The Instigator
n7natnat
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

God is Dead.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,446 times Debate No: 71793
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

n7natnat

Pro

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.
It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist. I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.
Debate Round No. 1
n7natnat

Pro

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.
God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.
One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries. What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God. What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible. The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God. Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible. Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
Mikal

Con

By pros own admission god does not exist

" my goal is to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility. "

For something to be dead it must first die, and for it to die it must first exist.

Dead - no longer alive or living : no longer having life [1]

(P1) For God to be dead he must first exist
(P2) God does not exist my pros own admission
(C) God cannot be dead because he does not exist

Vote Con

Pro has effectively negated his own burden and resolution.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
n7natnat

Pro

Hahahahaha you don't understand aphorism. It's a metaphor. "God is dead. We killed him with our indifference". That's from Friedrich Nietzsche. What he meant by that was society no longer has use for God; the belief does not in any way help the survival of the species, rather it hinder it. The implications of this are rather important for ethics, for with the death of God (a metaphor) comes the death of religious, especially christian, morality" a morality that has underpinned western culture since the fourth century. God is dead is just a metaphor for atheism. But, back to the point about your God being refuted:
God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible. God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.
The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.
No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.
Mikal

Con

Pro claims hes using a metaphor.

The resolution implies different. It makes an affirmative statement regarding death. Upon acknowledging that God is dead, he would then imply that God must exist. With him stating that God does not exist, as he did in round 1 he has effectively negated his own resolution.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
n7natnat

Pro

Hahahaha you're literally criticizing an aphorism for being weird, instead of countering my arguments lol. Besides, if God was real, he couldn't die. That's why he "would" be God. But since God isn't real and is actually an abstract thought or creation of our imagination, he "can" die. The only way he could die was if he wasn't real. If he was real, he couldn't die. That's why he would be "God". Gods don't die. But if your criticizing as though the aphorism in use is actually correct (which it is), your implying God was never God in the first place. Which he wasn't. Now here's more arguments concerning god:
One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?
The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.
The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.
We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."
Mikal

Con

Pro states a standard resolution and tries to shift the goal posts in order to support a viewpoint that was not clarified. By practical standards death refers to death, had pro wished to refine the resolution he should have done so. This Debate entails God is dead via the res.

Next time I would advise pro to clarify a resolution so he does not get shot down so easily.

Extend arguments for logical reasons.

Vote con
Debate Round No. 4
n7natnat

Pro

Lol you basically just argued that because the title was confusing, I should fix it next time XD Hilarious. Sighhhhh alright. I'm not even going to post an argument this time. I mean, you literally haven't given any evidence to God. You've only been criticizing my aphorisms from professional scholars unlike you and I and ignore the longggggg list of evidence against the christian God. So I'm just gonna wait for an "actual logical response" concerning the existence of God rather then your critique of grammar.
Mikal

Con

To break down this debate

Death is the absence of life, and life must first exist for death to occur. By pros own confessions God cannot die nor does he exist thus negating the affirmation. By any logical standpoint death entails death. One cannot alter a definition to fit whatever they want it to mean or debate would be pointless. Stars could mean the sun or blue could mean green. Definitions exist for a purpose and death means death. If pro wanted a different resolution he should have clarified it

My syllogism remains non refuted.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BoggleBros37 8 months ago
BoggleBros37
Hahahahahahaha con got him good! it was already over in round 2
Posted by Juris 1 year ago
Juris
this is a funny one.. lol..
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
You know that's all based on your opinion and isn't actually fact. and spelling isn't supposed to be considered when making a point. If I said, "The sky is blue", or "the skie is blue", does it change the fact that the sky is actually blue? Plus the Con made an argument that the title was bad. He didn't even try to argue on the actual subject of the debate. He also ignored all of my explanations to babble about my title continuously. It's what I find to be very rude.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
=====================================================================
>BoggyB // Moderator action: REMOVED<

5 points to Con (everything but sources). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct as Pro failed to be consistent. Con made better arguments and fulfilled the resolution correctly and Pro's arguments were unclear and failed to fulfill resolution. Pro also had very unprofessional spelling and grammar in later rounds. Sweep by Con.}

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD fails to adequately explain its argument point vote. It merely states *that* Con's arguments were good and Pro's were bad. It doesn't explain why. It is so generic that it could be copy-pasted into any debate and therefore fails to provide any meaningful feedback on arguments.
====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: Clashnboom // Moderator action: REMOVED<

1 point to Pro (conduct), 3 points to Con (arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con used smart and dirty tactics.}

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain why Con had better arguments. This RFD is far too generic and fails to offer any meaningful feedback.
=====================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: Clashnboom // Moderator action: REMOVED<

1 point to Pro (conduct), 3 points to Con (arguments). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con used smart and dirty tactics.}

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain why Con had better arguments. This RFD is far too generic and fails to offer any meaningful feedback.
=====================================================================
Posted by Will22 1 year ago
Will22
Pro has not phrased the title of the debate in the most accurate way, but it is immediately apparent from Pro's first round what the actual intended topic is. Instead of showing grace and general good attitude especially on account of being a senior debater, Con decided to exploit the wording on Pro's part and focused on the one single grammar argument even after Pro gave long paragraphs of good points and clarified his true argument, which will go to waste now that the debate is over. I find it sad that the top debater on the leaderboard would give such a negative experience to a newcomer to the site, and yet others would still vote on Con. I am not able to vote, but I urge future voters to consider this as they vote.
Posted by happyjuggler 1 year ago
happyjuggler
I can't believe how willfully dense Mikal was. The argument was perfectly presented in the first round, and instead of debating like a normal person he took the quote used as the headline for the debate and decided THAT was the argument. Ridiculous. I was interested in seeing where this was gonna go, maybe there will be another one where somebody who can actually debate the topic at hand will accept.
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
How dogs can't be dead to you because not all dogs are dead in reality. Who does that?????? Either an ignorant person, or someone avoiding to truly discuss the debate at hand. I found it I insulting how my opponent continued to ignore my propositions concerning the existence of God to instead insult my title. The first argument I posted explained my debate, but the opponent would of tethered discuss the title for being misleading, even though I explained the title and what the debate would discuss in the first place. Plus, most of the voters are Christian dogmatist who would rather continue to hold on to faith, despite the evidence and high probability that God does not exist. Next time, I will argue this: "so are you for certain you are right? Are you sure? It's a fact that you are right?" If they reply yes, I will give up the argument. There's no point in discussing with a person how they could be wrong and they not listen, while I have to listen to their reasons that tell me I could be wrong and I actually listen. It's unfair. It's dogmatist on their part, and I refuse to argue with dogmatist. My time can be better spent elsewhere.
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Doesn't matter either way. I literally clarified what my argument was going to be about in my first post, and she accepted just to say that the title wasn't good enough. Plus, she said things have to be in existence to die. That's not true. There are plenty cartoons in which Santa Claus dies. But how could he die if he didn't exist? Oh yea. That's right. Because it's abstract. Death is abstract, so is life. and so is God. We ca give things death and life in our imagination. Now she'll probably say then "then why would you try to disprove something you claim is imaginary unless u believed it actually existed first?" The answer is: because people still believe in fairytales when science and circumstantial, historical, and archeological evidence suggests elsewise. If you're trying to determine where the world came from and how it was made and all this other amazing stuff, it's been proven God is not a rational explanation. And I decided to use one of the most well known aphorisms ever conceived and I'm about to lose because she didn't like it? That's absurd. But then again, life in itself is absurd. But my point being: she avoided te arguement I intended to have by criticizing the title, and never addressing my arguments. That's pretty disrespectful in my perspective. I even explained how I already told what I intended to discuss, and she continued to ignore me and harass the title. Are you saying that allllll those long arguments I put my time into for a discussion concerning how God doesn't exist, were for nothing because she argued against the title instead of the argument I presented????? That's like saying you went to a world wide debate about how cats are better than dogs, and the title of he debate is "Dogs are dead to me", and the person on the pro dog side continues to criticize over and over again the aphorism in the title of the debate. It's rediculous. The person knows that we are here to discuss how cats are or aren't better than dogs, but instead argues
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Interloped 1 year ago
Interloped
n7natnatMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not like Con's decision to exploit semantics and would be inclined to concede that the title was meant as Pro later claims it was. I agree with Con only to encourage Pro to better prepare for this sort of argument in the future. Some advice to Pro: Make things short and sweet, clearly define where a particular argument ends and begins, clearly define all terms and thoughts in round one, make sure the title statement reflects the debate properly.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
n7natnatMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro failed to properly define the debate, so con defined it. After con defined it to his advantage, pro became extremely rude. If pro doesn't define the debate, con has the right to define it. Those are the rules. S&G - pro's wall of text was difficult and painful to read, but it's not enough to take off points. Arguments - Con had the best arguments, as he had the only relevant arguments to the debate as it was ultimately defined. Sources - Con used sources and pro didn't. Nothing else to be said really.