The Instigator
zezima
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Magicr
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

God is not evil

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 7 votes the winner is...
Magicr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,836 times Debate No: 31138
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (7)

 

zezima

Pro

God is not evil. Opponent must prove he is. Only rule, no trolls.
Magicr

Con

First, some basic rules to which I think my opponent will agree:

  1. No abusive and/or semantically abusive arguments.
  2. Drops shall count as concessions.
  3. No new arguments in the final round.

Definitions:

God- the supernatural creator of the Universe whose actions are described in the Old and New Testements.

Evil- Significantly morally reprehensible.

Preliminary Observations

Because I have the BoP in this debate, it makes sense that I should begin my arguments in this round.

Additionally, as my opponent has pointed out in the comments, we will not be debating the “God is” part of the resolution. The assumption that God indeed is will be made. What will be debated is if God exists, is God evil. I will be arguing that this notion of God is an evil one.

The Argument

The basis for my argument is as follows:

P1. A being that would do X is evil.
P2. God did X.
C. Therefore, God is evil.

The argument is logically valid. So, if I can provide an X that is evil and can show that God did X, then I have fulfilled my BoP.

A possible objection that may arise regarding P1 is that just because a being does something that is evil, this does not make that being evil, however when one takes into consideration that fact that we determine whether a being is evil based on their actions, we can see that that counter soon dissipates.

Another possible objection that may arise along those same lines is that the good actions of God outweigh the bad actions, however I would argue that God’s evil actions throughout the Bible outweigh the good ones.

Let X represent mass murder and genocide

Mass murder and genocide are events that are certainly morally reprehensible events by basically any reasonable moral standard one chooses to use. It is also clear that the God of the Bible performed these actions on multiple occasions:

  • In Exodus, God kills all of the Egyptian first born children because they are Egyptians. [1]
  • In 1 Samuel God orders the Israelites to do as follows: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and as*.” [2] (For some I wasn't able to post my argument if I used the whole A- word, even though it was not in a profane manner. Oh well.)

Let X represent causing people to eternally suffer.

Given that a basis of morality is limiting the amount of suffering people must endure, this is another example of something that is definitely immoral. In the Bible, we find that God participates in this X as well. As the Christian website Beliefnet.com argues, the parable of Jesus concerning the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19:31”makes evident that this life is the place of decision. How we believe and behave here will determine our eternal destiny. The parable suggests that once you go to hell, you cannot come back.” [3].

Conclusion

I have clearly demonstrated that God is evil.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2]- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3]- http://www.beliefnet.com...

Debate Round No. 1
zezima

Pro

"In exodus, God kills all of the Egyptian first born, because they are Egyptian."
- this is not true. He did not kill all of them. In fact, the ones that were killed had a choice. There is a whole story behind it con did not explain. Same goes with his second explanation.

It is not God who chooses for you to go to hell, but yourself. He has given you a choice. He gave you free will. He does not force you to go. All he said was to believe in Him, (Jesus) and you will go to heaven.
God does make you go to hell, you choose to go there by not believing in Him.

God is the creator, meaning he created everything. Therefore he chooses what is evil and what is not. Therefore, what is evil in our eyes, isn't necessarily evil.

Also, the existence of evil does not prove god is evil, even though he created everything. If you will like to argue this, please do in the next round.
Magicr

Con

My opponent has failed to adequately respond to my arguments.


First, my opponent responds to my point about God killing all of the Egyptian first borns in Exodus by saying that God did not kill all of the Egyptian first borns.


In response to this, I quote Exodus 12:29: “And it came to pass, that at midnight, the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn cattle.” Exodus is pretty clear: God smote all of the firstborn children. He even smote the cattle.


Next, he says “the ones that were killed had a choice.”


I’m sorry, but how much of a choice can you expect a baby or any child for that matter to have? In fact, these children weren’t even being punished for actions or choices that they themselves had made, but the actions of the Egyptians, and more specifically the Pharaoh.


Pro writes: “There is a whole story behind it con did not explain.”


Pro’s comments have demonstrated that he himself does not understand the story very well. Nevertheless, the actions of God are immoral whether in or out of context. A simple summary of the story of Exodus can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org....


My opponent almost completely fails to respond to my comments on the Amalekite genocide.


Because the preceding argument continues to stand so strong, I feel to need to expand on my comments on hell.


My opponent continues by saying that since God created everything, he chooses what is evil and what is not. He also argues that what we see as evil may not necessarily be evil.


To this I ask: Are some things good because God says they are good or does God say some things are good because they are good?


Additionally, if God is omnipotent and omniscient and he chooses a course of action that would cause more suffering or less and he chose the route that caused more, then God must be evil. For surely he could have chosen a better course of action given his vast power and knowledge.


Debate Round No. 2
zezima

Pro

The owner of the house had the choice to put the blood of a goat or something similar to that meaning that their child would not be killed.
Again God is the opposite of evil.
First you have to admit that evil exist. Are you admitting evil exist?
God is the creator of everything. How he chooses his punishment for some people isn't because he is evil. In your opinion it might be, but in the one that matters, his, is not.
Also in your definition, he is evil, but who created your definition? It was man. Therefore you are admitting man decides what is evil. If that is the case, I could say murder is not evil, therefore it is not evil.
Magicr

Con

My opponent’s lack of Biblical knowledge is severely lacking. In Exodus, God tells the Israelites to put lamb’s blood on their doors so that the Angel of Death will know to pass over their houses.(As a side note, it is interesting that the Angel would even need this clue.) The Egyptians were not given a choice to put lamb’s blood on their doors or not. And more importantly: The children were being punished for their family’s actions, not their own.


Pro continues in almost incomprehensible manner, but I think he is basically saying that because God is not evil, God is not evil.


Finally, Pro challenges the definition I provided of evil, though he did not bother to bring it up until now. I also see he has not provided an alternative definition of his own. The definition I use was adapted from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com... If Pro wishes to argue that evil should be defined as not murder (does that even make sense?), then he must present some reasoning that it should be defined that way. Dictionaries are valid references to use when trying to determine how a word should be used, so my appeal to authority is justified.

Debate Round No. 3
zezima

Pro

The blood was to show they feared God. It"s not that the angel needed the clue, it was to see who was willing to make a sacrifice. You can"t say "the angels should know I would have made the sacrifice". This they may know, but they still didn"t do it.
Now think about it this way. What is evil is described in the Ten Commandments. God made those for us to follow, not him. That means he can do no evil because he is the opposite.
God does not have to follow his own law. He"s God. He created it. No one is greater than him.
Punishment back then is not what it is like today.
Now think of it like this, if God never made punishments like that, would as many people obey him? He had to make severe punishments back then so that people after that could learn.
Now what is murder? Killing someone? What about another animal killing another animal? Is that murder? No its life. Murder is when one person kills another person. God is not a person. He is I guess you can say a spirit.
If god is evil, then we would not know what good is. If god is what causes evil, then what causes everything that is good in life?
Overall, in your man-made idea of what evil is, and the fact you try to include God into the human law, as if he really had to obey by it, proves absolutely nothing. So yes, maybe in your view he is evil, but in reality he isn"t. He determines what is evil and what is not. Not the author of the dictionary.

If he is evil, you would have no clue how much worst this planet would be"
Magicr

Con

I must apologize, but I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding what my opponent is trying to say.

First, he continues to misunderstand Exodus. He fails to recognize the importance of the story as an example and the fact that only the Israelites were made aware of the option to put blood on their doors.

Additionally, he continues to postulate the notion that God is good because God is good. He has not provided any reason for us to accept that God is, in fact, good. He then goes on a tangent about punishment about which I am completely baffled.

He then tries to argue that God shouldn't be accused of murder because God is not a person and murder requires a person killing another person. This is merely semantics. When describe God's actions as murder, I am referring to a sentient being intentionally and consciously killing another person. My points remain standing.

Pro argues that God gets to decide what is good and what is evil. I previously asked my opponent whether things are good because God says they are or whether God says things are good because they are good. This question remains unanswered. On top of that, I continue by asking: What authority does God have to decide what is good and what is evil?

Finally, Pro argues that a dictionary doesn't get to determine what is good and what is evil. Dictionaries, however, tell us what is meant by certain words. So, dictionaries can, in fact, tell us what is generally meant by people when we use words like good and evil. While those dictionaries aren't making the decisions about what qualifies as what, they are records of what we as the people of a certain language have decided to mean by these words.
Debate Round No. 4
zezima

Pro

God decides what is evil because he created everything. If God was evil, why is there other things that are not evil in this world? Why isn't everything evil if both God and the devil are evil. Sounds like the world would be a lot worse if he was evil.
For example, Obama. Of course some people think he is evil, but that's not my point. He uses drones to kill terrorist when also he kills innocent children. Why is he not considered evil? I assume it is be because it is a sacrifice we are willing to make. (I disagree with drone killing). God randomly killing people of course would be wrong. But he didn't do it just to do it. It was a punishment. Punishment was different back then what it was now. Just because we consider it evil now, doesn't mean it was back then.
God created everything, and since we are talking about if he is evil or not, I don't have to "prove" he exist. He created matter, life, humans, etc. He chooses what he wants to with them and what he says goes. Yes there is free will, but that doesn't mean there is no law to follow. God sent down Jesus Christ to save us, and if you don't understand what that is, Google it. I don't really think an evil God would do something like that. Also all you got to prove he is evil is a few situations in history. I think you would need more then that to determine if a God is evil.
Also remember, we brought this on ourselves.
Magicr

Con

Welp, folks. I don't have much to say at this point in the debate. I proposed a reasonable standard for determining whether or not a being is evil and then showed how this standard applies to God.


Pro has failed to demonstrate that being the creator of everything gives God the right to determine what is good and what is evil. That's like me starting a country and then saying that because I started it, I get to decide what is right and wrong within that country.

My opponent in this debate has failed to give any substantive refutations of my arguments, so I strongly encourage you to...

Vote Con

Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KristaBoy 1 year ago
KristaBoy
God and threatened to blow up the sun in the psychiatric home. Where evil against me. God never will the Swedish Gud have truth belief with Swedish Citizen or they who trust in Gud. I as Finnish trust in Gud and Jumala. I will speak Finnish again.

Lord will nothing Finnish to me.

Communists are Jerk.

Jumala are bible God in Finland.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
'> [How can god be evill] when he decides what is evil and what is not."

Judges and congressmen can break the law, even though they determine what is law and what is not. Clearly the above argument is insufficient. Some steps are missing.

You never addressed your opponent's question--

"Are some things good because God says they are good or does God say some things are good because they are good?"

Also, are you circularly pre-supposing God is good to prove God is good?
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Why does God get to decide what is evil? If I start a country do I get to decide what is good and what is evil in such a dictatorial fashion? Is that right?
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
i dont understand how certain punishment can mean god is evil when he decides what is evil and what is not. god created these laws, murder, stealing, etc. for us, not for him.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Agreed. It was clear early on that MagicR was better acquainted with the Book of Exodus. Animated films and movies often gloss over details that are unfavorable to the biblical god.
Posted by Pollywog 4 years ago
Pollywog
Pro's lack of Biblical knowledge really hampered his ability to effectively defend his position.
Posted by zezima 4 years ago
zezima
I assume you don't know the story of Adam and eve. God didn't not "create" evil, because he was not the one who sinned. There was one simple law that Adam had to follow. Not to eat the fruit from the tree.
Also this is a theory because there is a lot of talk if God created evil. I believe God did not create evil, just like light did not create darkness and heat did not create cold. They are just words to describe the absence of the other ones.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
Also if god is all knowing all powerful and perfectly good (omnibelevolent,omniscience,omnipotent) then he would have to make a world with no evil in it. As no perfectly good being would create something evil if he knows it will commit these evils. Also an all powerful perfectly good being would have the power to prevent any evil and since he doesnt this means one of two things either god doesnt exist or he is malevolent meaning he has or is showing a wish to do evil to others meaning god is evil A perfectly good being is incapable of doing somthing evil or somthing that would lead to evil.
Posted by Manatee 4 years ago
Manatee
I'd counter all (yeah, not just this one) of Daktoria's votes, but I can't vote yet. I have no doubt someone else will do so on this debate.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
you say god gave us a choice but did he really? hes saying worship him to go to heaven if you dont you go to hell thats like me pointing a gun at someone and saying you give me your money or i put a bullet through your wifes head. Does the guy really have a choice he loses his money or his wife in what way is that fair? If god truly did give us free will then we would have the choice to go to heaven or hell regardless of our actions.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 4 years ago
tyler.schillim
zezimaMagicrTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: If God was evil, then Satan would be ruling the world, we would be his servants and I do not want to begin to think what would happen then. Pro had the most reliable resources because he used the Bible which is the truth and nothing but the truth. You should not question or argue against the word of God.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
zezimaMagicrTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided a standard for judging good/evil and then showed how it applies to the biblical god. Pro's arguments were often went off on tangents and suffered greatly from having never read Exodus before. Since Exodus is the bible is the source of the debate and MagicR showed greater knowledge of it, I award him sources. He also used several appropriate quotes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Vote Placed by DWolf2k2 4 years ago
DWolf2k2
zezimaMagicrTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro just let way too much drop in favor of Con, starting from giving up Prima Facie. Con also gets the source point for actually sourcing, and both conduct and s/p were even in my book as near the end they both started to falter in behavior towards each other and nothing so dramatic in spelling or grammar as to warrant the point.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
zezimaMagicrTied
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: Con made an argument. Pro never refuted it. Con wins. Pro lacked clarity, lucidity, cogency. He repeated claims without justifying them, not actually arguing.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
zezimaMagicrTied
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: Pro ignored Con so many times. Like in exodus, Pro directly makes statements about the bible without backing them up, thus he directly contradicted the bible. Pro is incoherent and hardly debating at all. Pro completely goes off on irrelevant topis like drones,
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
zezimaMagicrTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has awful argumentation. Pro could have said nothing in response and still would have won. One, Con never explains why actions come before intentions. Two, Con never provides the full backstory of what happened in that instant of Egyptians being killed. Three, Con claims to weigh the good against the bad, but doesn't evaluate the entire Bible. He doesn't even take a wide sample. He takes two instances. Lastly, Con doesn't consider those who eternally suffer being evil in their own right. Double negatives yield positives, so doing evil upon evil is not evil. Everything after R1 is moot. I gave Pro a conduct point for sticking it out. Con actually engages in mockery as the debate proceeds in suggesting Pro is difficult to understand.
Vote Placed by ladygagadisco 4 years ago
ladygagadisco
zezimaMagicrTied
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: Pro doesn't answer any of Con's arguments effectively. I'm a hardcore Christian, but the Pro did a horrible job defending his case.