.

In Conclusion

I have proven, despite any semantic or subjective truth, that God is unworthy of worship. I urge the viewers to take both of our arguments into consideration and to vote accordingly.

Thank you, phantom, for debating this interesting topic with me.


phantom

Con

My opponent is entirely correct when he says my main argument is drawn on semantics. I saw a loop-hole and wanted to exploit it. On my end it seems he does not like the fact that I am not arguing what the original meaning of the debate was supposed to be. I have seen my opponent do the very exact same thing however, with one of the voters even saying "Con's semantic-fu was VERY strong", and another, "The semantic is strong in this one".[1] Thus any objections my opponent may have, I do not feel are justified. Besides this, exploiting loop-holes are a big part of debate.



Subjective truths vs. Objective truths?

My opponent has had one main contention against my arguments, and that is that he believes I am using subjective truths while he is using objective truths. This argument does not apply. All it can possibly do is prove that God is not worthy of worship. This does nothing to prove what the Biblical authors portray God as. It is extremely clear that the authors of the bible portray God as worthy of worship. It's undeniable. If one verse says God is worthy of worship than that verse portrays Him as worthy of worship and thus the Bible portrays Him as worthy of worship. The Bible flat out says He is worthy of worship, thus undeniably portrays Him as worthy of worship. This is something my opponent does not have. It matters nil whether the authors are right or wrong. That is not what we're arguing. Like I said before you can be a strong militant atheist and still agree with my side.


2+2=5

My opponent has established that the assumed God is not worthy of worship. What my opponent has not established is that the Bible does not portray Him as worthy of worship.

Apply this too my analogy. I easily can prove that 2+2 does not = 5. What I cannot prove is that the statement does not portray 2+2 as equal to 5. The statement clearly portrays 2+2 as equal to 5 even though that is false, just as the Bible clearly portrays God as worthy of worship, even though you may bring up sound arguments that God is not worthy of worship. The statement 2+2=4 is an objective truth. The statement "2+2=5 as portrayed in the analogy" is an objective truth. The statement, "God is worthy of being worshiped", is a subjective truth. The statement, "The Bible portrays God as worthy of worship", is an objective truth.


Old-lady-tripping arson who enjoys torturing little kids.


Here is what we conclude from the analogy again for convenience.

"1. Causing helpless old ladies to trip on sidewalks brings myself delight.
2. I enjoy burning people's houses down.
3. I am morally perfect.
4. I torture little kids as a hobby."

//my opponent is still free to think he is morally perfect, despite the three objective truths, but he would be carrying a hefty burden in convincing the audience of that.//

I can't help but feel that my opponent is continually straw-manning me. I am not trying to convince the audience that I am morally perfect, nor am I trying to convince the audience that God is worthy of worship. The purpose of the analogy was to prove that it portrays me as morally perfect, just as the purpose of my arguments are to prove that the Bible portrays God as worthy of worship.

By the way, I do love your expression “morally-bankrupt lunatic". =D


Refuting more refutations

All this reiterating is getting somewhat tiresome, therefore I won't go into detail.


Adam and Eve and the Plagues of Egypt

See previous arguments.

Tower of Babel

My opponent basically drops this point by only bringing up the question of how they could possibly build a tower to get too heaven. This is irrelevant. We assume whether Gods actions are right or wrong based on the story. The story says that God stopped them for that reason. Therefore it doesn't matter if it's possible or not. I, as a matter of fact, don't believe it's possible. This is one of the reasons I don't believe in Bible inerrency.


Bedbugs and Praying Mantises

My opponent still refrains from fulfilling my request for evidence that God is in direct control of evolution. All he does is assume un-established premises. Such as that God is omnipotent and omniscient. I personally do not believe God is either and I think it necessary for my opponent to provide backing to these statements rather than just assuming them. My opponents accusations that I committed a red hearing are unfounded.

Hell/Oblivion

Not much need to respond to much here. My main arguments refute this as they do also to the previous arguments. My opponent claims that I am only offering a small iota of an argument per round, thus forcing him to press me. I have not refuted arguments such as this with much depth for the fact that it is not really necessary. My opponent admits this himself that these contentions do not really require much arguing due to my approach to the resolution. I do find pros accusations that it seems I am waiting till the last round to make arguments, giving him no time to refute me, quite distasteful however.

Jesus the Scapegoat and Salvation by belief, not action


My opponent claims I have not addressed these points and thus they are unchallenged. That is only partially true. As said, my opponent "hardly feels these refutations are necessary"(Referring to the Adam and Eve argument to here). I also share my opponents feelings. This is why in my last round I told the viewers to look too my main contentions as my rebuttal, thus my opponents claims that these points are unchallenged is somewhat false.


I do not at all like the fact that pro twice proposes the fact that I might bring up last round arguments.
_______

"I call upon the LORD, who is worthy to be praised,
And I am saved from my enemies."
2 Samuel 22:4

To say this is a subjective truth, as my opponent does in refuting this, is nothing short of completely irrelevant. This is a subjective truth. The real contention, which my opponent ignores, is that this verse portrays God as worthy of worship. It matters not if He is or not. What matters is that the Bible clearly portrays Him as such.


Why I have fulfilled my burden:

I have used semantics arguments for my case, however they are completely sound. My opponent may argue all day that God is not worthy of worship and make a good case, but nothing will refute the fact that the Bible directly says God is worthy of worship, and thus portrays Him as such. Whether the opinions of the Bible authors are right or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they portray Him as such.

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate as articulate a debater as he.

Vote con.


[1] http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vigarothe13 4 years ago
vigarothe13
If the children were zombies then that man is a HERO! haha I can not vote because I have only done one debate, however I would probably go with pro seeing as in order to decide if god is worthy of being worshiped I would rather use my own judgement and morals rather than that of his followers or "god himself"
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Interesting. I'll be voting later. Pro's arguments were based on some rather basic misunderstandings. Very easy to see through for most theologians. However, I wasn't entirely impressed by Con's rebuttal.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Hey, no worries man. We all say things we regret.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"I do find pros accusations that it seems I am waiting till the last round to make arguments, giving him no time to refute me, quite distasteful however."

By the way, phantom, I do apologize for those accusations. In hindsight, they were clearly uncalled for, but for some reason that's the way I truly felt at the time. I can blame insomnia, perhaps, but there's really no excuse.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
I'm glad you guys enjoyed reading the debate. I certainly enjoyed debating it, phantom, thanks again :)

...although, I must say, due to my crappy internet, I had to write my final round twice entirely from scratch which really ticked me off at the time... but other than that, fun stuff.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Alright I agree that I had BOP, so even though I disagree with your decision I have no complaints. :)
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Err -.- got the BOP switched around. Con had BOP and failed to meet it, so voted pro.
Sorry for the confusion! I'm used to seeing pro have the BOP that it's strange to see Con have it.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Yeah thanks for the in-depth RFD. I appreciate it. I am confused though. You say pro had the BOP but failed to fulfill it and con wins the arguments but still voted pro??
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Haha xD
But yeah, if you have any questions you want to ask me about the debate, feel free to PM me.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
We posted at the exact same time lol >.<
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
DakotaKrafickphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think con refuted the uneeded punishments arguments well. He showed that these punishments where indeed justified. He also showed in the babble argument that why would god care? Like seriously I am an awesome dude, they build a tower ok great. I also think pro had many assumptions that where personal base not biblical based.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
DakotaKrafickphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Both have versus from the Bible backing up their ideas. However, Pro had the burden of proof, and did not prove anything. Arguments to Con. Con had one source, Pro had none.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
DakotaKrafickphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it's clear the Pro expected a theodicy from Con. Con believes loop-holes are legitimate, but he must also learn that not all readers agree. I'm one of them. As far as I am concerned, Con's loophole was a straw man and therefore did not fulfill the burden of negating the resolution.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
DakotaKrafickphantomTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The big question for me in this debate was: unworthy of whose worship? I felt pro's argument did lean sufficiently towards the "nobody should worship god" side. Con did establish that moral truths are subjective, so pro was speaking for everybody when in fact relying on only his own subjective experience. Perhaps pro was right, but a subjective case cannot establish an objective reality, so pro fails their BOP. If the motion had been "unworthy of MY worship" pro would have won. Neg win.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
DakotaKrafickphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro established that god does reprehensible things, so Con says, in effect, "Yes, but somebody _called_ him good." But calling him good doesn't make him actually good. He is obviously, by his actions, bad. So Con says we have to believe that calling god good makes him actually good. Pro disagrees. Con says his move is a semantical trick, but that Pro is somehow required to fall for it. But Pro doesn't fall for it. Victory: Pro.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
DakotaKrafickphantomTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.