The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

God is IMPOSSIBLE!

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...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,263 times Debate No: 16372
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

kohai

Pro

Good luck to my opponent.

In this debate, I will attempt to prove that God is impossible.

Strucutre:

Round 1: Acceptance, no arguments.
Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttal of the rebuttals
Round 5: Closing arguments.

Good luck!
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent has not defined "God" so I shall do so now.

Since there are many different Gods from different religions, and since my opponent never gave any inkling to any particular religion, we must assume that he ment the generic God, rather than a specific God.

According to Princeton dictionary [1] - God - •the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
•deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
•a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"
•idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"

I believe that we should also go ahead and define "omnipotent" and "omniscient," since those will likely be the focus of the debate (even though many claim that God is merely the creator and need not be perfect to be God, and I also take that view, and will argue it, but I want these terms defined anyway)

Omnipotent, "omni" = "all" and "potent" = "power", so Omnipotent = all power or all powerful.
Omniscient, "scient" (old form of "scion") = "knowledge" so omniscient = all knowing.

I will let my opponent begin his argument to prove that God is logically impossible.

[1] http://www.google.com...=
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

Good luck to my opponent. I agree with your definitions; however, since this is opening argument round, I would have been responsible for defining them. Thanks for making my work a bit easier. I ask you keep an open mind and I shall do the same.

Defining YHWH

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.


Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

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.


Perfection Begets Imperfection

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.

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

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.


Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

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.


Belief More Important Than Action

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.

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

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.


Contradictory Justice

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.


Contradictory History

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?

More arguments to come. Just out of characters. Anyway, these arguments are courtesy of
http://www.evilbible.com...

There is no copyright. on this page.

Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for that wonderful copy and paste of his entire arguement.

For this round, I would like to say my arguments and I will hold off on refutations until next round.

As agreed with on the definitions that I provided, a God merely must be a supernatural deity which is controls some part of the world, or some aspect of our lives.

In order for this to be "possible" (I don't need to show that it is true, only that it is not "impossible"), it the following need to be possible.

1) supernatural
2) controls some part of the world or some aspect of our lives.

So lets look at these individually.

1) Supernatural
Looking to the etymology of this word, we find that it simply means "above nature" or "greater than nature." Is this impossible? We know that there are several teirs of power in the world, the highest known is that of nature. Nothing that we know of currently has authority greater than that of the natural laws. However, the very existance of multiple tiers, and the simple understanding that we are not omniscient (meaning we don't know everything), leads us to understand that there are things of which we don't know. And since we don't know what those things are, they could be anything, including an authority greater than nature. So is a supernatural being true? I don't know. Is it possible? Yes.

2) Controls some part of the world or some aspect of our lives.
This one is simple to prove that it is possible. Are our lives 100% under our own control? No, not unless you control the lightning that strikes, the earthquakes that hit, or the wind that blows. There are things out there that control our lives to some degree other than ourselves.

With these, I have shown that a generic god is not impossible.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

Hello, thanks to my opponent for a first good round.

2) Controls some part of the world or some aspect of our lives.
This one is simple to prove that it is possible. Are our lives 100% under our own control? No, not unless you control the lightning that strikes, the earthquakes that hit, or the wind that blows. There are things out there that control our lives to some degree other than ourselves.

Okay. I can agree that we can not control earthquakes or other natural things. However, these things are just part of nature and stuff that has been around for hundreds of millions of years.

a) earthquakes are caused by the shifting of plate techtonics. Not by God shaking the earth. No-one can have control over that.
b) Wind blows is another natural thing. We don't have control over it. But it isn't caused by God.

Wind is caused by air flowing from high pressure to low pressure. Since the Earth is rotating, however, the air does not flow directly from high to low pressure, but it is deflected to the right (in the Northern Hemisphere; to the left in the Southern Hemisphere), so that the wind flows mostly around the high and low pressure areas.

This does not prove that God is possible. Just that we don't have control over 100% of nature.

Lightning is produced in thunderstorms when liquid and ice particles above the freezing level collide, and build up large electrical fields in the clouds. Once these electric fields become large enough, a giant "spark" occurs between them (or between them and the ground) like static electricity, reducing the charge separation. The lightning spark can occur between clouds, between the cloud and air, or between the cloud and ground.

Again. This is all perfectly normal. Nothing supernatural. Stuff like this has been happening for millions of years. This does NOT prove God.

I do not understand your first supernatural argument. Your argument as a whole made no sense. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Back to con.
Ore_Ele

Con

refutations for my opponent's argument don't need to be very indepth. My opponent is arguing based on a single view of God, and not the agreed definitions from round 1. Therefore, the entire argument is meaningless as it pertains to a debate about God in general.

However, I will point out some fallacies in so that my opponent has something to counter refute.

The arguement has an issue with definitions. First, it argues about "perfect" and what that is. I believe my opponent and I can agree that I what I believe is "perfect", and what he believes is "perfect", are going to be two entirely different things. Infact, what I believed was "perfect" when I was seven years old and what I believe is "perfect" now are also completely different. So what is "perfect" is completely subjective, and so cannot be measured on its own, not without a set guideline to use as a compass for it. As one was not provided by the argument, everything that falls on "perfect" in the argument is meaningless.

We also stumble across several logical fallacies. Such as "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit." What is the logic for that? Surely the fruit of any tree can go bad, does this mean that every single tree is a bad tree? Of course not, that would be an illogical measure of "good." And it pulls from that flawed metaphor, that a "perfect" being cannot make something "imperfect." What is the logic behind that? I am quite able to create things at below my highest quality, as is everyone. If I can score 100% on a math test (a perfect score), I can also score 80% on that same test (an imperfect score), if I choose to. What it should say, is that a "perfect" being cannot creat something imperfect when attempting to do "perfect".

I look forward to next round to defend the refutations against my argument.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

We also stumble across several logical fallacies. Such as "a good tree cannot produce bad fruit." What is the logic for that? Surely the fruit of any tree can go bad, does this mean that every single tree is a bad tree?

Where do I get that phrase? THE BIBLE! Matthew 7:18 to be exact. So you are refuting yourself. If you don't believe Matthew 7:18, how can you believe the rest of the Bible?

You never refuted ANYTHING from the arguments about the other stuff. I'm interested in hearing your arguments for:
1) A Contradictory history
2) Contradictory justice
3) The imperfect revelation
4) Infinite punishment for finite sins
5) All-good God knowingly creates further suffering
Our diffiniton of God was as followed

deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
•a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"
•idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"

Omnipotent, "omni" = "all" and "potent" = "power", so Omnipotent = all power or all powerful.
Omniscient, "scient" (old form of "scion") = "knowledge" so omniscient = all knowing.

Who Made God? According to some, nothing so complex as the universe could exist without having been designed by a creator. But where does that leave the traditional concept of God? Isn't God more complex than the universe? Doesn't God require a creator?

If you say, "God doesn't require a creator" then why does God not need a creator but everything else does?

As far as he being omniscient, "All knowing" then I shall go back to one of my arguments in the first round that you have not touched on

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.
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. Therefore, a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful and free-will cannot possibly exist!

This was based off of our definitions. Sure, you could say that God is not all-knowing, or not all-powerful, so then, what makes God any different from us?

Back to you, con!
Ore_Ele

Con

Since this round is the "rebuttal of the rebuttals" I will interpret that to mean that I get to rebuttal both of my opponent's rebuttals (his primary in R3, and his seconard in R4).

I will start with his R3 rebuttal.

First, I would like to point out that my opponent did not reject that those two points will make a God possible, only the existance of each point individually. So I only need to defend each point individually, rather than the entire premise.

"Okay. I can agree that we can not control earthquakes or other natural things. However, these things are just part of nature and stuff that has been around for hundreds of millions of years."

The rest of the first part is not relevent, since that point did not require that any natural disaster be caused by God, only that it is outside of our control. Remember, I'm not arguing that a God exists, only that it is possible for a God to exists, and one of the points was that a God controls some aspect of our lives, meaning that we don't control it. Showing that there are things do don't control, shows that the point is possible. Since the only way for it to be impossible would be for us to control everything.

"This does NOT prove God."

Of course it doesn't, that is not my burden in this debate. I only need to show that a generic God is possible, not real.

"I do not understand your first supernatural argument. Your argument as a whole made no sense. Sorry if I misunderstood you."

I'll break it down it to subpoints.

1) We know that there are multiple levels of authority (individual, government, nature...)
2) Nature is the highest known level of authority.
3) We know that we don't know everything.
4) There are things that we don't know (from 3).
5) It is possible that there is an authority or power that is above nature that we don't know (from 1 and 4).

This means that it is possible that there are supernatural things (supernatural means "above nature")

By showing that it is possible that there are supernatural things, and by showing that there are things we don't control, I've shown that it is possible for a God to exist. Again, I have not provided any evidence nor proof for a God's existance, since I'm not required to for this debate.

On to my opponent's secondary rebbutals (R4)

"Where do I get that phrase? THE BIBLE! Matthew 7:18 to be exact. So you are refuting yourself."

This is a Strawman argument. At no time, did I use the bible in my arguments, and at no time, did I argue for the Christian God, as defined in the Bible. In fact, our agreed definitions from the get go, have been on a Generic God.

1 - 4 need no refutation, since they do not apply to the definition of a Generic God that we agreed upon. Also, at no point in the definition does it say that God was not created, only that God created the universe (in the first definition, though most of the arguing was focused on the second definition).

Omniscient, as stated means "all knowing." But if we are in a village, and I am "all-owning" meaning that I own everything in the village. Does that mean I own $100,000,000,000,000,000.00? Probably not. Does that mean that I'm not all-owning? No, I simply own everything that can be owned. And to be all-knowing, one only needs to know everything that can be known. We can argue whether or not the future can be known, but given that we have free will, that future gets cloudier and cloudier the futher into it you go, and so it cannot be known with any degree of certainty.

Nevertheless, based on the refutations from the 1st half of this post, I've shown that a being, fitting the agreed definition of God, is possible to exist.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

This is a Strawman argument. At no time, did I use the bible in my arguments, and at no time, did I argue for the Christian God, as defined in the Bible. In fact, our agreed definitions from the get go, have been on a Generic God.

No. However, I am using the same type of logic as Jesus. Obviously being figurative. A better way of saying it would be that if you are corrupt, you cannot be good. However, if you are good, you cannot be corrupt.

Omniscient, as stated means "all knowing." But if we are in a village, and I am "all-owning" meaning that I own everything in the village. Does that mean I own $100,000,000,000,000,000.00? Probably not. Does that mean that I'm not all-owning? No, I simply own everything that can be owned. And to be all-knowing, one only needs to know everything that can be known. We can argue whether or not the future can be known, but given that we have free will, that future gets cloudier and cloudier the futher into it you go, and so it cannot be known with any degree of certainty.

To be all-knowing, you need to know everything that can be known. If God cannot know the future, is he really all that powerful? No. And if he is all knowing and can know the future, he cannot change the future making it impossible for him to be all-knowing.

Free will

I was wondering when you would mention that!

Most of my arguments can be found here
http://www.infidels.org...

Why do we need free-will anyway? Just so we can be happy? Well, if only creatures with free-will can be happy, God can make a rule that says robots can be happy, right?
Ore_Ele

Con

"If God cannot know the future, is he really all that powerful?"

Yes, yes he can. There is no reason, nor logic to suggest that just because one does not know the future, that one is not very powerful. As said, "all knowing" means knowing everything that can be known. If something cannot be known (like the future), then one can be all knowing without knowing the future. Ergo, arguments regarding knowledge of the future have no baring on whether or not something is "all knowing."

"Why do we need free-will anyway?"

No really related to this debate. I don't know why we need it, I simply know that we have it. But again, whether or not there is free will is not tied to the agreed definition of God.

I will not argue further, as that would not be fair in the final round. So I would simply like to summarize what my goals were and how they were obtained. Since the debate was "God is Impossible," I merely need to show that God is possible, not proof for him. I provided a definition of God, and my opponent accepted it and I went to show that every aspect of that definition is logically possible, and so a "God" is logically possible aswell.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Kohai had an impossible task in this debate, and failed to succeed.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
I probably should have titled it, "The Christian god is impossible"
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Though, technically, I didn't make any arguments, just definitions.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I fail. I didn't read the structure. Automatic loss of conduct. :(
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
kohaiOre_EleTied
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: Pro didn't seem to grasp a alot of what he was arguing for.
Vote Placed by detachment345 6 years ago
detachment345
kohaiOre_EleTied
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: pros conduct was bad, did not use any of their own arguments. con should not have even responded
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaiOre_EleTied
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: A shame here as it seemed like Pro could make an argument but decided simply to go to a website and then copy and paste huge reams of text and say "you can't answer that!"
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
kohaiOre_EleTied
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: Gigantic assumptions with a BOP that was not really demonstrated.
Vote Placed by bluesteal27 6 years ago
bluesteal27
kohaiOre_EleTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 6 years ago
Phoenix_Reaper
kohaiOre_EleTied
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: Not much contest