The Instigator
qopel
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
BennyW
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

God is Evil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
BennyW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,490 times Debate No: 30746
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (62)
Votes (6)

 

qopel

Pro

No Bible verses.
No adding new arguments in later rounds
No semantics.

If there really was a God that created us, he (it) has to be the most evil thing that
ever existed.
He creates living beings that are self-aware. He then gives us certain instincts that compel us to do certain things.
One instinct is the survival instinct which compels us to do whatever it takes to
survive. Yet, this same "creator" made survival 100% impossible due to the fact
that every living thing dies.
Nobody asks to be born, so we are forced to exist and try to survive even though
it is futile to even try.
In addition, we are compelled by hunger to nourish ourselves. The only way to
do that is to consume other living things. That means we must kill (plants or animals) against their own survival instinct, in order to try to survive ourselves. Yes, I do believe plants have a survival instinct. Plants try to grow towards sunlight in order to survive, for example.
Another thing that we are compelled to do is have sex and make new self-aware
beings (without them asking for it), so that they too are forced into the same situation of futile survival.
This whole system is really just torture. Here we are, given no choice but to either
kill and try to survive another day or end up not existing anymore.
Also, the "reward" for surviving is the slow deterioration of our bodies causing us
pain, blindness, sickness and many other problems to deal with.
If God created life, he also created pain and suffering with diseases and old age.
So, if God really "loves" us, why did he create this endless cycle of pain, suffering
and the futile desire to survive?
The only reasonable answer is that he ENJOYS making us struggle, which is sadistic, not loving.
BennyW

Con

I thank my opponent for initiating this debate. He has brought up a number of issues but they are ultimately all connected so rather than address them all individually I will address their main focus. Many of the issues my opponent brings up as examples of how God is immoral are merely assertions, particularly when you consider he hasn't established how these things are immoral. What standard of morality is he using? The claim that since God created life he also created suffering is fallacious as my opponent has not demonstrated how he has come to this conclusion.
I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
qopel

Pro

The first thing I want to point out, is that the debate is about
whether God is EVIL or not. I never used the world "moral"
and the debate is not about "morality".

I haven't established how the things I mentioned are immoral, because I don't claim them to be immoral.
I claim them to be evil.
I'm not using any standard of morality, since I'm not claiming anything moral or immoral. I never even used the words.

My opponent says, "The claim that since God created life he also created suffering is fallacious as my opponent has not demonstrated how he has come to this conclusion."

OK, I will ask my opponent the following questions:

Do you agree that God is almighty?
Do you agree that God is the creator of everything?
Do you agree that God controls everything?
Do you agree that God is responsible for everything?

If you agree to all the above, then God, did in fact, create all suffering.
THAT'S how I came to the conclusion.

If my opponent wants to try to blame a "Devil" for suffering, I will remind my opponent that
God created the Devil and is more powerful than the Devil and can get rid of the Devil if he so chooses.
Since God allows the Devil to exist and cause suffering, then God is ultimately responsible for suffering.

I can't wait to see my opponent perform the mental gymnastics it will take to dispute this.
BennyW

Con

If my opponent thinks evil can denote anything unrelated to morality then he is using a definition f evil not commonly accepted by anyone. It is almost like saying a triangle has nothing to do with geometry.
This is the definition of evil Google gives: [1]
Adjective
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Noun
Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.


Here is the definition according to Merriam-Webster [2]
a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
And here is the definition according to dictionary.com [3]
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering;unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.
6. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.

As you can see, according to all these definitions evil is linked to morality in the negative sense. Even where it can be defined without the use of the word morality, morality is implicit within the definition. Unless my opponent can show how either evil is not a moral judgment or show the source of his morality, he has no case here.
Now to address my opponent’s syllogism.
In the end though even if his syllogism holds up it would be irrelevant if he cannot prove how God is evil or how evil is not a moral concept since he then couldn’t prove that God creating pain and suffering is evil.

Do you agree that God is almighty? Yes
Do you agree that God is the creator of everything? He did create everything in the beginning but evil came in later as a corruption of his creation. Sure he could have prevented it but he allowed it for the reasons I will go into on your next point.
Do you agree that God controls everything? He doesn’t control everything like a robot, he could if he wanted to but he chooses not to so we have some level of free will. The same reason he allows evil to exist. Allowing and actively creating are two different things.
Do you agree that God is responsible for everything? In the sense that I have just described it he does. He foresees everything and allows certain things.
I await my opponent’s response.

1 https://www.google.com...
2 http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3 http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
qopel

Pro

If mental gymnastics was an Olympic event, Christians would bring home the Gold every time.

I will argue that not all immoral things are evil. But that's another debate.

So let's assume all things evil are immoral. I don't care.

The debate is still about evil, not morality. They may be related, but not the same.

So now, here is where the fun starts:

My opponent agrees that God is almighty. That alone should be proof that God is responsible for evil.
Oh, but here we go with the gymnastics.

My opponent wants to claim that God only created everything "in the beginning".
He then claims Evil got created by something else. How convenient.
God, the almighty, the all powerful, the all loving, the all just, sat back and let
Evil get created, right under his own nose, and did nothing to stop it.
That's evil, no matter what the reason for it is. God is therefore evil.

Oh, but it gets better!

My opponent says God can control everything, but wants to give humans "some level of free will".
Ah yes, the almighty wipes his hands from responsibility and blames evil on the imperfect humans he created.
If God is almighty, he is ultimately responsible for everything. There's no getting around that fact.
If you allow something to happen that you could prevent, you're responsible for what happened.

If you allow your child to play with the stove and they end up getting burned, YOU are ultimately responsible for that!

If God let Adam & Eve eat the apple and could have stopped it, he is the one responsible for what happened.
They had no idea what morality was at the time, yet God punished them and all mankind for this
victimless "crime". That's not only unjust, it is evil.

It's like leaving a child in a room with a loaded gun and saying "don't touch the gun"...and waiting until the child ends up shooting himself.
Then saying..."Oh well, the child had free will."
Only somebody evil would do such a thing.

My opponent claims "Allowing and actively creating are two different things". First he says evil and morality are the same, but allowing and actively creating are two different things?
If you allow something, you are, in fact, actively creating the circumstances for it to happen.

The free will argument makes me laugh.

According to the website http://www.gotquestions.org...
"God could change everyone"s personality so that they cannot sin. This would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be "programmed" to only do right.
Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation."

Well, Sin is not allowed in heaven, so that must mean we lose our free will in heaven, along with any meaningful relationship with God.

God gives me the "free will" to believe in him, but will burn me in hell for an eternity if I don't.
Talk about evil!
That's like a mob boss holding a gun to my head and saying I have the "free will" to hand over my money!
It's nothing but evil.

My opponent can try all the mental gymnastics he wants to defend his God. God is still evil and ultimately responsible for evil.

Now all you evil voters can vote bomb me.
BennyW

Con

My opponent has conceded his point on the relationship between evil and morality, but he keeps asserting that god is evil without proving where he gets his standard for what evil is.
He compares the idea of free will to letting a child touch a hot stove. God warned Adam and Eve not to each from the tree but they did it anyway, it would be the same if you warned a child not to touch they stove but they did it anyway. They disobeyed so they suffer the consequences of their actions. We must realize something else though, God’s relationship to humans is not as much like a parent to a child, although it is a little analogous, but more like human to any sort of invention they create or an artist to a painting. In other words, creator to creation. So just as we could do as we like with a painting, God could do as he likes with us and it would not be evil. So allowing us to die is not evil on his part but we can't take another life because we don't have the moral authority to do so. I will also give another example, it is like those nature shows, sometimes you wonder why the camera man doesn’t want to get involved, but he just lets nature take its course.

Throughout this whole debate I have asked my opponent what standard he uses to determine that God is evil and rather than give a definite answer he issues a bunch of assertions. My opponent said he would prove that God was evil, he has failed to do so. There isn’t another round so we can’t get everything as fleshed out as I would like but I have held up my side of the argument the best I can in three rounds. So for that reason, vote for con.
Debate Round No. 3
62 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
No smacready, Adam and Eve were Mythical, Palaeontology has demonstrated this.
God was invented around less than 300,000 years ago, yet humans have existed for over 1 million years.
It was only when the human Inferior Parietal Lobe mutated extra bits (supramarginal gyrus and the angular gyrus) and formed Broca's and Wernicke's area that gave us the ability to communicate in highly complex language which can pass on abstract notions like Heaven, Hell and Gods that religion started.
Prior to that, religion was impossible.

Nearly every neurologist knows this.
Posted by smacready 3 years ago
smacready
To believe that God is unfair and unjust is to admit a lack of knowledge concerning His purpose.
First - God did not create every single human present past or future. God created one man then the woman from the man. Due to the first human pair rebelling against God's right to rule (along with Satan and the angels who followed his argument against God) mankind lost the perfection they had and all humans born from then were born with imperfection. The penalty for this rebellion was death. Not only for Adam and Eve but for all their offspring. Since then God has offered everyone the chance to live in the paradise like condition that Adam lost where there will be no sickness, death, violence, pain and suffering of any kind. This is the reason Jesus God's son (not God himself) sacrificed his "perfect" human life to buy back as a ransom the perfect human life Adam lost for all mankind.
People who do not study the Bible and break away from false teachings and doctrines that are not supported in the Bible will never understand God's purpose for mankind. Not a plan but a purpose. There is a big difference. If it is a plan then we would have no choice or free will. Since it is His purpose it will come about by those who listen and obey and choose to fulfill His purpose.
Any comments?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Yes quopel, exactly on the Santa issue! That's exactly what Christians believe about their god.
It's so alarmingly idiotic that they wonder why we consider them as loons.
Love stems from the need to be together, much of this need to be together evolved from the need to have a partner for reasons of propagate. If they drifted too far apart, it becomes difficult to find a partner of the opposite gender. Thus the need to stay attracted to those of the same species.
The rest just evolved from this.
Love and goodness existed long before man invented god.
Just as giving gifts existed long before Santa Claus was invented.
Yet the god of the buy-bull was a malevolent, narcissistic megalomaniac!
The only love in the buy-bull was that which it's god wanted humans to offer it, it gave nothing back!
Such was it's narcissism and megalomania!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
So True qopel, zezima evidently didn't read nor understand the bit about all social animals need morals to survive as a group.
For exactly the reasons you gave.
Social cohesion means working together as a group, looking after their neighbors and helping out.
It appears that even bacteria have developed social cohesion and work together to defeat antibiotics, which is the new challenge for medical science to try and stop bacteria from communicating and working together.
Theists are such absolutely stupid nongs in their insistance that morals come from some imaginary super daddy.
It is entirely irrational indeed.
Gregory House (TV character) was right in: "Rational arguments don"t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

Aye M8! :-D~
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
"Ok, but if there is no God, there is no reason for us to exist"
Well , we are here, and there's proof of that, but there's no proof that God exists, so since we are here without a God then we either have a reason to exist or we just exist for the sake of existing. So what?

"there's no reasons for these morals to exist"

Let me explain something: We all live together on a planet. We can either all kill each other, or we can all try to get along. The best way to get along is to treat others the way we want to be treated.
That concept didn't come from God. That concept exists thousands of years before the Bible was written. Most of our modern laws are based on that concept. It has nothing to do with God.

"It is my right to do WHATEVER I want"...wrong...that's why we have police and jails.

"If evolution was the case, I'm not going to follow its laws because it was guided by nothing."
Evolution has nothing to do with morality.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
@zezima That's what I call Christian mental gymnastics. That's like saying: If there's no Santa Clause, then there's no presents, and there's no reason to have presents, meaning nobody should have to give anybody else anything for free, because they were never meant to have gifts.

Your logic is insane.
Posted by zezima 3 years ago
zezima
You say that these "morals" could exist without God. Ok, but if there is no God, there is no reason for us to exist meaning there's no reasons for these morals to exist, meaning we shouldn't have to follow them because they were never meant to follow. We shouldn't have to follow something that was never meant to follow. Why am I being forced to follow laws, which are created after morals, to do something that I don't want? It is my right to do WHATEVER I want because there are no meaningful morals to follow. Someone of a higher superiority would have to go e the laws for them to be worth following.
If evolution was the case, I'm not going to follow its laws because it was guided by nothing. Therefore there is nothing to follow.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Part of my current studies into psychology is an in depth look at the history of morality, which was higher in parts of China under Confucius and Taoism than in Rome under Catholicism/Christianity.
Yes, the atheists were more ethical, even back 2,500 years ago, than the Christians 1,500 years ago.
Proof enough for anybody with a rational brain that morals and ethics has nothing to do with god.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Most of those you cite, like George Washington make comments from naivety, not from a position of knowledge. George Washington lived in a time where there was little or no knowledge of the evolution of societies and morality / ethics in humans.
Neurology now knows the parts of the brain that is responsible for emotions and altruism.
Psychology, anthropology and sociology have studied the history of various cultures and their comparative ethical / moral structures. We now have a very good idea where ethics and goodness comes from, and the answer has never been god.
George Washington made comments out of his naivety, not knowledge, because he had never really studied, nor had any qualifications in psychology or sociology. Just comments from a man that knew very little.
Had he lived today, his statement may be totally different.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Wrong again Giraffe, as per usual!
If they have any really good evidence that god exists (which is possible) or good indeed comes from god I will likely agree.
Since it is impossible to prove god does not exist, but it is easy to prove god does exist, the advantage is completely on the Theist's side. We only need an obvious supernatural event that has no possible natural explanation to prove the possibility of a god.
So far, nothing even remotely resembles such an event!
All events so far, natural, nothing from god!
Studies into zoology, archeology, and anthropology have proven that morality and ethics is an evolutionary process. Social Evolution!
If you take the Old Testament as an example of god's nature, then the conclusion can only be, that Malevolence and Evil come from God.
A god who commits Genocide and condones Massacres, which is rather strange since it was composed by Jews.
There is no Good in the bible god.
So if you think good comes from god, it has nothing to do with Christianity's god.
The Christian god is evidently Evil.
The bible is absolute proof of this! I bet you've never read it properly M8! :-D~
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
qopelBennyWTied
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: To call God or any other being evil, one must define at a rough level what it means to be evil, and on that point qoppel failed to produce. Con was relentless in pursuing that and cited dictionary entries to support his position. Pro conceded in round 3 that evil was related to morality, and then in exasperation revealed how subjective his own code was by declaring the voters on this site are evil. "Now all you evil voters can vote bomb me." Thus, arguments and sources to Con, and conduct to Con since qoppel called us evil. ;)
Vote Placed by SANTORUM2012 3 years ago
SANTORUM2012
qopelBennyWTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro begins with unclear definitions about evil to begin with which is then clarified by con using pros on arguments against him. pro then forfeits the entire "immoral doesn't mean evil argument" giving con a leg up. Con then refuted every single one of pros arguments. Conduct to con as pro goes onto insult Christians in the last round.
Vote Placed by medic0506 3 years ago
medic0506
qopelBennyWTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won the debate in the first round by asking how Pro gets his standard for what is evil, and Pro never gave an answer. Pro seemed to get emotional about Con's answers to his questions but I feel that distracted him from dealing with the most important issue in the debate. Conduct to Con due to Pro's condescending comments. Those kinds of comments have no place in a formal debate.
Vote Placed by rross 3 years ago
rross
qopelBennyWTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was much, much more polite, and I advise Pro that insulting his opponent and particular groups only distracts from his argument. I misread the debate initially and have changed my vote.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
qopelBennyWTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: qopel failed to provide evidence of why god is evil by bringing in many assertions and assumptions.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
qopelBennyWTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made it obvious that the omnipotent creator god, if he existed, would be evil. He met his burden of proof handsomely. Con tried to imply that he had some counter-argument up his sleeve, but he never fielded that argument, whatever it was.