God is immoral and evil
Debate Rounds (3)
- Numbers 31: 17-18 - god essentially gives the orders to kill every man, boy and rape the virgins of a gentile village.
- 4 Kings 2: 23-24 - a group of boys are killed by two female bears for simply insulting Elisha. Taking life for mere juvenile insults that likely would not have had any impact on the victim? That is almost as immoral as giving eternal punishment for finite crimes (Sending people to hell).
- Even the simple idea of being sent to Hell. How can you argue that sending anyone with a finite life to eternal damnation is moral, or in anyway representative of an omnibenevolent god?
- Condoning slavery in passages such as Leviticus 25: 44-46 and Ephesians 6:5.
From a moral perspective, these acts are in no possible way acceptable to any being, let alone an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent being. And yet, these acts are committed by this very being that Christians worship as the ultimate moral instigator.
The reason I am willing to argue with Stupidape is due to the fact that I recently came across an argument with very similar topics that Stupidape took part of. In my opinion, that argument was not well representative of the pro side, and I want to continue that argument again in a better and more informative way. You are welcome to use the arguments you previously used or any new arguments you may have come up with.
This passage clearly states that God is good.
Now my opponent can take two angles, A. God doesn't exist or B. God does exist.
If my opponent takes A, I win because a non-existent entity cannot be evil.
Yet, if my opponent takes B, I win because God's laws are divine and take precedence over human laws and morals. In other words, God is a supreme being, and God is good because God says so. God is at a constant state of good.
Therefore, no matter what God orders humans to do or does himself, God is good. So, if God was to order us to begin human sacrifices, light random people on fire, and so forth, God would still be good. Thanks for the debate.
First of all, your first statement mentioning that you are willing to accept the Bible's sayings on the goodness of god, seems to me like a prime example of circular reasoning, and I only need to reiterate my previous statements to show how hypocritical this god seems to be, and if you are accepting what the Bible says at first glance, then these examples of immorality and evil should be considered. But I avoided falling into this circular reasoning since I only made an implication that god is evil, as I have evaluated the evidence and have come to a conclusion, while you seem to provide no evidence that will nullify the examples of evil and immorality I gave.
Secondly, I find your first argument being that 'a non-existent entity cannot be evil' quite questionable because surely, if you consider a non-existent being not to be evil, then these heinous acts shown in the Bible could only be concluded as being mere mythological tales humans wrote to succumb others to live a restricted and fearful life, which was clearly the case for most lower class citizens in Israel during the conception of these stories. You only seem to be making statements while providing no backup as to why. And also, a non-existent entity can be evil, since you seem to argue that evil is purely a human quality, so then this evil presented in the Bible is real since by definition, this evil is no different from the evil you see in other fictional books and comics.
Furthermore, I find it humorous how often you use circular reasoning to justify your beliefs, 'God is good because God says so'. Not only are you devaluing your own moral compass but you are also simply lowering your chances of winning this debate by using logical fallacies on a debate website. This is quite ironic since you come across as being extremely arrogant in your chances of winning.
One final thing, you seem to go against the very definition of objective morality, and also by saying, god created all rules and physical things, you are showing that god is going against his own set rules, since there is no definition of objective morality that makes an exception of god. Even the Bible makes god quite an irresponsible being, since it is stated that god can do whatever he wants, and since the book is the word of god by a Christian's definition, then it just makes god no different from an immature juvenile who thinks he can create rules to do whatever he wants, which is the opposite of moral.
Before I conclude, I would advise you to not make the argument that God can do whatever he wants because he is God and the Bible says so, since that would fall under circular reasoning yet again.
My opponent accuses me of circular reasoning. I do not think this is the case. I find my opponent's accusations lacking. 
Let me run down my r1 argument.
If God exists then God is in a static state of good.
else God doesn't exist and therefore cannot be evil.
"while you seem to provide no evidence that will nullify the examples of evil and immorality I gave." Zaephou
I didn't want to mix rebuttals and arguments. So, yes I didn't respond yet to your r1 argument at all. All of God's actions are God's divine will. God's miracles and will are to celebrated not condemned.
"- Numbers 31: 17-18 - god essentially gives the orders to kill every man, boy and rape the virgins of a gentile village.
- 4 Kings 2: 23-24 - a group of boys are killed by two female bears for simply insulting Elisha. Taking life for mere juvenile insults that likely would not have had any impact on the victim? That is almost as immoral as giving eternal punishment for finite crimes (Sending people to hell)." Zaephou
We ought to celebrate and cheer on these actions. This shows that God is not to be trifled with. These actions are God's will and therefore a quintessential example of goodness and moral behavior.
"Even the simple idea of being sent to Hell. How can you argue that sending anyone with a finite life to eternal damnation is moral, or in anyway representative of an omnibenevolent god?" Zaephou
God's wrath is to be celebrated. This is a moral action since this is God's will.
"Condoning slavery in passages such as Leviticus 25: 44-46 and Ephesians 6:5." Zaephou
"“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. " 
Vast difference between voluntary and involuntary slavery. You were to be put to death for involuntarily enslaving someone. As for voluntary slavery, how is that any different that today with student loan debts, mortgages, and credit card debit? We voluntarily enslave our selves today.
As for moral objectivity, "On Christianity moral values have their objective and universal basis in the immutable nature of God. " 
"Even the Bible makes god quite an irresponsible being, since it is stated that god can do whatever he wants, and since the book is the word of god by a Christian's definition, then it just makes god no different from an immature juvenile who thinks he can create rules to do whatever he wants, which is the opposite of moral" Zaephou
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
As for phantasy characters being immoral. It is impossible since they don't exist. Harry Potter cannot be moral nor immoral because he doesn't exist.
Thanks for debating.
- 'God is good because God says so'
This is a prime example of circular reasoning and simply the only evidence I need to prove my statement.
Secondly, my opponent is taking the existence and/or non-existence of god in a binary way, and makes claims of how god is in a static state of good. My opponent also thinks that eternal damnation is something to be celebrated, and 'is a moral action since this is God's will'. This logic, and way of thinking I find extremely flawed and profoundly disturbing. The fact that you are accepting to throw away your moral compass simply because this god is responsible, is perhaps a deeply saddening case of how contradictory his logic seems to be, because firstly, from past arguments, it is evident that you seem to think moral rules are only for humans, and yet by the logic you present here, humans should also not follow the moral rules set by god because god is god? I know this sounds ridiculous and this perhaps accentuates the corruptness that is presented by god, since that reasoning is present only in a ruthless dictator, which I should reiterate is also, circular reasoning yet again. My opponent seems to be falling into the trap of logical fallacy without realizing it.
Also, my opponents argues my statement that eternal damnation is not 'in any way representative of an omnibenevolent god' by simply saying 'this is God's will'. This is another case of contradiction, and my opponent seemingly going against the very definitions, since he is stating that these immoral acts are god's will. And thus I can state that god is going against his own self-proclaimed characteristics, since an omnibenevolent being will not commit actions non-representative of it's own omnibenevolence, supposedly.
Furthermore, my opponent seems to favour fallacies so very dearly, Since he yet again falls into another fallacy when he states that 'The Lord woks in mysterious ways'. This is an example of the ambiguity fallacy. Even though my opponent appears to be conclusive with his end statements such as 'Thanks for debating', I find it ironic that with the repeated use of fallacies there is a overarching sense of utter obliviousness.
On a final note, fantasy characters can be immoral if the writer portrays them to be immoral.
Thank you for this debate, and I hope you find my argument a pleasure to read.
"Firstly, yes you are heavily using circular reasoning.
- 'God is good because God says so'" Zaephou
Your repeated reiteration of the same claim does not make it true. You have refused to show how this is circular reasoning. Below I will give a clear example of circular reasoning.
"circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)" 
As you can see these statements are completely different. As you can see the statement about God existence is circular logic because each statement points to the other statement. Following the logic train, God exists because the Bible says so. Oh yeah, how do we know the Bible is legitimate? The Bible is legitimate because God influenced it. Oh yeah, how do we know God exists? We know God exists because the Bible says so. Rinse and repeat.
Now take my example. If God exists then God wrote the Bible and the Bible says God is good. Oh yeah, how do we know God exists? We are assuming God exists. Oh, yeah how do we know God wrote the Bible? We are assuming God exists and wrote the Bible. Oh yeah, how do we know God's will is divine and infallible? We are assuming God's will is divine and infallible.
As you can see clearly this is not circular logic. Now the other part is if God doesn't exist, God cannot be immoral. Of course we could pretend any fictional character is real and judge that character by any number of moral standards/philosophies/religions and so forth. The problem is we are pretending. Therefore, fictional characters cannot be moral nor immoral.
I noticed my opponent dropped the point about slavery. Therefore, my point stands and my opponent's does not on the topic of slavery in the Bible.
As for the moral compass, we are supposed to be Christ like.
"Romans 8:29 (MSG)
29 “God knew what he was doing from the very beginning. He decided from the outset to shape the lives of those who love him along the same lines as the life of his Son. The Son stands first in the line of humanity he restored. We see the original and intended shape of our lives there in him.”
We are called to become like Jesus." 
In other words, when we hear Bible stories like the one Pro used we are supposed to destroy the moral compass we are born with and replace it with the character of Jesus Christ. As my opponent already shown we are supposed to be Christ like by following Christ's example.
"- Numbers 31: 17-18 - god essentially gives the orders to kill every man, boy and rape the virgins of a gentile village.
- 4 Kings 2: 23-24 - a group of boys are killed by two female bears for simply insulting Elisha. Taking life for mere juvenile insults that likely would not have had any impact on the victim? That is almost as immoral as giving eternal punishment for finite crimes (Sending people to hell)."
Thank you for the debate. It was most enlightening. The Lord is my shepherd. Hallelujah, praise the Lord!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 months 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has BoP to argue that God is immoral. He chooses to do this via Bible quotes, assuming that the Bible is an extention of God's thoughts, actions, etc., if Bible verses are shown to be immoral then the BoP is fulfilled. Pro does this by showing passages that endorse rape, torture, slavery, etc. Con responds by saying that those acts are moral as divine morality overrides our *version* of morality. This argument doesn't work because it assumes that God exists, which Con doesn't provide an argument for. It is assumed at the outset, to be fair, that we are debating the *concept* of a Christian god and bible. This does not inherently mean that God exists, or that he doesn't exist. Thus Con's argument is unwarranted, and lies on an assumed foundation. Only arguments that are evidentiary can be considered as persuasive to a judge, thus I can't count it. These essentially is all that is argued in the debate, the rest being reshashing. Pro wins, Con's argments end up being just claims
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.