The Instigator
QandA
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Juan_Pablo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God is cruel, immoral and unjust.

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 3 votes the winner is...
QandA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,319 times Debate No: 37029
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

QandA

Pro

I don't actually believe in God, I am using "god" in a hypothetical sense saying that if a God does exist then a lot of his actions and teachings are cruel, immoral and unjust.

Round 1 is an acceptance round only followed by rounds of back and forth argument as usual. Good luck and happy debating.
Juan_Pablo

Con

God is cruel, he is immoral, and he is unjust. But only to a subjective human mind. Despite the unstated insistence of your resolution, humankind is not the center of the universe - and human suffering actually reinforces this.

Is it cruel when a lion chases a gazelle, bites into it, rips it and eats it? Only from a subjective human perspective. However, is it cruel when a human butchers a chicken (or a plant), defeathers it, cooks it and eats it for food? Yes - from a perspective sympathetic to the chicken (and certainly from the chicken's own desperate struggle for life).

Yet humans eat and eat and eat. And we justify eating the things that we do because we claim some superior status. We are above the other organisms, so it's "just". Of course we ignore the chicken's own interest in perserving its life. Funny that we call God out for perceived injustice against us while every human on this planet ignores the injustice they do to the planet's life forms, whether its destroying their habitats through deforestation, or polluting their rivers, streams, and lakes with harsh chemicals. But God is the problem, not man. And then there's global warming, which scientists insist has the power to eliminate (or vastly reduce the quality of) life on Earth! But man continues to point his finger at God, as though he is the unjust one.

Humans are so pathetic. We continue to play mindgames with our selves, believing that we are truly the innocent ones - and blame our problems, our frustrations on a deity many don't even believe. But we completely ignore real injustice, real abuse, real perserve excesses within ourselves!

God is cruel, God is immoral, God is injust. But man is vicious, selfish, murderous, and hateful. But we ignore man's own injustice!

"This celebrity is gorgeous," we say. We relish her with praise, with acclaimation, with money (therefore power), all while we sneer (in secret) at the unattractive woman we pass daily on our way to work or school (and then we ignore her when she expresses some past injustice). Humans are unbelievably selfish (and unjust).

We are even unjust in our sense of justice. Consecutive studies show that in courts, attractive people - criminals, civil offenders - get off easier than the less attractive. We favor tall men over short ones. We praise those with high intelligence and ignore those with less endowed brains, reducing them to the lower rungs of human worth. We judge regularly, not on character, or social contribution, or even anything that can be considered remotely morally valid; instead we judge on looks, appearance, and prejudices. We are unjust.

It should be no surprise to any of us that humans generally favor mammals over any other kind of animals in the natural world. We tend to favor animals that take on a more human-like appearance. We throw a fit when we hear about abuse on a familiar house pet, say a dog. But when a roach crosses the kitchen counter we go screaming for the can of bug spray.

Sure, cockroaches can carry diseases, and we kill them to chiefly protect our own health. Injustice? The cockroach certainly thinks so as it scurries across the kitchen. But why should we worry about the moral outrages of the cockroach, when clearly the topic is about the moral outrages commited by God on man?

It's really the same difference. Like the cockroach man relishes his own life above everything else, above the animals he eats, above the plants he consumes, above pesky bug he kills. And then he protests when things don't go his way in life. He calls it a "God-given right", totally ignoring the fact that, across the world, an earthquake, a tornado, a famine, has ended the lives of hundreds of people in one day. So much for natural rights.

Sure. God is cruel, immoral, and unjust. And man is an absolute demon.
Debate Round No. 1
QandA

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledged that you missed the acceptance part. It causes a slight obscurity in the flow of the debate but nevertheless the show must go on. We will continue with back and forth rounds of argument.

In relation to your argument, it is hard for me to respond to your individual points as I understand what you are trying to say, yet it is not really related to the context of the debate. You are focusing more on human hypocrisy.
I understand what you are saying when you use human comparisons and you are undoubtedly right on the way we perceive ourselves. However the topic of the debate is not "Problems with the human race". Humans mess up a lot and have done horrible things throughout history yet my point is where is God in all of this? (remember I mean God in a hypothetical sense.) If God is seen as the creator then he would most certainly be the problem. Why did he create humans as such pathetic, hypocrisy, unjust, cruel and immoral beings as you say? And more importantly why didn't he interfere at some stage? Why would he allow such injustice, hate and violence to exist within the world for so long? If man is vicious, selfish, murderous and hateful then is that not from a said Gods doing?

I agree with everything you are saying about the human mindset however if God is the supposed creator then can he not be held accountable for creating humans in such a way?

Take an event like the Holocaust for example. Think how everyday thousands of people in concentration camps must have been praying to God for their lives. Everyday for months upon months and they got absolutely nothing. If there is a God then I can't think of anything more unjust and cruel. To have the alleged ability to interfere on all the hardship and pain in the world yet can just stay in a complete mode of indifference. Yes such hardship and pain is man-made but 1) man is supposedly made by God and 2) if a higher being has the said power then how can not interfering be justified or moral?

I get what you're saying, I really do. However you have to understand that the title of the debate is not "Humans are cruel just like God".
Juan_Pablo

Con

Well, I do believe in a God. And this may surprise you but I do believe that God is cruel, immoral, and unjust. In fact, I believe in a God that is very much like mankind. Whenever I describe this God I often refer to it as an "organism". It's not all-loving, and it's not all-merciful. This God can be downright cruel, manipulative, murderous, and uncaring. Yet to me this all makes sense.

God is like an "organism". He's a creature you respect, you acknowledge, you fear because it has more power than you. Let me give you an analogy, because I think it demonstrates man's relationship to God very well. Let's say you're out in the African safari and you come across a male lion. From a safe distance it looks majectic, beautiful. It' interesting to look at. But you know that if you get too close, if you poke it, it might dig its claws into you and even kill you. God is an "organism". This is the relationship man has to God. I'm actually a pantheist, and I believe that God is in fact the conscious, super-intelligent universe. Can I prove this to you? Well, not at the moment . . . but that's not the topic.

The point is that God - the universe - is a very large organism, and man is a very tiny one. Man isn't even the center of the universe, just another creation inside of it.

In the previous round I demonstrated man's relationship to a chicken. Man considers himself, because of his elevated intelligence, higher than the other organisms. We have no issues about eating other organisms to sustain ourselves, but when a human is devoured by a shark or an alligator we take a particular offense to it. Believing that we are automatically more important, we don't approve of other organisms that make a meal out of us (funny that we don't protest this way when a shark makes a snack of a seal). But we treat organisms far less equally because of our intelligence. We eat them, we kill them, we take their land, destroy their habitats - and it's all justified on the grounds that we are superior to them. God is in the same boat, particularly since I, a pantheist, perceive God to be the universe. The universe is far larger than man, encompasses far more, has existed a lot longer, created man and will still be around long after man goes extinct. Oh, don't kid yourself: man will go extinct one day; a new species may emerge from future human generations. But man - homo sapien - will eventually die off as the Earth changes, as the universe evolves.

I understand this is a bleak way of understanding man's relationship to God but that's pretty much it. The point is that its a waste to cry and throw a tantrum. God has killed numerous species in the past (numerous individuals, too), and eventually God will kill everyone alive today when their time comes. It's a waste. God probably doesn't even have the power to alter this fact (I'll get to this point a bit later). God is cruel, God is immoral, God is unjust. But those are really just human wants. The universe is in fact quite immoral . . . and it tries to preserve what it can, in whatever means it has available. Biological life isn't free of this fact.

Over the course of a lifetime, an organism sustains injuries that gradually wear it away; it's DNA accumulates errors (with constant cell division and replication) that will eventually kill it. Over the course of billions of years, the only way life could flourish under these conditions is if life constantly replicated itself; old cells and old organisms would pass away, daughter cells and new organisms (with fresh strands of DNA) would take their place. That is the way of nature. It hasn't found a way to construct heaven, but it's done the best job it could, given the limitations of nature.

Earlier you asked why did God create a universe like ours, where bad things could happen, where injustice is possible. I believe that the answer is self-evident, as more and more evidence demonstrates that our universe was fine-tuned for complex biological life. God doesn't have the power to create a perfect universe - only imperfect ones. Our universe is the best thing (or close to the best thing) God could create to accomodate complex biological life like ourselves.

The universe isn't perfect now, so our expectations, morally and philosophically, will not be completely satisfied. Our desire for a perfect world free of hurt and pain isn't achievable. But it's still possible to create a good world in this universe, but's going to require effort.

Scientists like Paul Davies show that our universe is very special in that it occupies a very narrow place, by having just the right conditions for life, where matter can congregate to form stars and planets, where the liquid medium of water is possible, and where molecular chemistry exist because the proton and electron are unique stable particles [1]. Our universe is fined-tuned just right for biological life.

Calculations demonstrate that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then stars like the sun could not exist, which would make life as we know it impossible [2]. Additionally, calculations show that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible [3]. Over the decades, more and more evidence has come to light to show just how well-formed the universe is for life.

British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has this to share:

"The laws of science, as we know them...contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron....The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life [4]."

God did the best he could to create the universe. God can't create heaven. That's up to man. But we shouldn't make the mistake of expecting perfection. It just isn't attainable.

[1] [2] [3] http://www.discovery.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
QandA

Pro

It was fascinating reading your interesting and certainly original take on your idea of "God". Obviously I don't share these views but it certainly was different from what I'm used to hearing.

However the title of the debate is "God is cruel, immoral and unjust." This means that the pro side must attempt to show why this is the case and the con side must attempt to show why this isn't the case. Since you actually agree with me on the topic then there is probably not much point in continuing, what do you reckon?
Juan_Pablo

Con

LOL. Okay. I guess we'll stop.
Debate Round No. 3
QandA

Pro

Debate is annulled.
Juan_Pablo

Con

Well, anyway, I was intending to argue that we shouldn't focus on God's moral behavior when our own is far more threatening to ourselves and to life on Earth!

God is quite difficult with man because he has to be. If man were allowed to do anything he wanted without consequences, without lessons to be learned, man would destroy himself and the Earth . . . and all of God's work would be in vain!

God has to be quite cruel to men when they behave badly.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Well, my main intention is to have these statements on record, that way once people begin to realize that there is a God they don't get stuck wondering why bad things frequently happen. God can be cruel because humans require a cruel God (or a devil).
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Why take a debate called "God is cruel, immoral and unjust" if your opening argument starts with "God is cruel, God is immoral, and God is unjust"?
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Darn it. I wish I had argued this better. Now it comes across as if I'm stating that God is the bad guy. He isn't. Man is the bad guy.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Oh, and I was also going to add that it's pointless to argue over God's moral behavior, as man issues are fare more serious and destructive to himself and the planet! I was going to add this in the next Round!

The argument was going to be that God judges mankind for a reason: (to protect life and the Earth).
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
My apologies for not merely accepting in ROUND 1. I totally missed that part. To make it right I can "accept" in round 2, lol.

Again, sorry.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
QandAJuan_PabloTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Well Con admitted he agreed with the resolution, so Pro wins.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
QandAJuan_PabloTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this is obvious
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
QandAJuan_PabloTied
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: I have no idea how to even vote on this. It has to go to Pro because con conceded but also provided a unique case for what he thinks God is. I would have gave this debate a tie, but Con literally states in his closing remark "God is quite cruel to man when they behave badly", which was agreeing with the resolution. I honestly have no idea why he took this to begin with. Pro put up a poor case for why God is cruel but seeing as Con agreed with the resolution, arguments go to pro.