The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

God is not moral and the Problem of Evil logically says he does not exist.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 39203
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




The first round is acceptance. I Challenge Con to the debate because I saw in a debate between him and another atheist about the morality of God and Satan and I feel that she did not make her points well based on an ignorance of the bible and what it says. I am here to redeem the argument.

I will be arguing that God is
A) Not moral, but evil in both his actions and inaction.
B) And because God cannot coexist with evil due to his Benevolence, and because evil exists, that the Abrahamic God cannot exist.

For this debate, I will use the definition of evil:

e"vil [ee-vuhl] Show IPA
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

The analogy used throughout the debate will be a woman who is raped and murdered along with her child.

Also, we will look at various situations in the bible that would be considered morally wrong to human standards and I expect the Con to attempt to justify those actions.

mo"ral"i"ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo"ral"i"ties for 4"6.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
mo"ral"i"ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo"ral"i"ties for 4"6.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

This will be the definition of morality used throughout the debate. For identification of the rules in this context, we will follow the basics of
A) Thalt shalt not kill
B) Be honest
C) And finally do not covet, or be jealous.
D) Do not be quick to anger
E) Do not be selfish, but be Selfless

That will be the basics of morality in this debate. If Con would like to make any changes to anything said preceding this, please make that noted in the comments before accepting the debate.

Like I said, First round is acceptance and statement of position.


I will accept this debate.

I’ll go ahead and establish my positions;

Position 1: God is good.

Position 2: The Abrahamic God does coexist in a universe that has evil.

Position 3: Position 2 is not logically impossible, but possible.

Position 4: Morality is not simple, and sometimes certain moral “rules” as the pro calls do not apply in all frames of reference. (this position may be irrelevant depending on how he argues.)

Position 5: Gods morality is objective, and not subjective.

Position 6: God does exist.

I’ll ground out my position in the next round when I construct my arguments, but for now this is acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1


The Problem Of Evil: A Summary

The problem of evil is this:

1) God is Omnipotent (All-Powerfu)
2) God is Omniscient (All-knowing)
3) God is Benevolent (God is good)
4) Evil exists

It states that all of these biblical qualities cannot coexist, even though the bible says they do[1]. I will show this through this analogy.

The situation

The video here describes a woman and her son walking down the road when they are suddenly attacked by two men. The woman is beaten to death and the child is shot. It was brutal death that violated every law in the bible that is accepted as morals today. If God is omnipotent, then he could have stopped it. If God is Omnipresent/Omniscient, then he knew it was going to happen before it happened and was there watching it happen! And if God is benevolent, then he had to stop it because he his good and cannot allow evil to exist near him.

The bible mentions in several places that God is a good God and Pro even accepts this point as true. So how is any god good when they see evil, know of evil, and can end evil, but do not? God cannot be benevolent in these cases. He is malevolent. It is easier to explain all the evil in this world and the evil in this situation by allowing the explanation of God is not there. That there is no god or gods.

I will await my await my opponent's refutation to this simple analogy. However, to show that god is not Moral in the Bible I will now show where he personally killed in the Bible and created sin.

God Created Sin By Inaction

Satan was cast down from heaven by God because he rebelled in Greed and Lust of power. With him fell 1/3 of the Angels that were with God in the beginning. After Satan cast down, he went to the Garden of Eden where God had placed the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil right in the middle of the garden and had told Adam and Eve not to eat of its fruits or they would surely die.

Satan came along and convinced Eve that God was bluffing and she partook of the forbidden fruit, then convinced Adam to do the same. This was the creation of Original Sin (OS).

So how did God create this sin through inaction?

If God is omniscient and Omnipotent and Benevolent, he knew Satan was going to convince Eve. So instead of throwing him out of heaven, why didn't he smite Satan in heaven so he couldn't destroy his perfect creation? And when he went to convince Eve, why didn't God stop him? It seems that God wanted evil. It seems that he created Sin through inaction.

God kills

Next, we will move to biblical accounts of God killing.

1) In Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 19:4-5, Ezekiel 16:46-47 (specifically Ezekiel 16:49-50)], God told Abraham that he was going to destroy the two cities because they were not godly enough for him. Despite the fact that Jesus says that we "All fall short of the Glory of God" and therefore it is impossible to be godly enough for God and that even the simplest sin deserves an eternity in hell, God chose Abraham to go into the city and find just one godly person. When he failed, God warned Lott and his family and they left the cities. As they ran, Lott's wife turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back at the fire works display of the destruction of Sodom.

The main problem I find with this particular episode of God killing thousands of people is that Abraham was the father of the Jews, so the Jews had yet to even begin their race! So there was no one to guide the people of the cities or to tell them of God's will. They simply existed and in their sin nature that they knew nothing about, they became ungodly (even though they already at birth). These two cities were wiped out by a god that they didn't even know existed! How were they to know what was godly and what was ungodly when they didn't even know The Abrahamic God ever existed or his rules that should dictate our life.

2) Another one is when God rained Hell on the Egyptians by Moses. His last most terrible plague was to kill all the first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29). The situation made this uncalled for. When the Jews were attempting to leave Egypt, God repeatedly hardened Pharaohs heart (messing with free will) and caused the need for the death of every first born child in Egypt! This is outrageous. None of these parents except for nobles and soldiers who made the slaves work. Countless babies, countless teens, countless young men and women. They, who had nothing to do with Egyptian enslavement of God's people were murdered by a force they had never heard of before.

The whole is that these children were murdered when they had nothing to do with the crime.

3) My third and final example of the many many things that god has done lies in Acts 5:1-10, where God kills two people that did not give all of their belongings, but held just a little for themselves. They were questioned by Peter and killed by God for the very insignificant sin of Lying.


It is shown that God is not moral because he kills unnecessarily, his Punishments never fit the crime, and he kills for no other reason than they reject him with out ever knowing him. The problem of evil and the fact that God in all his benevolence cannot stop himself from ending evil, yet it exists, only shows that the problem of evil Logically says that God does not exist.




I’ll go ahead and construct some independent arguments. Refutations will come right after.


Argument I(A): The two premises do not contradict.

Premise 1: God is Omnipotent
Premise 2: God is Omniscient
Premise 3: God is Benelevent
Premise 2
: Evil Exists

Please note that the topic title says he logically does not exist. However I am unclear as to where the two premise contradict with each other. One might say the two statements are improbable (e.g. benelevent), but they do not truly contradict, and therefore God remains possible. There is a case where something is improbable but does supposedly exist as some believe (E.g. Evolution)

Argument I(B): There is Scripture evidence that says he does exist in a universe with evil.

If we were debating a bare-bones God then this debate would obviously end very quick. However we’re debating a very specific God, the God of Abraham. And this God does make it clear that he does exist in a universe with evil, this is clearly evident to the fact that the Bible does mention the word “evil” almost 500 times. And him constantly punishing people for their wickedness. So the Bible does refute Pro’s position entirely.

Argument II(A): There are exceptions to the “rules”.

"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” --- Jesus Christ

Yes, you heard of it before, the golden rule.Now I agree with Pro that it’s generally not good to kill people (though I prefer the term murder). But i also think there are places where capitol punishment is good, So what should happen to a person when he murders someone? I say that he should be put to death. For if he did not want to die he should of not of done what he did, he should be the one dead. So there are some cases where i think killing is alright in cases of judgement.

Also there does exist some capital punishment in the OT law (e.g. Human Sacrifice, divination, beasiality, etc)

Argument II(B): God is the basis for Objective Morality

A question might pop up asking if the definition for morality “is conformity to the rules of right conduct” one might ask; “so where do we get the rules of right conduct?” Well if you notice the rules that Pro brought up (e.g. Thou shalt not kill, do not be quick to anger, etc) is based on the Bible which is based on the Abrahamic God. So he is the moral giver, he is the one that decides what is “moral”. So if He said, thou shalt rape, murder,steal, lie these things would be moral, and those rules of thou shalt not murder, commit adultery, etc… Would be outdated. So in a sense it’s impossible for him not to be moral, because he is the source himself.

Therefore his morality is objective, and not subjective to people’s opinions of what is good. In a way of saying, he is morality.

Argument III: God does exist

Let me go ahead and establish the premises

Premise 1: Everyting that exist has an explanation to its existence.

there are two kinds of existence, things that can fail to exist and needs an external cause to explain how they exist (We’ll call this contingent existence, its almost everything in the physical universe) and things that exist out of necessity of what they are by nature. (we’ll call existence from necessity. An example might be numbers, as its impossible for them to not to exist out of the nature of what they are.)

Premise 2
: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, the explanation is God.

Seems rational to think that a vastly intelligent engineer built the galaxy, made animals, and people. So the explanation must be God! Because he doesn’t have a cause the explanation to his existence would be from necessity.

Premise 3
: The universe exists!

Conclusion: Therefore God exists.


I went ahead and organized this into case tags, for some organizastional clarity.

Case 1: The Rape story

"Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” --- Joseph

In the Bible there is a story about a man named Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers, and undergone a great deal of suffering before he became a ruler in egypt. However he had a very interesting statement, the quote above, he told his brothers that while they meant evil against him, God ultimately meant it for a greater good to get him into egypt. So that he can bring about salvation for them.

I’m saying there is a bigger picture that we can’t see. I can’t possibly give you an answer for every case of suffering (being beaten & raped, sold into slavery, death, torture, etc) Because I’m not God and do not know all things. However I do think he lets suffering happen to bring on a greater good.

Response: ”So how is any god good when they see evil, know of evil, and can end evil, but do not?”

“For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." --- GOD by prophet Ezekiel

God is not evil nor malevant, I think he is patient with people. He doesn’t take pleasure in killing people, this does include the wicked. However this does not mean that he isn’t going to put an end to evil down the road, so turn from your evil ways and live! For when a wicked man turns to righteousness his life will be saved!

CASE 2: God created sin through inaction

Inaction? No, he did tell them very specifically not to eat the tree, they didn’t listen. So he did take action by telling them. Also, if your story is true about Satan’s origins in that chronology, then Eve’s sin was not the original sin but satan had committed it before this event.And God was not bluffing.

CASE 3: Evil Against Sodom & Gomororrah

See Gen 19.

Earlier you talked about a woman getting raped, and son gettin shot. while we don't know all the evils of Sodom, the case of when the two angels showed is similar to it in the sense that it involves rape, and possible attempt at murder (Lott). But the difference is its in extreme excess, for it was a city wide gay rape on angels. Well in this case, God does do something, he destroys the wicked and saves the day. So why are you fusterated at him over this? You seem to be fusterated with him both ways, when he does something and when he doesn’t.

And don’t say they didn’t know that he existed, first of all that claim is completely baseless for does not nature show a designer? Also they could of asked the flood survivors about God (e.g Noah, Shem) and B even if this was true that they didn’t know who he was that is no excuse for their abhor abominations. The text says all the men in the city came for the angels, to have gay sexual intercourse (as if it were required by law for entrance in the city), they deserved what they had coming to them, how could they not know they did wrong? A city this wicked sends an invitation to destruction.

CASE 4: Evil against Egypt

Children had nothing to do with the crime? Actually thats not true, do you not know Moses’ origins? The egyptians had a practice of drowning jewish babies in the nile for “population control”. Its about time that they got the receiving end of the stick. For I say this was a show of mercy, for where the egyptians took all the male babies, God only took the firstborn when he could have taken all of them. And of course they heard of the force before, because of Joseph and the jewish slaves, they just didn't fear God enough.

As to hardening to Pharaoh’s heart. Tell me, does the potter have no right over the clay? To make of one lump for honorable use, and the other for dishonorable use? Suppose God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, used pharaoh to show the riches of his power to the people that were being saved(Jews)? That they may know that he is the almighty God.

CASE 5: Evil Against Ananias & Sapphira

What they did was lie to God. Learn and be wise, for he who lies to his maker is gravely stupid. For He hates a lying tongue. After all, lies were what screwed up his nigh-perfect creation. If you wish to live long on the earth, even if you have to cut out your own tongue, do not lie to God!

Debate Round No. 2


On the Logic of the Problem of Evil

If god is all knowing, then he knows that all evil exists and, being all-powerful, god can stop all evil. Being All-good, god would want nothing more than to end the evil as we know it. If I stood there and watched a woman and child be raped and, being well armed, there is no question I could stop it, then I would not be ignored from the crime or called good. I would be arrested and at the very least charged as an accomplice to the crime, as part of the crime. If we hold ourselves to higher standards than god holds himself, then god has extremely low standards for himself. It is impossible for god to be all-good (benevolent) if he sees the crime and does nothing about it. That is how these premises contradict each other. God cannot be good if he knowingly allows evil to exist, and since god is proclaimed to be good throughout the bible, it appears that it is a huge qualification for god to be good. Without that, he wouldn't be the Christian god. Therefore, we can assume that the Abrahamic God does not exist simply because he does not qualify to be the Christian god.

On "ArgumentIIA

According to your own bible, capitol punishment is not good in any case. when a man was brought to Jesus to be executed by stoning based on the 3 witness law of Deuteronomy, Jesus said "Let the one without sin throw the first stone." If we are all dead in our sin as the bible states, then capitol punishment is never right, even in the case of Saddam Hussein or Hitler. You can't kill a man because he kills another. Lock him up, torture him until he begs to die, leave him with minimal amounts of food and water, but no! Do not kill him unless you have been as perfect as Jesus.

What you are using as justification for Capitol Punishment is subjective morality, or that morality can be changed to a case to case situation and is purely a weighing of pros and cons. If morality is objective, then we could never kill another human being- not even in war. God himself uses subjective morality in killing people who do not honor him and in allowing Israel to wage war against its enemies.

Objective morality

Position 4: Morality is not simple, and sometimes certain moral "rules" as the pro calls do not apply in all frames of reference. (this position may be irrelevant depending on how he argues.)

Your statement above contradicts objective morality. Rules can be bent or broken based on a case per case issue. We reason what the morality of each case is and there is no basis of morality implanted in our hearts or minds. We are taught them from birth and there are several hypotheses that attempt to explain morality through evolution, one of which is very convincing and is based on social groups of animals. (

You see, objective morality is a set of laws that cannot be broken. But we see that God breaks these "laws" and that even my above set of rules can be accommodated for cases like Hitler or Saddam. Objective morality simply does not exist,

On argument three

On premise 1:

I agree with premise one in the sense that everything comes from something and nothing can come nothing. Though we do not know exactly how the Universe began, you cannot throw god into that gap simply because any god based on an argument of the gaps will eventually cease to exist like the Sun, Rain, and Wind gods of the past. Science will explain the beginning of the Universe given enough time- the fact that we do not know now is not evidence for any god.

On Premise 2:

A) It also seems rational that since everything has to have a creator, the creator himself would also have a creator. It doesn't make sense under premise one that god is eternal as since he exists, there must also be a cause to his existence! This argument contradicts the bible which claims god is eternal and that is simply illogical.

B) Intelligent Design is not evidence for any god. When you look out at the Universe, you see what seems to be a perfect set up for mankind, don't you think? All just for us. Every one of the Hundred Billion stars, galaxies, planets, black holes, asteroids that could destroy us at any time, stars dying showing that ours will someday die as well, the possibility of our climate suddenly changing and all life on Earth suddenly dying, and even the fact that we are on a gigantic rock hurtling through space around a huge ball of fusion energy and that we barely exist on the skin of that flying rock, it all looks as if it was perfect for us.

I hope you could detect the sarcasm there. You see, the universe was not made for us. If it was, the whole thing would be built for our bodies, perfectly suited for us to go out and explore space at our leisure. Not only would our climate be perfect for life on Earth (which it isn't), The whole Universe would be there just for more Earths in case we destroyed this one. Intelligent Design is ridiculous.

On Premise 3:

Well, duh, the Universe exists.

Conclusion: None of this points to god's existence. Under all this logic, God himself must have a creator and the bible states he is eternal in multiple places. This is illogical according to your own argument.


Case one: The Rape Story

Joseph never actually became a pharaoh or even a ruler of a town. He simply became an adviser and none of this is proven in the very recorded history of Egypt's reign. But anyways, the question is this: How does the rape and murder of a Mother and her child have anything to do with the big picture? If the big picture required the murder of these two presumably innocent people while god allowed it and watched it, then we ought to rebel against this "big picture" as it is even worse than Stalin's, who at least had a purpose behind his murdering.

Response to my quote:

Many people in Indonesia had never heard of the Christian god when the tsunami swamped them in 2004. Sure Missionaries had been there, but there were still uninformed people. Why did god kill them? Why, In Sodom and Gomorrah, were Children killed by fire and rock? Little Children who could not choose god in any way? God is in no way moral. For infanticide, the worst crime I can possibly think of, to be committed by an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing god, then god must be truthfully evil and cannot be anything but malevolent. There is no purpose to a baby's death. None. there is no purpose to allow children in Africa to starve when they will never hear his name. He allows for this evil and for every death that happens wrongly with no purpose whatsoever, god is that much evil.

Case 2:

Telling a baby not to eat a delicious looking peace of candy when he doesn't even know that eating that candy is wrong is like telling a dead tree not to fall- its going to happen unless you physically stop it. (How could we know that it is wrong to disobey god without knowing good and evil? Because he says so? Then why the need for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if we already had it?) When God sat there watching the snake convince Eve to take a bite, why didn't he stop the snake? Was the introduction of evil into his creation part of some big plan? It seems that what he had was perfect! We loved him and obeyed him without question. But instead he allowed the devil to do what he did. Why?

Another question still stands: God knew of everything that was going to happen, so why, knowing what Satan would do, did he not smite Lucifer when he had the chance? Moreover, why would there ever have been a battle? God can do anything! Why not kill Satan and save his creation? If Lucifer was Original Sin, why not destroy sin then and there? Why allow it to go on when he knew that was going to happen? Could he do nothing about it? Is satan more powerful than God? I and every Christian doubt that! So why did he allow it?

Case 3:

I am angry when god appears unjust and immoral. It is wrong to assume that even the Children were that evil. Ity bity little Children. Infants. Killed by Brimstone and Fire. What kind of justice is that? Even if the men of the city were gay and raping newcomers, then why not just kill them? A simple heart attack or a mass stroke session would have done the trick, but instead he killed even the infants. The Crime did not fit the punishment there.

I can say they didn't know he existed for there is no evidence that they did know. With the knowledge level of the time, yes it is correct that to look into the sky and see the stars would cause one to think there is a creator (though with the knowledge of now, Intelligent design is debunked.) However, would they not have their own gods then? Why would the Jewish God be better than their god? Why should they follow his rules over theirs when there was no evidence he existed! It just doesn't make sense to punish them for rules they had no knowledge of as this god was completely new to the world and the idea of one god was specific to the Jews. The rest of the world were polytheists. They didn't beg for a destruction- they just didn't even know he was there.

Case 4:

Children had nothing to do with the decision that rulers made long before they were born. If a man murders 10 people's children, do we put him in jail or do we leave the father alone and take his child to jail instead? Once again, God does not even stand up to Human morals.

Case 5:

I am running out of characters so that is why these two were covered so quickly. However, for the case of Ananias and Sapphira (too bad my favorite dragon's name came from the bible. Sniff), they didn't lie to god. They lied to Peter. It would actually seem in this case that the church killed the couple, but we are assuming that God is real so even then, why would god kill them for such a small lie when there were people being murdered and starving and dying? Hardly a just god.

My arguments are still valid.


Sorry if there are some typos, had to write this up in a hurry.


Argument I(A): The two premises do not contradict. (logic of problem of evil)

Tell me, you got the gun (the power), the knowledge of the crime, and a disposition to do good by stopping it, but a crime still happens, so logically you don’t exist, right? No.Just because evil exist doesn’t mean that good people can’t exist. And your conclusion is wrong, as it should be asking the question is the christian God the same as the abrahamic God? But you're not actually disproving his existence, you're just arguing that our interpretation of him being good is inaccurate. This isn’t a problem from logic, but a problem from emotions. Your emotionally hurt because God didn’t show up to stop a crime, not because he logically does not exist.

Argument I(B): There is Scripture evidence that says he does exist in a universe with evil.

Pro seemed to skip this response. So I assume he agrees with it.

Argument II(A): There are exceptions to the “rules”.

According to the bible comment. No the bible is very clear that capitol punishment is good. And you're taking that out of context, as this is the context of adultery. All men are adulterous. Heck, they frequently rape women inside their heads, and have all sorts of ungodly fantasies. Not all men are murderers, which is why its different. If you spill man’s blood, your blood should be spilt.

Objective morality does exist. The holocaust was immoral no matter that the nazis might of liked it. And no, the reason why God had Israel wage war was to drive out its inhabitant as they did all manner of ungodly things (e.g. sacrifice their children to gods) When we ask what is the actual right conduct (objective morality), the question is right conduct relative to what? This would be God, because he decides what is right.

You are incorrect in saying humans could never kill, because this doesn’t mean that objective morality does not exist, it would mean people are immoral. Which the Bible is very very clear on. Also capital punishment is not subjective, its biblical. Also not honoring God is immoral.

Argument II(B): God is the basis for Objective Morality

The problem with your argument is that your case actually needs Objective Morality to exist to reject God being good, for if it is not objective then you can’t possibly claim that God does not factually exist because you have an opinion that he isn’t moral not an actual fact (an objective moral argument), because in his view he is moral and so he exists So regardless you may or may not derail my arguments, you got the problem that you can’t can’t prove that God is not moral without an objective moral argument.

When I say objective morality what I mean is “actual right conduct” meaning what is right regardless of what other people think. When I say God is the basis of objective morality. I’m more or less saying “God is always right.” If God commands thou shalt not kill, you should not kill, and then after that god says kill whoever, you should do so. For whatever he tells you to do is the actual right conduct (objective morality). So because objective morality is based on a God, then there can be cases where God calls you do do something depending on what comes up. It also means that its impossible for God to be Immoral.

The problem with explaining it through evolution is that you can’t possibly say anything is objectively moral. For is sexual cannibalism wrong? You might say yes, but then a praying mantis might disagree with you. So who’s right, the mantis or you? Both and neither. For you evolved differently. Morality relative to evolution is more or less whatever you feel like doing, for morality is all but an illusion. If it were by evolution then you got a problem with evil, because it doesn’t really exist, it’s an illusion, so you can’t truly refute god’s existence because evil doesn’t exist!

Argument III: God does exist

Premise 1: Everyting that exist has an explanation to its existence.

Its been over 14 billion years, so far science hasn’t said anything. I’m getting tired of waiting. (BTW I say 14 billion yrs out of sarcasm not personal belief) And you also assume that science will explain the origins, which probably won’t happen anytime soon, or ever. But the problem is, we do know God exists, you can observe nature that there is structure, and complex systems that shows evidence of a designer. If science truly is based off of observation than an intellectual designer (GOD) seems more scientific than the big bang.

Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation for its existence, the explanation is God.

A)No, everything does not need a creator, because not everything is created, some things just exist from the nature of what they are. An example might be numbers, Its impossible for numbers not to exist because they aren’t contingent on anything. For if you wiped the entire universe out of existence, you have 0 universes, and zero is a number. They exist eternally, and out of necessity of their own nature. Likewise the abrahamic god would also exist out of necessity because he is eternal.

God is like this too, its really impossible for him not to exist logically. It’s undeniable that the universe does show intelligent design, because of people, animals, nature etc. The question isn’t how can you prove his existence, but how can you not prove his existence.

B)as to intelligemt design being ridiculous. You're assuming that the entire universe is designed for mankind if it were intelligently designed. This obviously is an incorrect view. As mankind was designed with having dominion over the earth in mind, so the entire universe does not need to be suited for them. Also the Bible does state that the heavens and earth would pass away, so you expect to find evidence that earth will pass away too.

Premise 3: The universe exists!

Conclusion: Therefore God exists.


Case 1: The Rape story

Hmm, rebel? no, that would be stupid. When someone does evil, we often think about the victim only instead of the wicked as well. For if God came down and instantly killed every person that sinned then no one would be alive. If you look at the results of Joseph’s case, even his brother were given hope even though they did evil by beating him and selling him into slavery. So to answer your question, bigger picture does include hope for the wicked and good.

And Joseph was a little bit more then an adviser, as he was set over all the land of egypt. (Gen 41:41). And there does exist some evidence that Joseph did exist because of the Bahr Yusef canal in Egypt, as it literally translates into “Waterway of Joseph”.

As to the Indonesia

Hmm, I can see as an atheist why you would be bitter at God. Death to you is more or less the ultimate evil because its the end of life. But for me, there’s an afterlife that is better, And I believe that infants aren’t going to hell. So they get to get raised in a better life, where there are no more bad people and have life everlasting.

The tsumani incident tells us something, it tells us that our world is broken. For it wasn’t God that killed them, it was the earth. We try to keep throwing God out, and saying we don’t want him, especially when we really need him. For if we humbled ourselves prayed, seeked his face, and turned from our wicked ways, He would heal our lands. And this catastrophe would not happen.

CASE 2: God created sin through inaction

Your analogy about the baby is tremendously flawed about the baby. As Adam & Eve were full-grown adults. In fact, as far as we know they could've been 800 years old. they had long life-spans back then (Adam died at age 930). And they already knew a basic form of right and wrong, because God told them not to eat the tree. Eve was an adult capable of making adult decisions, she’s was not a child when speaking to the snake.

CASE 3: Evil Against Sodom & Gomororrah

Well there is an assumption that children and babies did exist in this city, which we can’t really say what is possible in a city this wicked (who would want their kids born their anyway?) Fairly gay cities aren’t exactly that common. But lets assume there were babies, in my belief system I think that we’ll see them in the afterlife. So in a sense one could say that he was saving them by giving them paradise. If you’re planning on giving someone a heart-attack, I think its alright to turn them into a pillar of salt, or rain brimstone and fire, after all, heart attacks are just as bad. But the best way is head loppings.


As to them not knowing about the rules. Tell me, when you murder or rape someone and are taken to the judge and say you didn’t know it was wrong, does this mean you’re off the hook? It’s irrelevant if you’re stupid or not. So as judge, god had the right.

CASE 4: Evil against Egypt

I say skip jail and lop off the child murderer’s head! He didn’t have a problem with killing kids, why should we have a problem killing him?

God doesn’t stand up to Human morals? Aren’t the egyptians humans? And didn’t they think it was right to drown jewish babies? So this is human morals! Why are you judging God for using human morals when you yourself use human morals?

As I said before, In my belief is that babies do go to heaven. So in a sense he is sparing them from this life.

CASE 5: Evil Against Ananias & Sapphira

Most likely to remind christians that He doesn’t tolerate lying to him, So don’t lie to him.

Why did God kill them? They were testing what happpens when you do evil to God, in this case in the form of a lie. They were wanting to find out if they could get away with it. They got their test results back, death. Learn this, and don’t test the spirit that your life will proceed.

Debate Round No. 3


Jakeross6 forfeited this round.



It would seem that my opponent’s account is no longer active, sad. However, I thank him for this debate. As there was some good and emotionally compelling arguments on his end,

This is why I think I won. The problem with my opponent arguing that Morality is not objective is because then you can’t factually state that God is evil, nor can you fully define evil because its entirely based off an “opinion”. For example if I say “9 = nine”, then I’m stating that this is objectively true regardless of what you think because numbers are factual. But what if numbers was subjective? as in based on the opinions of others. So we ask Bob who is dyslexic and he thinks that “9 = 6”, because numbers are now subjective then” 9=6 and 9”. See the logical problem here? Its a paradox. For making a claim evil exists, and therefore God logically does not exist requires you to prove that despite whatever you think, X Evil is Evil. For if you say killing is subjective, then you can’t say God did any evil at all, because if you asked a serial killer if he thought killing was ok then killing would be ok, and if you asked a pacifist he would say otherwise, so killing is ok & wrong, so God does & doesn’t exist… See the logical problem? This is clearly a problem for pro because we aren’t debating that He probably does not exist, we are debating if he logically does not exist.

I’ll go ahead and show that I have kept all my positions and note that Pro couldn’t keep the topic.

Position 1: God is good.
Showed this through the story of Joseph, and God saving his people. Including the wicked brothers. Is this not good?

Position 2
: The Abrahamic God does coexist in a universe that has evil.

Proved this that the Bible does claim that evil does exist, and so does God. Which Pro dd drop in round 3.

Position 3: Position 2 is not logically impossible, but possible.
See position 2.

Position 4: Morality is not simple, and sometimes certain moral “rules” as the pro calls do not apply in all frames of reference. (this position may be irrelevant depending on how he argues.)

Obviously morality is not simple in either case, for subjective wouldn’t be simple from the weighing of pros & cons, and objective morality from trying to discern what is right from a pile of human morals.

Position 5: Gods morality is objective, and not subjective.
Now I do beleive that objective morality does exist, for surely when the nazis did the holocaust it was objectively wrong. For if God made the universe, surely he must of decided what is good and right. But if i'm wrong then Pro can't say God logically does not exist.

Position 6
: God does exist.
I have defended my position, by pointing out that not everything is created. But just simply exist because its impossible for them not to exist because of what they are (Numbers). And shown that entire universe doesn’t have to be designed for mankind. Just enough that we have dominion on the earth.

: “God is not moral and the Problem of Evil logically says he does not exist.”

Pro has two problems. Pro can’t possibly prove God is not moral if morality is subjective, nor is he able to claim that logically he does not exist if it's subjective. As i’ve shown earlier.

Because Pro did forfeit a round, that I kept all my positions, and shown that Pro couldn’t keep the Topic, then vote in favor of Con. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, and I thank Pro for debating against me.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
Ye, well on the other hand SC2 is a national sport in Korea (so was SC1) but ye, I could understand if you didn't like the game. I'm sure your having fun playing Command and Conquer franchise and Company of Heroes.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
That's mainly what the Command and Conquer franchise does- makes you move units and build buildings. Company of Heroes really gets into the history of WW2, providing quotes and summaries of the battles, then placing you in them. Company of Heroes Two, based on the Eastern Front, was very interesting and a large cause of my further research into that part of the war. And I got Starcraft 3 for Christmas one year. the game was one of the worst I've ever played.
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
Even though Starcraft 1 was made in 1998, it is my favorite computer game so far. Although I hate to play the regular 1v1/2v2/3v3/4v4, the maps that different SC players made are great. For example there are many maps of WW1, WW2, a Napoleon Total War, and World Diplomacy 1939. I have SC2 but I don't really like it.

I have never played Command and Conquer or Generals. Napo and World Total War arn't so great. Don't play them much. I thought I would like them, but it turns out that I would prefer something like Hearts of Iron 3. This is because I do not like fighting all of the complex battles in the Total War games. I prefer moving units.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
I never could get into the Starcraft series, though.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
I really enjoy the Command and Conquer series. My favorite of those is Generals (America kicks GLA butt), Generals: Zero Hour (America gets their butts handed to them by GLA and China has to take care of them), and soon Generals 2 will be out. Company of Heroes is a great series. How is Napoleon Total War and Hearts of Iron?
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
Ye, I'v heard of that game. I also like strategy games. I play StarCraft 1, Napoleon Total War, and World Total War. I want to get the game Hearts of Iron 3, also set during WWII.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
gryephon, I really hope you don't forfeit. I was hoping that htis would be a good debate
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Lol most people blindly believe by faith. I used to be one of those people. Speaking of which, Stalin, I was just playing Company of Heroes 2, a game set in the eastern front of World War 2
Posted by STALIN 3 years ago
God does not exist because there is no proof he exists. People became what they are now due to evolution, not because some god created them. And many religions have many different gods. Which one of them is the true god?
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Agreed. Just inform me on your final decision by commenting or accepting. I will cancel the debate if you decide to decline.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
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: FF
Vote Placed by Greematthew 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted all points of Pro excellently and Pro did good to establish some of his own, however it goes to Con because of forfeit as well.