God is not real
Debate Rounds (5)
God - a benevolent omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity that created the universe as we know it
The Bible serves as the word of God. As God is omniscient, we can infer that the Bible is completely correct using the rule of inference. Assuming that the God in question is benevolent and omniscient, why would God create Lucifer, supposedly the greatest enemy of God, if he knew beforehand that Lucifer would become a fallen angel? Why would God only create Adam in the beginning and wait for him to complain about being alone to create Eve? Why would God allow Satan entry into the Garden of Eden if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient? In the first few pages of the Bible, we as the reader are already presented with a cesspool of problems, all of which are contradictory to a "benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient" God.
Apple as knowledge
The apple in the Garden of Eden represents knowledge. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the Garden of Eden, they were ignorant to the point where they did not even know they were naked. When Eve eats the apple, after being tempted by Satan disguised as a snake, she suddenly realizes that she and Adam are not wearing any clothes. As a result, they are cast from the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's orders. Why would a benevolent God refuse knowledge to his creations?
Benevolent or pure evil?
In the Bible (which we assumed was 100% true), God states that those who accept him will join him in Heaven and those who don't will burn in the depths of hell. While my opponent and I are both fortunate to have access to resources that allow us to learn about God, what about those who don't? What about the people residing in countries where such knowledge is not available? Exceptions to this rule are not present in the Bible, thus we must assume that those people, regardless of circumstance are doomed to hell. Why would a benevolent God allow this to happen?
The only logical explanation to all of this is that God is simply a figment of one's imagination. A creation of one's mind.
Moreover you claim to comprehend the mind of this God in saying that if he were real, he would not do this or he would do that. This is a God that makes the rules themselves, it is entirely possible that we are wrong. Logic is a human creation and is our best attempt at explaining the universe before us. As such it is possible that we are wrong, which would be true if God's actions make no sense to us. If this God is omniscient, then it would surely know what does or does not make sense, meaning that we of course would be in the wrong.
The fact of the matter is that religion is based on interpretation and so we would never know what the Bible truly means, nor will we know what the initial message was considering humans were the ones that documented it. We have no idea what this God intended when scripture was written, and so to claim there are contradictions would be true, but would not disprove the God, but simply prove that either humans made mistakes when they wrote the Bible, or simply that what we perceive as sense and logic are simply wrong. It is extremely unlikely that what most Christians believe is in fact true as their idea of God is founded on their own opinions and interpretations, which being only human are probably wrong.
We may think that this God because of his rules is tyrannical and evil, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. There is no logical step from 'I don't like what he's saying' to 'therefore he must be wrong'. Of course things wouldn't make sense to us, considering we are not benevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent, and so have no possible means of empathising with a God. Regardless of whether you agree with scripture teachings, or if they don't make sense, this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but could mean that our view of morality, and our view of sense and nonsense, is wrong.
Nevertheless, I will refute the points that my opponent has brought up
~Different interpretations of morality~
"There is no reason to claim that we know the morality of this God, and so in his eyes any 'unjust' thing may be completely just". This is completely irrelevant. We may not know the 'morality' of strangers yet we still understand what is 'bad' or 'good'. While I must agree with my opponent on the fact that 'good' and 'bad' are both subjective terms, it can not be argued that mass genocide (Noah's Ark) is most definitely not the actions of a 'good' or benevolent God.
~We can't understand what God is thinking~
The argument that we as humans cannot comprehend the greatness that is God should be thrown out as it is what is considered as an 'escape hatch' argument. Such an argument is irrefutable because as of now humanity can not even confirm if a God exists let alone understand what this God's plan is.
~We can understand the Bible~
How can a Christian not understand the Bible, God's own words illustrating his plan for humanity? The answer to this question is: they can't. The Bible is perfectly understandable as it was designed to be understood by humans in order to understand God's master 'plan'. Moreover, you concede the point that the Bible has inconsistencies. However, you say that this is due to the fact that the Bible was written by humans and humans make errors. This point is also completely irrelevant. It does not matter who or what wrote the actual Bible because the Bible contains God's own words. Wouldn't an omniscient God make sure to proofread what his followers have written to ensure everything is 100% accurate? If you answered no to that question then you just contradicted yourself. If the Bible is not 100% accurate then you are using the Lord's name in vain which is forbidden by the Ten Commandments.
~Religion is NOT based on interpretation~
Religion is humanity living out God's plan. God only had one plan, thus any "interpretations" of Christianity that are a derivative from God's original plan can be considered as blasphemous. God's word is not open to interpretation as doing so would place you on a higher pedestal than God hereby removing this entity's title of "God".
~A tyrannical God does mean he does not exist~
The Bible consistently tells us that the Lord 'loves' us and only wants the best for us. We must assume that the Bible is 100% true due to the reason stated above. If this god acts in a tyrannical or evil way in any manner, we must assume that this God is not real or at least not as the Bible describes him.
Now you say it can not be argued that mass genocide would be done by a 'benevolent' creator, however why not? I would assume as you are an Atheist, that you don't follow an absolute morality, unless you are particularly fond of Kant's Categorical Imperative. I'm an Atheist myself, however even I can see that morality is entirely a social construct that makes society more stable. If everyone killed everyone and stole everything, it would be a disaster, and so fundamental rules are introduced that develop over time, and here we are agreeing that mass genocide is 'bad'. This is because if mass genocide was good, humans would be wiped out. However if there existed a God, his morality would be the the absolute morality, and whatever we believed would be wrong. If the creator of an absolute morality deems mass genocide okay, then that is how it is. It sounds horrible, it is horrible, but only from the perspective of a UK citizen in the 21st century. Heck even 1,000 years ago, genocide in the crusades was considered fine if with just cause. What we perceive as right and wrong may be wrong if there were an absolute morality, and so nasty things happening doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but simply that we are wrong.
You call being unable to comprehend the mind of God as an escape hatch argument, however if there were a God, are you honestly saying you would be on the same intellectual level? A sentient force that could see all and do all? I suspect not, and neither could I. We cannot say that our own confusion means that God doesn't exist.
It was not 'designed' to be understood by men, it wasn't like God wrote the Bible and handed it to Jesus where it was then distributed. The gospels were written by actual people a long time after the crucifixion, and so it is extremely likely that whatever words Jesus spoke or actions he did would not have been properly documented. This makes the Christian religion at least most likely a farce because it bases its services and prayers on texts written by old men years and years after the events. As a result it is impossible to guess what the desired message was. You ask again if an omniscient God would allow such a thing, I simply don't know. You would say no. I would say that I don't share this God's omniscience and so can't claim what he was thinking when he did things that we don't understand.
Religion is completely based on interpretation, are you joking? Everyone sees the Bible in a different light and takes a different message from it. Some people cherry pick good parts, others bad. As a result it means that everyone is probably wrong, but doesn't mean a God doesn't exist. You seem convinced that the Bible is the direct word of God, it simply isn't. It was not written by God and no one claims it to be. It was written by scribes who likely got things wrong.
Again you mention that if we don't like what God is saying he must not exist, it simply doesn't make sense. This God may show love in a different way to us, again we are only humans, and to claim that emotionally we are up there with the creator of everything would simply be nonsense.
I don't believe in a God, I would identify as an Atheist, but arguing logical fallacies in the Bible will get you nowhere. There is no reason to think that a God would follow our logic, and so even if he did exist, we still would have no idea why he did anything he did. In Amazonian tribes they glorify child sacrifice, something we would be repulsed by, and so we shouldn't be surprised if other barbaric (by our standards) acts are glorified by this God.
There is no way to even claim that God isn't real when you look for inconsistencies in scripture. All you can do is look at probability and conclude that God is so unlikely that you don't think he's there. This does not however 'mean' that a God doesn't exist. Your arguments all seem to imply that we ought to know how a God thinks. I ask why is this?
sw4994m0n forfeited this round.
Enough said I think: We cannot claim that God is not real because we simply don't know. Any claims that a particular God is real are very likely going to be wrong. Organised religion is thus illogical to its very core, however if a God does exist then our logic wrong. I think our logic, due to it being demonstrable, is correct and so live my life without a God. If you want to live your life logically, as I do, then don't believe, however this doesn't provide any evidence or argument that a God doesn't exist.
sw4994m0n forfeited this round.
You've all seen the arguments, vote as you wish. And by that, I mean vote con. :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.