God is a cruel, immoral and unjust figure.
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 is an acceptance round only, followed by rounds of back and forth argument as usual. Good luck and happy debating.
But to make the debate clearer, can you tell me what is the form of god we are talking about here?
Remember I am talking about God in a hypothetical sense.
1.The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.
2. The incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
3. A being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers; specifically the power to control reality.
I will attempt to show how God (if exists) is cruel, immoral and unjust through his actions and teachings through religion.
(1) Actions/lack of actions: This point is pretty straightforward. Through all the pain and hardship that has existed since the dawn of man (and currently exists) and the mass amount of catastrophic events that has destroyed so many lives, where has God been hiding? If he is said to have ultimate power then why does he let such horrific things happen? And more importantly why does he let it happen when people reach out to him for rescue. Take an event like the Holocaust for example. Think how everyday thousands upon thousands of people were praying to God for their lives. Every minute of the day, depending on the only figure who they believed could save them, and they got absolutely nothing. And this is just one example among millions over the years. How can a figure who supposedly has the ability to control and interfere with such hardship, stay in a mode of complete indifference? I cannot think of anything more cruel, immoral or unjust. God is said to have a plan for all of us yet how is letting thousands of African children die everyday of hunger and disease justifiable? Again it is the actions of a cruel and callous being. God is after all, allegedly the only one who is in charge of life and death.
(2) Teachings: I will use the Bible as an example of teachings of God. It does not matter which holy text I use as they all claim to be the word of God.
The Bible is said to be the word of God, therefore teachings in the Bible are believed to be from God, just written down by men. I feel that many teachings and verses in the Bible show the utmost immorality and cruelness.
E.g. 1: Luke 14 :26-27
26, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27, And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple".
What a horrible, selfish statement from god. That even if our family (parents) have created us and shown us a huge amount of love, we must reject them for a man in the sky who if exists, we cannot see, hear or feel; who conclusively allows the world to undergo such hardship; who allows for death on a great scale; who doesn't answer peoples prayers who need it the most etc.
E.g 2: Leviticus 20:13
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."
This shows immorality on a great scale. From this I deduce that if a man sleeps with another man I assume he will be sent to hell as otherwise this would be a contradiction of god's own words and he would be rewarding the man.
I understood it as god is the supposed creator with a plan for us all; who owns us and can do what he wants with us, in a literal sense. If this is true then why did he make homosexuality exist in the world? So that he had some people to pick on?
I could go on and on with examples but I will leave it there for now. I look forward to your response.
1. We assumed god is all-powerful and hence all-knowing before the debate.
2. If god is good, it must not allow an cruel act when it sees one.
3. A god is all knowing and hence will see every act happening.
4. There should not be a cruel act in the world by 3, if god is good.
5. Someone innocent just die of disaster. It is a cruel act.
6. god is not good because there are cruel acts.
OMG I just disagree with my own stance? O.O
Well I was out of points as I did not read the bible or any god related books, but then I noticed that even that god is not good, it can also be not bad :D. And by some logical reasoning, I form the following similar to above arguments:
1. We assumed god is all-powerful and hence all-knowing before the debate.
2. If god is bad, it must make someone suffer when it sees one not suffering.
3. A god is all knowing and hence will see every act happening.
4. There should not be someone not suffering in the world by 3, if god is bad.
5. A forest fire just got extinguished by a sudden rain. this is a good act.
6. god is not bad because there are good acts.
By your point (1), just like how you can bring out as many evidences on how god's evil act can signals his immorality, I can bring forward good acts to state that he has his moral side. So, by logical sense, god cannot be all immoral, just like how god cannot be all moral, if god were to be all-knowing and all-powerful. By opposing your first point, I bring forward my standing that "God cannot be a cruel, immoral, unjust figure, because god is neutral."
I think now is the good timing to elaborate my first point:
 The light cannot be formed without the dark, peace cannot be known without war, good cannot be defined without the bad. We do not know that a line is curved if we never saw a straight one. The term "cruel" you are using is only a relative term to the existence of good acts. The fallacy we are doing here when we think god to be all-knowing and all-powerful, we assumed directly an all-knowing god should only do good things, as good things are the right thing to do. Our knowledge is insufficient, and the term "good" is only a relative term we made to differentiate bad. And here is the problem, god did not define the term good himself, we are the one that did it. God might have other definition of what is right to do, so we cannot say god is immoral by the fact there are cruel acts alongside good acts.
Then it seems I have to oppose your (2), wow I'm getting tired of typing. I'll just oppose your point and post my points at the same time.
 I'm a lazy person, so I'll simply say iUderdog points are my points to the direct opposition to your point two :D. Then I'll add that, from my , I said that the mere bad examples do not justify directly god is immoral, because there are also good examples, this only strengthen the possibility that god is neutral. Also, now my second point is there are other teachings other than the bible as well, example buddhists believe the idea of Dukkha which supports suffering as a means to greater self, so you cannot simply use the bible. And all religions are founded and preached by humans, there can be distortions during the thousand years preaching, as they were not backed with solid logical proofs like what we do in science today. So, since the evidence of teachings we think we know from god have weak supporting evidence, you have to put forward evidences of the trustworthiness of the teaching before stating its bad :P.
You say that "by logical sense, god cannot be all immoral, just like how god cannot be all moral" however I think he very much can be, and is all immoral.
I would not say that the extinguishing of a forest fire is the best example of "God's" supposed morality, however since it is the only example you have stated, then I will go from there. You say that the extinguishing of a forest fire is a good thing, and indeed it is. However that day of the forest fire, thousands of innocent children in Africa have died, and this is just one example. (remember we are speaking as if God is in control of these deaths). How can you say that such an immoral act is justifiable because a forest fire has been put out, or any other moral act for that matter. (Remember I am just referring to the forest fire example as it is the only one you have given). If God has the power to commit a moral act then why does he persist in committing such immoral acts? If a man beats a child to death and then later that day saves a child from getting run over by a car we would not let him off the hook. He would be thrown in prison, or worse. Although people would certainly question why he would commit such a horrible, cruel, immoral act when he is capable of doing a good act. How is God any different? Why should we make him an exception to cruelty and immorality. I find the fact that God (if exists) commits acts of morality as well as acts of immorality even more cruel and callous as it is the utmost form of mocking. That he has the power to commit all the moral acts that he wishes yet doesn't. In fact, quite often does the opposite. But why?, just for amusement? And it would mean that people have the right to wonder things like "God why did you let my innocent toddler child die but let a mass serial killer away with it", as such events like this are all too real occurrence in the world.
You say that God is neutral in his acts because he commits both acts of morality and immorality. My point is that this cannot be seen as neutral because of the simple fact that he allegedly has the power to commit acts of morality all of the time yet chooses not to and often, chooses to favour the side of immorality e.g the Holocaust, children in Africa, natural disasters etc.
Also the Bible is the alleged word of God not the alleged word of humans. I said that I was merely singling the Bible out as an example of immoral teachings from God. Basically, all world religious texts claim to be the word of God, therefore the Bible is the alleged word of God, therefore it was valid for me to use it as an example. I could of used any religious text as an example but it would have been the exact same idea and principle.
I actually laughed at my luck when I saw you arguing at the fire extinguishing situation. When I was thinking of a situation to type in for good morality, I suddenly had an idea. How about letting my opponent to bring out a counter-argument that I can use to counter-counter-attack so that he has no point of opposing his own stance? Sounds good :D. So I put up a very obvious situation of fire extinguishing for an easy fightback. And btw my third round will be chained arguments to oppose your only but strong point left, which is the stance that both existences of both moral and immoral acts might show how psycho god might be.
Before that, I"ll strengthen my position of existence of moral acts by my third point soon. I purposely put on a "decoy" to let my opponent step in (If he is not stepping in, then I have to uncover myself, which is embarrassing), which is the fire extinguishing situation. If you notice, I can state a fire not caused by god, because humans are given a proportion of free will enough to do what they want, including making up a fire, intentionally or unintentionally(pollution) due to limited knowledge. For the reason why we might do evil, it is not due to god but because we have limited knowledge, and if we have perfect knowledge, we would be gods.
Okay and the trap I am putting you in is actually my third point, proving moral and immoral acts are equally balanced.
 IQ question: how many times more do you open your eyes as compared to closing them in your entire life? Answer: It depends on if you are going to close your eyes when you die. Well, do some math. You can only open your eyes once you closed it. If you are going to close your eyes when you die, then you will be having exactly the same number of times opening and closing your eyes. If you die opening them, then you have one more time of opening your eyes. Ok now what does this have to do with morality of god? Well the logic of god doing good and bad acts is exactly the same!! During the big bang or something preceding it, god gave us existence. It is just like us opening our eyes. God give us life and also ends them. God gave happiness and also sadness. By this logic, suffering is only the end of happiness, and hence means there can be no more suffering than happiness in the world, because everything must have its duality of good and bad to exist, and hence the point GOD IS NEUTRAL. This is also why a fire is caused before it is extinguished, and also a bigger issue that god can only take away your life after giving you it, which is also counter-argument to disasters situation you and I mentioned.
And then you could argue on two points, the absolute power of god on every rule and time feature of suffering/gaining . (See, I'm so good I even help you to think out points to counter-attack me...okay it's just my tactic haha.)
I"ll explain both points.
(A)God is all-powerful and all-knowing, it can simply make a rule that good does not need to be accompanied by bad. So what is the purpose of bad existing? Well, this is also the point of god possibly doing it for amusement.
(B)Although the times for suffering is counted equal to the times of happiness, the time period for both are not seen to be equal in everyone. Example: Suffering of poor people is longer than rich people despite who is much more moral.
Now, in my following chain attack, I"ll simply use my wild card to kick off the two points I just proposed which include the one strong point my opponent has, the psycho god.
 The argument of existence of rules. God does not see how to keep the universe running as the way we see. It does not think about short-term outcomes, it "thinks" about the infinite outcomes that would follow once it makes a rule. God is indeed all-powerful and all-knowing by definition, but since it is so powerful, it is constrained by its own rules once it makes it. For instance, god cannot both at the same time create a rule that we exist and we don"t exist, which are contradictions. (Umm okay I just denied the absolute powerfulness of god by this contradiction saying, but it is logical.) God could not intervene in our world after it created all the rules, because its own rules do not allow it to do so. Why? Because it needs to protect the existence of law of causality, which is everything we think we know now. In turn, god cannot simply raise its "hand" and slap a bad guy to death, because science does now allow such things to happen at all. If this ever happens, science is rejected and all our knowledge will turn into dust, because god can simply change anything, hence telling us that we cannot believe in anything happening around. But why not simply let us know god is there and tell the bad guys that god is watching? Well then what would happen? We won"t learn a thing about morality because immoral acts are not even allowed to exist, we cannot gain wisdom from such a world. God purpose is for us to grow and develop, for us to know both the correct side and bad side. Hence, it prioritizes the law of causality towards doing moral acts, which simply shows god is a guy who wants appraisal more than teaching us.
So, how does this point reject all points my opponent has?
1. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, so although it is constrained by its own created rules, it is not included in the rules itself. First, god created emotion. So god cannot possibly have pure boring emotion to find for amusement. This means god will either have absolutely no emotion, or it has all of them at once, making it neutral. This reject the possibility god is playing us for fun (fun is something it created for us.), and also at least weaken my opponent"s point that god can be purely immoral.
2. Although now we say that god cannot intervene when the universe is running because it would cause chaos, god could in the first place create good without any bad. But then this would cause contradiction in the rules. When god created existence out of non-existence, it also created duality, everything it created must have the other side. In order for it to maintain the rules, so that we have confidence to percept things using these logic, it chose to not intervene in the world anymore. God simply creates every quality it knows and put them in the world so that we could learn from them and grow to be a better person, which is a longer term purpose of god in making the universe a better place.
3. Time for suffering is too much long. Well the fact that god could not intervene halfway is enough to push off this point, but I"ll try adding points to say that things happening in our life is equal and balanced in good and bad. Time is an illusion, god created it. But it still applies that suffering for someone seems unfairly long. God created a law to protect this to make sure suffering can become equally the same to happiness as well. The law of conversation of energy. Well, it might seems too much to apply a physics law on souls and spiritual things we do not know exist or not yet, but nearly all religions say the same here, so i think it is possible to use this point. The existence of afterlife, or rather more logically accepted we do not get destroyed at all after death due to the law of conversation of energy. Where we go after death, we still don"t know. But different religions have different saying. For bible, umm I never read it so I think it is about heaven and hell. The wrong ones go to hell, the good ones go to heaven. This protects what you said the bad guys did not get punishments. You have to agree to it unless you throw away almost half of your points that you assume bible to be correct without flaw. To add, Buddhism also states the existence of afterlife.
Okay god I"ve typed so much I have almost no characters left! Hope i did not say something nonsense lol.
Onto your argument:
Firstly I fail to see the so called "decoy" or "trap"of the fire example as you failed to initially say the circumstances of the fire and the extinguishing of it and because the debate is dealing about God's actions I presumed you were going from the view that God was the cause. The onus is not on me to try and figure it out or guess, it is on you to state the circumstances. Otherwise I had no way of knowing if you meant it was man-made or not.
However If, as you say, God has given people free will then that is still God giving the will to do immoral acts. Granted, this would also mean that he has given people the will to do moral acts but why didn't he interfere at any stage? Of course this immorality is on-going and frequent but there have been many events where we see this human immorality at its highest such as the Holocaust and the Crusades. Surely God, as he supposedly has ultimate power, should have stepped in when he saw that man's free will had caused truly horrific and cruel things to happen, instead of staying in a mode of complete indifference. I cannot see how this is an overall moral act; letting 6 million Jews die during the Holocaust (example) because HE gave man too much free will, it was because of HIS doing. After all, he is as you say the one who is responsible for giving this free will so he can entirely be held accountable for it's implications. Our evil doings would then mean that they are a result of God's human design plan. Likewise this would certainly mean that we have limited knowledge because of God. Don't hate the players (mankind), hate the game (God).
Also what about tragic and horrific scenarios that aren't because of man's "God given free will"? What about tsunamis and earthquakes that destroys the lives of millions every year? (example). We all know that Earthquakes and tsunamis have scientific explanations yet surely God, with his "ultimate power" is able to stop them from forming and in effect, destroying countless, innocent lives?
Your point about the reasoning behind God doing good and bad things is a repetition of a point you made in the previous round and as I have claimed why I feel it is evidently all-round immoral in my previous round, there would be no point in repeating ourselves. However it's interesting when you say that "god can only take away your life after giving you it". Again there is so many unjust and immoral examples of this so I will only mention one: Thousands of infants die every year for whatever reason it may be. How can it be moral and just to claim the life of an innocent baby who by no stretch of the imagination could have possibly done anything immoral themselves in their short lifespan? It is cruel, immoral and results in destroying the lives of others, the family of the child, for example. But as you said this is all God's doing.
I feel that your paragraph on "the argument of existence of rules" is invalid as you are making up information to suite your own points.
(1) "god cannot both at the same time create a rule that we exist and we don"t exist, which are contradictions."
You admitted yourself that this denies the notion that "God" is all powerful. Which, might I add is a term that we agreed on and is a general rule of thumb between all world religions.
(2)"God needs to protect the existence of law of causality, which is everything we think we know now." (I replaced your word "it" with God just so people know)
(2) is a contradiction of (1) as first you stated "God cannot" and then stated that "God needs". There is a difference between not being able to do something and choosing not to do something. If we go by the notion that God has ultimate power then this would mean that he would indeed be able to stop a death in an instance however in reference to (2), this only means that he chooses not to do so. God then WANTS the laws to take place, not is UNABLE to stop the laws from taking place. And I have already shown why I believe this is an immoral method. Also Archaeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years. By now we have a good grasp of morality and immorality. We have learned the difference but it just isn't working. Yet God still remains indifferent.
Finally, in response to your points that allegedly reject mine:
1. You say that God created all emotions and either that he has all emotions or no emotions but this doesn't weaken my point that God is all immoral. If anything, it enhances it. Firstly, if God has no emotions but still created all emotions then that would mean that God chose itself to be neutral e.g he chose himself not to be able to love or care for the people he created and would inevitably kill people off at random which is extremely cruel and immoral on God's part. Likewise if he chose himself to have all emotions well then that proves that he is able to sympathize and feel for people who need him the most, yet often not do anything about it. Which is also extremely cruel and immoral.
2. I have already argued this point several times.
3. You're right, sending a bad guy to hell and an infant to hell is good in the sense that the right person has gone to the right place but it is overall a very immoral act. Claiming the life of an infant, eliminates the child from getting a taste of any real life. This is very cruel and also quite sad. It is born into the world only to die shortly after. Any chances of the child growing and developing are gone, as you say, that's what God wants us to do, grow and develop, so that is a contradiction of God's views. Needless to say this also puts the family of the child through one of the roughest times imaginable, all because of God's doing.
I could go on but I feel I have said enough to support my pro stance. I look forward to the next round!
Instead, I'll say something on the logical validity of this whole topic.
1. God exist. It is all-powerful and all-knowing.
2. Either god can make contradictions possible or god cannot make contradictions possible.
3. If god can make contradictions possible, logic cannot judge god's move in any sense, hence making this topic senseless.
4. If god cannot make contradictions possible, god is not all powerful, hence also making this topic logically invalid in its assumptions.
5. But it would be possible that god can both make contradictions possible and contradiction not possible, since god is all-powerful in all sense. But the fact that god can do both will still makes logic invalid to judge god's moves.
6. By any possibilities, judging on god's act would be inconclusive because god is outside the system of logic, if god does exist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did never address the point that God also does moral acts, making him neutral, which was a very important point.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.