The Instigator
Kent13
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

God can exist even though there is suffering

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,750 times Debate No: 24585
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

Kent13

Pro

God can exist even though there is suffering
TheHitchslap

Con

I hope to show the audience the ridiculousness of my opponents argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Kent13

Pro

Fantastic news hitchslap. The God that I am referring to is the Trinitarian God of the Christian religion.
Seeing as I have made an initial statement of what I believe - 'that God can exist even though we have suffering in the world'- I will allow the opponent to make the objections to this belief.
Cheers
TheHitchslap

Con

Fantastic news Kant, the burden of proof is with you on this one:
If we lived in the Nordic areas during the time of the Vikings, you probably would have worshiped Thor
In Ancient Egypt? Ra, and Anubis
In ancient Greece? Zeus and Hades
SO! Not only do you have to prove that Jesus existed (incredibly difficult to do) you also have to prove that a burning bush can talk. You have to prove that the laws of physics can be ignored -in your favor- if you worship Jesus of Nazareth. Good luck with that! You have hundreds of Gods you may choose from and you have to defend not only that God exists, but that your religion is the most correct.

First the suffering:
Isn't it interesting that ONLY in ancient Palestine does God ever have a divine intervention into human affairs? Not in the literate parts of China, but in an area of the world in which what is most likely is either lying, OR someone hallucinating. Thought experiment here: What is most likely? An immaculate conception? Or a jewish woman being unfaithful? Here is another: if theological scholars believe the human race is 100 thousand years old, you have to believe that for 90 thousand years heaven watches humans rape, kill, and torture each other. With complete indifference. Only for God to stand up and say 'enough .. we're gonna fix this by having a massive genocide via flood only in Palestine...in the middle of a desert.'

This cannot be believed, in fact it seems foolish. But to further disprove the BIBLE, and subsequently that of the christian God and Jesus of Nazareth, to show you that Mosaic law was highly autocratic and benefits the people whom seek power due to their claim of God I shall pick ONE consistent view within the religion and seek to disprove it.
Lets take homosexuality, something the church absolutely hates every time.
Blanchard and Klassen (1997) preformed a study in which per every male baby born from the female body, the youngest male child is 33% more likely to become homosexual. Thus, as an older brother, my younger brother is 33% more likely to become gay than me. This is biology, as the female body pumps into the fetus more antibodies the more males she has (because her body does not recognize the Y antigens the fetus gives off, it pumps more antibodies to kill them) the more likely your son is to become gay. Here is the question: the bible said it's wrong, unnatural, unethical, and just plain horrible. But if it claims that every man is made in the image of God, why the HELL would he have created them only to be opposed by Christianity? That means that whomever said homosexuality was wrong within the bible, or it's interpretations, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a GOOD representation of God as every priest claims. Thus disproving the bible, and thus disproving God.

My opponent will play word games with us. But we will never falter my brothers! He may claim science can only know SO MUCH. Well maybe so but if you want to look at that record as well then look at religion in history's record for accuracy and you tell me if a God exists:
(disproved) As a result of a curse upon you, a disease from a divine being will killed you.
(disproved) If the Gods are angry with you, a local volcano will also kill you
(disproved) The world revolves around the Earth as we were created in Gods image
(disproved) Aids are bad, but will not be defeated by condoms
(disproved) Homosexuality is terrible and NOT in God's wishes
(disproved) Interracial marriages are terrible and NOT in God's wishes

Also here is what pro wants you to believe:
God knows everything and has the right to control you
He has the ability to send you to hell for what you think
He has the ability to have his followers in heaven to watch with pleasure all the sinners burn for eternity
He has the right to control your marriage .. right down to what sexual positions you may choose
He has the right to control what you eat
He is a divine North Korea. Where for over 200 thousand years everyone in heaven takes pleasure in worshiping him and he never gets tired of it.
That someone like Jerry Fallwell will go to heaven despite his support of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 .. but someone like Christopher Hitchens will rot in hell simply for not believing in him.

This is his God. In the bible he kills over 6 million people. Satan on the other hand kills none, he simply collects those lost 'souls'. God does not want you to think (Adam and Eve anyone?) yet the devil allows you to have knowledge, to critically analyze the things around you (which any country with huge levels of education normally have less crime for example). Since we couldn't have possessed knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit, Adam and Eve couldn't have known that eating the fruit was evil, so it seems a little harsh to punish them as severely as God did. Satan gave humans true capacity for moral judgment, unlike God, who simply expected everyone to mindlessly obey his orders.
There is no biblical record of Satan engaging in the murder of torture of any human being, unlike God, who is guilty (and proudly guilty) of commiting genocide.
There is no biblical record of Satan ever ordering someone to kill someone else, unlike God, who has repeatedly demanded the deaths of those who commit even the smallest of offenses.
Satan will not be holding a massively dramatic ceremony full of blood and death for the return of his son to Earth. God apparently will.

Tell me your God exists. If so, I'm sorry for you. As one person put it to me 'Sorry, but your God expects far too much from 15 year old boys!'

I turn it over to Pro .. this shall be funny ...

Joke: Buddhist walks to a hotdog vendor and says 'I'll have one with everything on it!' Vendor makes it for him and asks for '$2.75'. The buddhist hands him a 50 dollar bill and starts to eat his hotdog when he realizes he isn't getting his change. He then thought the vendor forgot and simply said 'excuse me sir. What about my change?' The vendor looks at him and replies ' AHHHHH! But sir! Change comes form within!'
Debate Round No. 2
Kent13

Pro

Do i get a point for you spelling my name incorrectly? If so, I guess i'm one up huh?
Hey man, I think you missed the point about what I am offering to debate about. If I was able to convince you of the existence of God through this debate, then I better get on the phone to Bill Johnson or Billy Graham because I'd make one helluva preacher. Unfortunately though, even then I would have an even bigger problem of you basing that belief on me rather than God speaking into your life in a much more direct and real way than I ever could. Simply put, my argument is not on the existence of God, the miracle of the virgin conception/birth, the Mosaic laws that you have used out of contexts, or pretty much anything in the above that you have listed. My debate topic was merely that God 'CAN' exist even in a world of suffering. The only way this topic could get anywhere, is by making the assumption (even if for you it is hypothetical) that God is real. The concept on his existence should remain out of the question as that would take up the entirety of 4 rounds plus more, and quite frankly is too large and comprehensive to motivate myself to write about in this forum.
Hence, if you are sincerely interested in debating this topic, then I would advise to refrain from entering from that angle as I doubt we will get anywhere.
If you need help, and are unfamiliar with religious or philosophical arguments of classic nature such as St Thomas Aquinas etc, I encourage you to enter this debate from the angles such as attributes assigned to God such as his Omnipotence, Omniscience, and his Omnibenevolent (or am i setting you into a trap ?? :p). This would result in a much more productive debate that would not only be of considerable challenge to defend and be more enjoyable to try.

This is fun. Over to you.
TheHitchslap

Con

Friends, Brothers, Comrades
I must say that these pathetic Ad hominem is a signal to a lost debate on his part. When he may only question myself personally for spelling, it means he has nothing to fall back on upon having this debate!
Perhaps I have not made my position clear: IF we look at religion and it's writings (in this case Christianity and the Bible) and agree by implication that God's words are in those handed down by Moses (for example) then it's pain and suffering it has caused the world indirectly disproves God's existence .. thus meaning in a WORLD OF SUFFERING there is NO GOD. Clear? When you say 'God can EXIST in a suffering world' Your debating the existence of God and his effects as a result. There is NO assumption here otherwise I've already lost and I would have agreed with you (I am con therefore I say no .. opposite to you .. do you understand kind sir?)
Why the bible as an attack? Isn't that odd? Well because Kent believes in the Christian God and believes (by implication) that the Bible is in fact the Word of God, it's hypocritical stories will be used by me to indirectly disprove HIS god. His problem is he specified; I say again comrades! He must prove that 1) Jesus existed in a world that suffers 2) That God CAN in fact exist and 3) that every other religion is wrong. Something he will spend a life time trying to do. That is his fault not mine, as I am an agnostic atheist.
Furthermore, he has NOT even decided to pull out the cosmological argument or the ontological argument both of which can very easily be refuted. (Yes Kent, I HAVE read St Thomas Aquinas)

Now can we agree that God is all knowing? All seeing?
If we can, then all knowing does not make sense. As again the homosexuality argument. He would not have created them only to disapprove of them.

Furthermore in the story of the likes of Adam and Eve it appears that Satan is more good than evil. If we were to objectively measure the bible by utilitarianism as an ethic (thus it is good if it serves the greatest good for the greatest number of people) then the bible has failed upon many parts.

It is against the bible for interracial marriage, it demands the death for women whom engage in sexual acts before marriage. How is this good for the greatest number of people?
"Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." - Deuteronomy 22:21

This is not including the support of slavery .. for which was successful disproving any difference between those of another ethnic origin and that of a Caucasian (other than color). The Catholic church supported it in trying to gain more followers, yet if all are equal in the eyes of God then this violates the bible, thus a violation within the bible in and amongst it's self, and thus a disproof of Catholic's God.

And finally this hasn't even started over how stupid we as humans are created. (See video)

Thank you for your time. He has no defense and thus his semantics should be disregarded.
Debate Round No. 3
Kent13

Pro

Before I begin I want to correct one mistake of mine so far. I phrased poorly and did not mean to say that you have to assume God is real for the debate to go forward. I was trying to imply that the existence of God should only be debated in the context of suffering. The cosmological argument etc is irrelevant to this debate. I do not need to, as you have suggested, defend that Jesus existed (which by the way is one of the most undisputed facts that is silly to bring up -scholars only dispute he is the son of God) or defend accusations of hypocritical verses in the bible or issues you even touch on.

" He must prove that 1) Jesus existed in a world that suffers 2) That God CAN in fact exi
st and 3) that every other religion is wrong. Something he will spend a life time trying to do. That is his fault not mine, as I am an agnostic atheist."

None of these 3 points are important to reflect on when approaching this - except in a better phrased way, point 2. My purpose, before i started this debate, was to show readers how a world where suffering exists does not mean that an all-powerful and all-good God cannot. Because i made it clear I am referring to the Christian God, I am not concerned with defending mine against theirs as it is simply not the topic in debate. You have made some very good points and raise fair questions of the Christian faith, and under a different debate I would have been happy to give you my understanding and clarify why I believe in the God I do. I am a Pastor and have a double degree in religion & philosophy as well as a diploma from bible school (don't let my profile fool you) and am adequately prepared to answer your objections. My resistance to do so - before you feel all superior about yourself - is that it was simply not the point.

You have obviously missed it.

You claimed your case is the following: " If we look at religion and its writings and agree by implication that Gods words are in those handed down by Moses, then its pain & suffering it has cased the world indirectly disproves God's existence."
This is a very shallow and mediocre case to defend, but i do concede - does acknowledge the topic at hand - albeit in a very different approach to most atheist scholars on this subject. You did not need to show how God's words, you claim, have caused suffering on this world. You are meant to show how the existence of suffering means the all powerful and loving god that I believe in does not exist. But even if we take your claim, you actually make little attempt (or very poorly if you are trying) to provide any substantial accusations (on the topic at hand) that make your case very valid anyway.

But before I finish, I need to look at myself also.. In the entire 4 rounds I have had to debate, I have not once given any reason or argument to defend my position. Not once have i offered a real reply or response to the unneccessarily offensive manner and accusations of the contender. I have not debated on suffering either and have given no reason for the readers to be persuaded in my claim. I do not intend this following comment to come out of arrogance, but my reason for this is honest and simply - It hasn't been worth it. I was hoping for a much better theological debate than this and am disappointed in the content and off-topic nature of my opponent. It hasn't been worth my time defending his comments, because they are not the topic of argument. Nor has it been worth outlining the defence to my claims (something that if done properly-takes effort and commitment to on both our behalf), because my opponent has simply missed the point and fails to understand my objective.

Perhaps we are both to blame and I have not made enough effort to understand the confusing angle taken by my opponent. Sometimes I have been sucked into making sarcastic and mocking comments that haven't helped this cause and is not the way I should represent Christianity. However my summary will finish on this note, in that I thank my opposition for his time. I respect your opinion and appreciate the effort you took entering my debate. I don't expect to win this debate (simply because I have given any argument beside my one sentence in round 1) and nor is winning it important to me.
As my opposition has the rights to the final word after this post, I suspect he will attempt to show my post as a sign of 'having no response' or 'conceding defeat' or something negative of this nature. I encourage my opponent to refrain from such a mentality or position because if so again - you will miss the point and not understand.
TheHitchslap

Con

I thank my opponent for his time, ad perhaps we have common ground here that the topic should be more clear in the near future. I respect his opinions also.

I shall extend my arguments a little further, that if their is a God and people worshiped him, it is believed that divine intervention could in theory happen. Lets take a person suffering in a rather Christian dominated country. I shall take you to Austria, where in 2010, 60% of the population claimed to be Catholic, while the second most being Lutheran was 3.8% of the total population. [1] In 2005, 50% claimed they believe in a God, while 34% simply believed in a higher power. [2]
I shall take you to the year 2008 in Austria, where a particular case made international headlines around the world. Her name was Elizabeth Fritzl, a beautiful young woman whom -it was believed- abandoned her family to journey with a local cult for over 20 years. It turns out her father trapped her in the family basement for that entire time, literally forging everything she supposedly wrote. She would be sexually assaulted and abused by her father, for over 20 years. The relationship would be so bad it produced 7 offspring and 1 miscarriage[3]. Yes, a father raping his daughter of all the most nasty and disgusting things he could have possibly done. Now let's assume with the statistics above that Elizabeth was most likely Cathloic, it is undisputed that this woman was the epitome of suffering. The abuse, the rape forced upon her, and the pain of no medical professionals and the forcing of giving birth in the most unsanitary conditions. I wonder how much she prayed. I wonder how much she begged for mercy from God, or thought that help would arrive. Yet NOTHING HAPPENED from the skies, not a thing! The only time she would finally be liberated was from her abuser when she was able to go to a hospital with one of her children. Heaven then -in theory because no divine intervention in this suffering world happened- watches with complete indifference. And for what? Saying she could handle it because she was strong and will be rewarded in a next life? This is absurd and cannot be believed! So no I claim to my side, in a suffering world there is one HUGE case that God dropped the ball on. But okay everyone makes mistakes right? What about another case?

Enter Rwanda! Another excellent example! The most catholic country in Africa, in which -as most of you may already know- had the hutu's and tutsi killing one another. Interestingly enough, did God intervene? NOPE! Neither did the UN which has been met with criticism to a number of levels. It ended when the RPF seized control of the country, and the permission of the International Criminal Court to allow Rwanda to set up Gacaca courts to relieve the prison systems.[4] Where was God? No where, humans ended the suffering, despite all the worship they put in, Priests furthered the genocide over radio's everywhere.

This does not even include: emancipation of the Jews (human), emancipation of Women (human) emancipation of slaves and other races (human), conflict resolution (human), etc... due to character limits!

Why am I telling you this? Because we very much are in a suffering world. One in which needed to be pointed out that there is two ways in this particular debate how to disprove God. IF a God does exist, then he must be one sinister bastard to allow such lives to be nothing but wasted, with complete indifference. He expects too much from 15 year old boys, from defenseless women (for over 20 years), and shows no remorse for the deaths of those in a genocide. Why would God being so good allow you to suffer? There is only one logical conclusion: there is none. My opponent fails to understand his flaw in thinking: Why create us than abandon us? Why allow us to murder and rape? Even better! Wouldn't the world be a much better place if God DID exist, come down once or twice more, and fix some of our misconceptions within religion? Within morality? He doesn't because he is simply not there.

Now why vote for me? Because I have shown 2 things: 1) Yes it is impossible to know that God exists, but the question is in a insufferable world specific to that of a Christian God whom has been supposedly known to interfere with human affairs. He does not interfere because either he does not exist or does not care about you. And 2) that if the Bible is right, he DOES care, but to gain that care no limits may be hit. Including coming to talk to you via burning bush. Thus it is most certainly true he must not exist, and his institutions alone have caused more suffering than anything else!

What fire do you know of that burns for eternity? Not even the sun can do that!
My opponent does not even bring up the cosmological argument. He does not even attempt to defend himself in any way shape or form. He is not even able to successfully prove that a God is even likely to exist. He claims to have such a degree which is fine, but no cosmological or ontological argument appears. Unfortunately I have been trolled, and I think I have earned this win for putting up with his shananigans!

Thank you comrades!

Sources:
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Ibid
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Kent13 4 years ago
Kent13
Fair enough for Con to win this, well done. I intentionally never argued for my point which was should allow con to win by default. Con, I wish you had argued your last round earlier.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Sorry, I'm an ENTJ, my passion was mistaken for anger. Rest assured I was not angry and I apologize if I gave off that impression.
Posted by jwesbruce 4 years ago
jwesbruce
Con your anger, I guess, toward the idea of God has you straying far from the topic of the resolution.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
It is so easy for Pro to equivocate on this... Not worth it.
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
god, as defined by the bible? Or you're own definition of god. I need to know this before we can proceed.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
I agree he should have defined God. But since he didn't, the most relevant definitions should be given.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 4 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
Well, then the resolution should be the Tri-Omni God can exist etc.

Of course a God like Thor can exist even if people suffer.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
It's basically the POE, so the definition of God should be the one most commonly associated with the argument.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 4 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
Who wins this depends on the definition of God.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
Kent13TheHitchslapTied
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: Pro never met his BoP, thus Con by default.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Kent13TheHitchslapTied
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: The con went all over the place in this debate, so I only looked to the arguments that linked God's existence with suffering, which there weren't that many. In the end, the argument that won that topic was that God would sit around for roughly 9,000 years of suffering only to try and fix it in one area. Pro didn't really refute arguments or fulfill his BoP, so that counted against him. Sources went to the Con because he actually used them.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Kent13TheHitchslapTied
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 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: I have to give spelling and grammar to Con for his presentation, shich was superior to Pro's. Arguments also go to Con as he simply provided a better case, especially considering the specificity of Biblical events (only in ancient Palestine, etc.) Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
Kent13TheHitchslapTied
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 that it is still within the BoP of the Pro to prove that God in fact can exist, Con's objection towards God's existence at all is still within the context of this debate. On the other hand, Pro's arguments weren't really convincing enough to prove that suffering can co-exist with the Christian God.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Kent13TheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not engage in the debate topic, and instead strawmanned from the getgo. The debate was meant against the common argument that a benevolent god would not allow suffering, so suffering means there is no benevolent god. By never arguing the point, con loses conduct. Unfortunately, Pro, never argues for the point (though any arguing would require him to assume his opponent's argument, and such a strawman).
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Kent13TheHitchslapTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Pro. Among other things, Con should quit using the word "whom" until he understands when. He needn't use it ever, so it grates when you use it wrongly. Con delayed his relevant arguments until the final round, when Pro could no longer respond. They must be ignored. Persuasion is a tie. Nobody showed anything worth voting on. Burden of proof normally falls on the "Pro," but the PoE is an assertion to be made by Con, which would give him the burden of proof. But he didn't und