God is an Interventionist in Modern Times.
Debate Rounds (3)
The only requirement I have is that my opponent must be a theist. This is, of course, not a debate on whether or not there is a God- the debate runs with the implication that there is. It also goes without saying that I would like to have a serious debate; please do not accept merely to troll. All rounds are for debating/arguing/refuting. For the challenger's information, I am a Christian (if you want to know specifics, perhaps for the sake of your argument, I'd be happy to explain my faith in further detail). My opponent will be taking the Pro side that God is an interventionist.
I am taking the Con stance that God is not an interventionist in the modern era. There is little to support otherwise.
My main point is thus: There is too much suffering in the world to suggest that God has a hand in its affairs. There are people and children of all religions, races and nationalities all across the world starving, destitute, and in pain. If God had some sort of control, I cannot imagine he would leave so many in suffering. This makes even more sense when people say that God has performed miracles for them. God is a just individual, and does not show favoritism (Deut. 10-17). Why then, would he perform a miracle for one person, and not the nations of people who suffer daily? This is not to suggest that God does not watch us or care for us, but that he leaves what happens here entirely up to our will- kind of a universal Sims game, if you will, in which the player simply sets up the game and leaves the rest to chance.
I'd like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate; best of luck to you.
Funny thing is that I don't even believe in an intervening God of any kind (I'm a Deist) but I can understand the logic a devout theist may use in this situation. I know I don't meet the stated requirement but I don't see why that should matter if I play the role of the required individual.
If we assume that this reality is controlled by a God that is capable of any and all powerful feats of absolutely any kind then the question of the debate is: Does God truly intervene in modern times to an extent which confirms him beyond reasonable doubt to live up to his reputation?
If I have misinterpreted this debate then I do apologise but I shall be answering 'yes' to that question and explaining exactly the ways in which God intervenes in reality, not only today but from the beginning of our world (and all worlds before that).
God exists an an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient being. (http://www.sermoncentral.com...) One could even go on to say that God must be omnibenevolent to truly be a moral authority (for if it wasn't omnibenevolent it would be a hypocrite to its own regime).
There is a fundamental key to understanding why 'bad' things happen in a world that the authority controlling what is 'good' created. This fundamental key is realising that God is indeed an entity of not just double standards but multi-standards. Thus, if I can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that God has different standards for different types of beings, then this gives me sufficient grounds to propose that the code of conduct God considers himself to have to adhere to is different to the code of conduct that common humans must adhere to. This means that when God does something that may considered immoral for a human to do, it is not immoral for him to do because his code of conduct is different to ours.
I will now quote the Bible (combining both Old and New Testament) to prove that God has different standards for different beings. Once I've proven this with sufficient evidence, I shall then progress to the next stage of my case for the resolution.
In short, there is clear evidence in the bible that God doesn't hold the same code of morality or give the same conditions to all beings, and not even to all people. So it is not beyond reasonable doubt that this same God is intervening right here today and rather than helping everyone reach equality he, instead, is responsible for the inequality across the Earth as we know it and actually favours this over a world where everyone is equal and following the same code of morality and considering each other of equal value and status. It is no secret that the proponents of Communism were all secular in faith. Not just Stalin (http://freethoughtpedia.com...) but Marx and Lenin too [http://en.wikipedia.org...] (and basically all of them). There is a clear opposition between the adherents of God and those that believe in equality for all mankind. Thus, it can be assumed the God actually himself enforces and adores the existence of poverty for, to him, this does not contradict any of the original morals he expressed in his bible since none of them apply to him, only to humans and perhaps some animals also.
A second point to consider is that God made all of us unique and different and thus to test everyone's faith fairly would require a totally different test for each and every one of us. He already explained that he intentionally makes the test for women slightly harder via childbirth and labor pains due to the sin of Eve eating the apple and has almost an entirely different test for each species of animal so isn't it sensible to conclude that he may also have a different test for not just every social circle and class in society but every individual in this world as well? Would this not explain why the hardships of one never fully equate to another because the souls and bodies are not at all equal in the first place so to test both fairly requires a different test. God is not necessarily scientific in his approach, for he doesn't test to find the answer (he's omniscient and already knows if you will fail or pass the tests of faith he throws at you) perhaps he intervenes as and where he sees necessary, if not all the time, just because he is bored and, as an author must explore his story in depth to fully complete it, our world is one of many works that God has imagined and wants to see through to the end, however ugly and harsh it may seem to the characters in the story, this story was written by an all knowing entity and so therefore must have been written full thought-out beforehand so as to achieve his idea of a perfect tale.
On a final note, God's level of understanding and the way he uses his power are, by definition, beyond human intellect. Thus, the argument that the way he is intervening doesn't make sense by human means of reasoning isn't, in itself a sufficient rebuttal by the Con against this resolution. To successfully oppose the resolution would require Con to sufficiently prove that the way the world is working actually contradicts the philosophies that God has verbally expressed in the ideas of the Bible.
In summary, God doesn't hold the same standards for himself as he holds for other beings, indicated by how readily he differentiates the standards for different beings in the Bible, itself. Also, God has a different plan for all of us and designs the test of faith to perfectly match who we are. Last, but by no means least, God isn't functioning on a level comprehensible by human brain. He is operating a level far above our intellect so to try to make sense of it would be ultimately futile even if he was operating sensibly.
I was hesitant when I saw you were a deist as well, but your sole argument thus far has been a fantastic one. Thank you for really making an effort despite your beliefs. Now, back to the topic at hand.
Matthew 6:26 - It is suggested that the "heavenly Father feeds them." Birds, and all other animals, know how to find food for themselves. Fowl do have their equivalences for sowing and reaping. To suggest that animals do nothing and just get fed is ridiculous; all animals, humans included, think and work for themselves. For animals, it's instinct. For humans, it's free will. Some animals/humans don't get food, and they die. Does God test every animal on Earth's faith? This seems a stretch.
Exodus 20:24 - Merely makes the case that animals are lesser beings.
Genesis 3:16 - As you said, "this is Old Testament and therefore God's original wording of his own morality through the mouths of the prophets that spoke it." I don't deny that God had a hand early on. He made it so women suffer more, then either moved or hasn't intervened since about 2000 years ago, give or take. This debate's about today, and specific events about God's intervention anywhere in the Bible does not matter here.
Matthew 10:24 - Social and economic equality has little to do with actual worth as a human being. This verse in no way implies that God "actively supports inequality" more than states that, no, life isn't fair. With that, it actually kind of gives evidence that God doesn't intervene, because it isn't fair. Which leads to...
"(God) actually favours this over a world where everyone is equal and following the same code of morality and considering each other of equal value and status... it can be assumed the God actually himself enforces and adores the existence of poverty for, to him, this does not contradict any of the original morals he expressed in his bible."
Okay, let's pretend for a second that God's idea of a perfect society is a vainly inequal one. We don't understand his motives, but he does. That does not account for the numerous times the Bible states equality as one of God's virtues. To be fair, I'll use your same source (http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...):
2 Thessalonians 1:6 - "Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you..."
Colossians 3:25 - "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons."
Deuteronomy 10:17 - "For the LORD... regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward..."
Romans 2:11 - "For there is no respect of persons with God."
Romans 9:14 - "Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid."
There's gotta be at least a dozen of these. The word of God clearly states, numerous times, that God is just. ("But God's definition of "just" could be vastly different than ours.") That's the only word that got lost in translation? That means God failed to pass that information on to the various writers of the Bible. If God meant "just" as, "Except x, y, and z get special treatment," He would have translated that.
"God... doesn't test to find the answer (he's omniscient and already knows if you will fail or pass the tests of faith he throws at you)..."
You glaringly contradicted yourself in a matter of one sentence. God doesn't test, because he knows how you'll do on the test he's going to test you on anyways. This doesn't make sense. If you meant the former (God doesn't test)... http://www.acts17-11.com...;... try again.
"...the argument that the way he is intervening doesn't make sense by human means of reasoning isn't, in itself a sufficient rebuttal by the Con against this resolution... He is operating a level far above our intellect so to try to make sense of it would be ultimately futile... "
But God did make us in his own image- and we are rational beings who must have some sort of understanding of why we are here. Of course, no man can say for sure what God has done/is doing/will do; the idea is far beyond us. But he did make us rationally thinking creatures (again, in His own image) who can look at the world and say, "This isn't fair." The focus of your point, "He is operating a level far above our intellect so [why] try to make sense of it(?)" is equally valid as me wondering why "the way he is intervening doesn't make sense". While mine works towards an answer, the response merely tries to brush it off as literally, "Why try?" Frankly, that's lazy.
"To successfully oppose the resolution would require Con to sufficiently prove that the way the world is working actually contradicts the philosophies that God has verbally expressed in the ideas of the Bible."
I'm glad you proposed the idea. Again, I'll use the same source: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Matthew 7:7 - "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you..."
Matthew 18:19 - "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Note: The Book of Matthew says many similar phrases)
Psalm 37:4 - "Trust in the LORD, and do good; so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed. Delight thyself also in the LORD; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart."
Mark 11:24 - "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."
And many, many more. Of course, I'm not stupid, God isn't just going to answer all of our prayers. There are many requirements that need to be met before God will hear them out: http://bible-truth.org.... I'll list a few here, sans verses (they can all be found at the link I provided): You must have faith, come boldly and in Jesus' name, and without sin and in peace. Let's be heavily, heavily generous and say that a mere one percent of all people who pray meet this criteria. What are the odds that their faith will literally move mountains? That they'll part seas? That their husband won't die from Stage IV cancer? Despite the Bible's promises, these things are probably not going to happen. I don't think that makes me a cynic. I am, however, a realist. Whereas the Bible can kind of meander around meanings and is sometimes ambiguous or blatantly contradictory, these verses are never refuted. "Trust in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thy heart." These are either the empty promises from a God who has a will (and even though he promised He would, still won't because it's His will), or a God who just does not intervene.
I think I refuted all points, but I might've missed one. I'm human, it's late, and I'm tired. Hopefully I've made some further points to the effect that the Bible itself states God's justness and willingness to answer prayers, but the utter lack of both in this society. I'm looking forward to the rest of our debate.
Versatile forfeited this round.
Versatile forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.