The Instigator
CatholicApologist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God is the Most Logical Conclusion for our Existence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 42542
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

CatholicApologist

Pro

God can exist:

1. Refutation 1: Empirical Evidence is Necessary to Prove God

This is false. The idea:
1. Unless Empirical Evidence proves something to exist, it does not exist.
2. God cannot be proven using Empirical Evidence.
3. God does not exist

Problems: Using this logic, the existence of other minds, morals, and even the idea that the scientific method is the logical way to prove something exists is faulty. Because there is no empirical proof that or scientific evidence that states that all true beliefs that must be validated by empirical evidence, the argument I faulty. It proves itself wrong, and therefore is not valid. God can be proved using evidence other than empirical evidence.

2) Refutation 2: The Existence of Evil Proves God Cannot Exist

Argument:

1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil.
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore, God does not exist.

Problems: There is a missing piece to this argument that is necessary. The argument must be rearranged thusly:

1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil.
3. Evil exists
4. God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.

This is the only way the argument could properly work. If God has morally sufficient reasons for the existence of evil, however, then God can exist.

Refutation: God gave us free will to prevent the world from being a world full of robot-play things whose lives have already been planned out.
Since we have this free will, we can deny that God is responsible for sin. He did not program us like robots. Instead, we freely choose to create evil in the world. If he eliminated this free will, however, we would all be good. The problem? We are now robot-playthings of no value. Our actions would have no meaning, and God would have robbed us of our opportunities to be our heroic best.

3) Refutation 3: Pointless Suffering Disprove God

The essentials of this argument are simple. While God might tolerate some evils for a greater good (such as free will) there are other evils that seem to serve no greater good and are not a result of free will, such as Cancer, Hurricanes, and other things that kill millions a year. Therefore:

1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist.
2. Pointless evils exist.
3. God does not exist.

Answer: God has good reasons for allowing natural evils to exist. This is not to assume that we always know reasons that a particular evil has occurred. There are general reasons that show why God cold have for allowing us to suffer.
Examples include building our character and developing virtue, something that is impossible in the "toy world". Many virtues that make the world a better place are practiced in responses to evil. Consider:

Courage: Doing what is right in the face of danger
Compassion: Suffering alongside someone
Love: Putting your own needs ahead of your own

Some refute this way of thinking by saying, "Saying that God hurts me because he loves me is exactly what battered wives say when their husbands beat them."
This analogy does not succeed. An abuser hurts his spouse with the intention of causing her pain, because he enjoys the pain he causes. God does not desire the suffering of people on Earth just so He can watch them suffer. Rather God uses the suffering in our lives because he desires the greater good that can come from the suffering.

Overall Conclusion of Section 1: God can exist.

So the questin arises.. Does he exist? Is he the most logical Conclusion?

Consider:

4) Promotion 1: Why is there Something rather than Nothing?

This question, while simple, has many different aspects that can be argued. The basis for God is such:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence in itself or in something outside of itself.
2. The universe does not have an explanation for its existence in itself.
3. Therefore the universe has an explanation for its existence outside of itself.

In the above argument, premise one and two support the conclusion that the universe has an explanation outside of itself. That conclusion is then joined to another premise and yields the final conclusion:

4. Any explanation outside of the universe is God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Remember that the universe is just the total collection of all space, time, matter, and energy. Any explanation outside of the universe that involved more time, matter, space, or energy, would just involve the same universe whose existence we are trying to explain.

Therefore any explanation beyond the universe must be beyond space, time, matter, or energy"or what we call God.

In other words, if the universe has an explanation, and cannot explain itself, it follows that God explains why the universe exists. Since this logic is deductive, it means that if each of the premises are true, then the answer must be true with 100% accuracy.

By the principle of sufficient reasoning, the universe does have an explanation.

To say that the universe explains itself is to make the strong claim that the universe doesn"t just exist, but that the universe has to exist as a result of its own nature. Tow look further into this, look at God"s nature.

Some say that God needs a creator, who needs a creator, who needs a creator, and so on and so forth. Therefore God does not exist. This is not true, however. God does not need a creator because of his nature.

God is a being who explains his own existence. Asking what the existence of God is like is similar to asking what causes fire to be hot, or what causes triangles to have three sides. The answer is explained in the nature of the thing itself. Fire has a nature to be warm, triangles have a nature to have 3 sides, and God has a nature to exist.

Now consider the question: Why does the universe exist? Does it more closely resemble the question "Why is a triangle red?" or "Why does a triangle have three sides?" We can imagine that triangles aren't red, but trying to imagine a triangle without three sides is impossible. Because of this, the universe is more like asking why a triangle is red, since we can imagine a blue triangle as well as the universe not existing.
Since the color of the triangle is explained by something outside a triangle, and the existence of the universe is as contingent as a triangles color"it follows that the reason the universe exists must be found outside of the universe.
Note that explaining why each part of the universe exists, even in a "circle of explanation" (such as the multiverse theory or the Simultaneous Causation Theory), does not explain why an entire universe exists at all. That would be similar to trying to explain why a baseball game is being played by explaining what each player does.

Does the Explanation have to be God?

Well, if the explanation were another contingent object that existed in space and time, such as a parallel universe, then the explanation would itself be subject to the contingency argument. This is why multiverse theory, and other theories like it cannot work. This leaves the most logical explanation to be God.

5. Promotion 2: Did the Universe begin to exist?

This argument is called the Kal"m Cosmological Argument.
It is as follows:
1.Whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause for its existence.

This argument also relies on the Causal Principle: Out of nothing, nothing comes. Everything that we have observed has had a cause, and anyone who"s taken Chemistry knows that matter is neither created nor destroyed. Therefore all things that began to exist have to have had a cause, such as the universe.
This works only if the universe is not eternal, in which, since the universe never had a beginning (like God), it would not have to have a cause. The discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, however, proved that the universe cannot be eternal, therefore the universe had to have a beginning, meaning that the universe has to have had something to cause it to happen.

6) Promotion 3: Is God the Cause of the Universe?

Lets look at other explanations. Did the universe create itself? No, because no individual can bring about its own existence, because no individual can bring anything into existence unless it already exists.
The universe obviously cannot have been created by nothing, as shown earlier by the Causal Principle. The universe could not have been created by a "Force". First, forces exist within the space-time universe, so they could not be responsible for the creation of other objects in space-time. Secondly, the cause of the universe could not be some impersonal force because prior to the creation of the universe there could only exist a timeless, spaceless, unchangeable state of affairs. An eternal force can"t choose to make a non-eternal universe. Only a person can do that.

Various other arguments (short because of my limited characters):

7) Various aspects of the universe are designed specifically for intelligent life such as:
1. Gravity"any manipulation of gravity, and we wouldn"t be here.
2. Strong Nuclear force"if manipulated just 2% in either direction, everything would be Helium or Hydrogen (depending on the route you take)
3.Density of Matter: If the density of matter in the universe was slightly more or less dense, then we would either be spread out to far to create life, or crunched together in a compact orb of matter (dead).
4. The expansion rate of the universe: If the expansion rate was slightly changed, then life could not exist.

Sources: all statistics and research are quoted or modified from "Answering Atheism" by Trent H.
Terms for further debate:
1. The BoP is on pro, to show that God is the most logical explanation for our existance
2. FF's, count as conduct.
3. The Debate is considered a serious debate
4. This is the Catholic God
DudeStop

Con

"1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and pure.
2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil.
3. Evil exists
4. Therefore, God does not exist.

Problems: There is a missing piece to this argument that is necessary. The argument must be rearranged thusly:

1. God must be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.
2. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being could eliminate evil.
3. Evil exists
4. God can have no good reason to allow evil to exist.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.

This is the only way the argument could properly work. If God has morally sufficient reasons for the existence of evil, however, then God can exist.

Refutation: God gave us free will to prevent the world from being a world full of robot-play things whose lives have already been planned out.
Since we have this free will, we can deny that God is responsible for sin. He did not program us like robots. Instead, we freely choose to create evil in the world. If he eliminated this free will, however, we would all be good. The problem? We are now robot-playthings of no value. Our actions would have no meaning, and God would have robbed us of our opportunities to be our heroic best."

Sure, we can take this is as a common argument. And like Pro has shown us, it gets a common response. refutation to the refutation to the point I never made:
God gives us limited free will:
Let's this building example. One can:
Put there hand on the building
Paint the building
Walk into the building
But one cannot:
Jump over the building
Lift the building with there bare hands
Turn the building into a giant pink fluffy Unicorn with feathers.

If god have us free will, why am I not able to do the things my will desires?

That is also not the argument I use by the way. Usually one would use pain and suffering as evil. So:
God is supposedly pure, all powerful, and omniscient.
If god was all powerful, he would be able to destroy evil.
If god was pure, god would have the desire to destroy evil.
If god was omniscient, then he would know where to find evil.
Evil exists.
Because evil exists, god is ether not omniscient, not all powerful, and/or not pure.
If someone does not meet all of the traits then it is not god.
No one meets all these traits, because if they did, evil would not exist.
There is no god.

As for your other "Refutations, I'm not actually going to address them because it would take to much room, and I never brought them up. Seeing as I have never spoken these words or even wrote down most of the things he said, I hold no responsibility to refute his refutations to arguments I never made. I ask voters not to count it as a concession.

I will address your last arguments however, about how the only thing that could have caused the universe is god. You may have to skim though your book a bit.

LA Mitchels theory of Simultanious Causation:
Atoms a b and c, all having casual explanation, simultaniously cause each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A, the idea is that the cause and effect are simultanious.
Why accept god over simultanious causation?

The universe's precision can also be explained.

The multiverse:

This is the idea that we actually have multiple universes, rather than just one. Many of them are created, with different combinations. One day of course, we had perfect conditions for our life. This would explain how exact the universe is. Although it really isn't perfect for our life, considering the end of the world will happen in about a billion years. Also, why assume we can only have life in Carbon Based forms? Maybe if the universe was different, we could have a different life form arise.

[1] In order to prove there is a God, there has to be a need for a God
[2] There is no need for a God in order to explain the mechanics within the universe
[3] Therefore there is probably no God.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

We actually have Pro doing nothing to prove god here, all he attempts to do is reference some book for random arguments I never made. Now seeing as this is the Catholic God, I shall offer some You-Tube video's that are going to target the bible. Brace yourself.

http://m.youtube.com...

http://m.youtube.com...

Pro's argument that we need god has been refuted. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 1
CatholicApologist

Pro

"If god have us free will, why am I not able to do the things my will desires?"

This argument is flawed. What you will and what is logically possible is very different. God gives us the ability to choose what choices we make--That is free will. He did not create us so that we could do everything. Therefore my argument still stands.

"That is also not the argument I use by the way. Usually one would use pain and suffering as evil."

If Con had read the argument immediately after, he would have seen that I refuted this. Therefore I will show it to him again:
3) Refutation 3: Pointless Suffering Disproves God

The essentials of this argument are simple. While God might tolerate some evils for a greater good (such as free will) there are other evils that seem to serve no greater good and are not a result of free will, such as Cancer, Hurricanes, and other things that kill millions a year. Therefore:
1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist.
2. Pointless evils exist.
3. God does not exist.

Answer: God has good reasons for allowing natural evils to exist. This is not to assume that we always know reasons that a particular evil has occurred. There are general reasons that show why God cold have for allowing us to suffer.
Examples include building our character and developing virtue, something that is impossible in the "toy world". Many virtues that make the world a better place are practiced in responses to evil. Consider:

Courage: Doing what is right in the face of danger
Compassion: Suffering alongside someone
Love: Putting your own needs ahead of your own

Some refute this way of thinking by saying, "Saying that God hurts me because he loves me is exactly what battered wives say when their husbands beat them."
This analogy does not succeed. An abuser hurts his spouse with the intention of causing her pain, because he enjoys the pain he causes. God does not desire the suffering of people on Earth just so He can watch them suffer. Rather God uses the suffering in our lives because he desires the greater good that can come from the suffering."

Next: Con misinterpreted my "arguments that took up to much room" That was a title that contained what was below. I did not explain in detail the argument from design, and I was going to post a brief argument below that from Morals, but there was (literally) no room. This was not a reference to not brought up arguments, but an explanation of the brevity of the below argument(s). I merely had to remove one, making the statement awkward. I apologize.

"I will address your last arguments however, about how the only thing that could have caused the universe is god.

Why accept god over simultanious causation?"

"The universe's precision can also be explained.

The multiverse:

This is the idea that we actually have multiple universes, rather than just one. Many of them are created, with different combinations. One day of course, we had perfect conditions for our life. This would explain how exact the universe is. Although it really isn't perfect for our life, considering the end of the world will happen in about a billion years. Also, why assume we can only have life in Carbon Based forms? Maybe if the universe was different, we could have a different life form arise."

Other than Carbon Based life forms: My arguments from design was not based on only carbon based life forms. If those were tweaked NOTHING could live. There would be only Hydrogen, Helium, or and evenly spaced layer of atoms/big chunk of atoms compressed into a point the size of a period.
Next, if Con would have seen that I addressed the first bit in my first explanation. I quote:

"Remember that the universe is just the total collection of all space, time, matter, and energy. Any explanation outside of the universe that involved more time, matter, space, or energy, would just involve the same universe whose existence we are trying to explain. BOTH MULTIVERSE THEORY AND SIMULTANEOUS CAUSATION ARE BASED ON TIME, MATTER, SPACE , AND ENERGY, and therefore don't work logically.

Therefore any explanation beyond the universe must be beyond space, time, matter, or energy"or what we call God.

In other words, if the universe has an explanation, and cannot explain itself, it follows that God explains why the universe exists. Since this logic is deductive, it means that if each of the premises are true, then the answer must be true with 100% accuracy.

By the principle of sufficient reasoning, the universe does have an explanation.

To say that the universe explains itself is to make the strong claim that the universe doesn't just exist, but that the universe has to exist as a result of its own nature. Tow look further into this, look at God"s nature.

SOME SAY THAT GOD NEEDS A CREATOR, WHO NEEDS A CREATOR, WHO NEEDS A CREATOR, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THEREFORE GOD DOES NOT EXIST. THIS IS NOT TRUE, HOWEVER. GOD DOES NOT NEED A CREATOR BECAUSE OF HIS NATURE.

GOD IS A BEING WHO EXPLAINS HIS OWN EXISTENCE. ASKING WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS LIKEGod IS LIKE IS SIMILAR TO ASKING WHAT CAUSES FIRE TO BE HOT, OR WHAT CAUSES TRIANGLES TO HAVE THREE SIDES. THE ANSWER IS EXPLAINED IN THE NATURE OF THE THING. FIRE HAS A NATURE TO BE WARM, TRIANGLES HAVE A NATURE TO HAVE 3 SIDES, AND GOD HAS A NATURE TO EXIST.

Now consider the question: Why does the universe exist? Does it more closely resemble the question "Why is a triangle red?" or "Why does a triangle have three sides?" We can imagine that triangles aren't red, but trying to imagine a triangle without three sides is impossible. Because of this, the universe is more like asking why a triangle is red, since we can imagine a blue triangle as well as the universe not existing.
Since the color of the triangle is explained by something outside a triangle, and the existence of the universe is as contingent as a triangles color"it follows that the reason the universe exists must be found outside of the universe.
Note that explaining why each part of the universe exists, even in a "circle of explanation" (SUCH AS THE MULTIVERSE OR THE SIMULTANEOUS CAUSATION THEORY), does not explain why an entire universe exists at all. That would be similar to trying to explain why a baseball game is being played by explaining what each player does.

Does the Explanation have to be God?

Well, if the explanation were another contingent object that existed in space and time, such as a parallel universe, then the explanation would itself be subject to the contingency argument. This is why MULTIVERSE THEORY, and other theories like it cannot work. This leaves the most logical explanation to be God.

This refutes both of your arguments: until you can prove that my logic is faulty, my premise stands as true.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

I dismiss other arguments for 'their' gods because they are not logically sound. Is mine logically sound? So far, yes. Also, remember that just because some concepts of God are fictional does not mean that they all are. It is akin to stating, "we are all anarchists. I just reject one more form of government than you do."

"We actually have Pro doing nothing to prove god here, all he attempts to do is reference some book for random arguments I never made."

Random structure? I first proved God can exist, then that he is the most logical explanation using various arguments. I reference these arguments that you didn't make to prove my point that it is logical that God CAN exist. I then show that it is also the most logical explanation that he does exist.

Answer to the videos:
Video (Conversation with Yahweh)
This argument of parody incorrectly highlights several aspects in the ignorance of the person who created it. Catholicism believes that
1) Genesis is not a literal book
2) The first sin merely made our race 'fall', therefore unable to attain heaven.
3) even without original sin, we all sin, therefore we are unable to attain heaven.
4) The reason that we need to follow his commandments is because we agreed to a covenant with God
5) The reason most laws 'contradict' each other is because when Jesus completely fulfilled the covenant, he instituted a new covenant that supersedes the first.
6) We go to hell when we do not partake in the second covenant, which is required through the receiving of Baptism and Eucharist
If I missed something, please point it out, and I'll point out the flaw.

Other video:
points:
1) We are justified by works AND faith, and neither on their own
2) God does not tempt. He tests. There is a difference.
3) Yahweh's anger as an emotion does not last forever, but anger in judgement does
4) God's face: Genesis is not literal, Moses' eyes were shielded/God turned his back, No man has seen God in all his entirety,
5) Speed Round: Yahweh delights in burnt offerings offered with pure intent to repent, evil is better translated as disaster, Genesis is not taken literally, Same story two different opinions/story sides, Ecc 1:4 references judgement, not the end of the earth, John 3:13 :No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven, Deut. 5 9: the entire family is affected--even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, and so one. I don't have enough room to paste the entire NLV translation.

Con's biggest problem is that the Bible Con is using is not the correct translation. DON'T USE NIV!

Until Con provides evidence that my logic is flawed, my argument stands as valid. He has not yet done so, but merely ignored my argument and insulted my structure while attacking the Catholic Bible using a translation that we don't believe to be correct. As of this point, God's existence is the most logical explanation for our existence. While it is not the only existence, it is the one that is most likely and the most logica
DudeStop

Con

Have a happy Holiday!

Those were in fact, "RANDOM ARGUMENTS"
Random: odd, unusual, or unexpected.
So yes. your arguments are in fact random.
I stand by this statement.

"GOD IS A BEING WHO EXPLAINS HIS OWN EXISTENCE. ASKING WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS LIKEGod IS LIKE IS SIMILAR TO ASKING WHAT CAUSES FIRE TO BE HOT, OR WHAT CAUSES TRIANGLES TO HAVE THREE SIDES. THE ANSWER IS EXPLAINED IN THE NATURE OF THE THING. FIRE HAS A NATURE TO BE WARM, TRIANGLES HAVE A NATURE TO HAVE 3 SIDES, AND GOD HAS A NATURE TO EXIST"

Nope. It's like asking how the fire/triangle got there. It's not in anythings nature to just "exist"...

"If god have us free will, why am I not able to do the things my will desires?"

"This argument is flawed. What you will and what is logically possible is very different. God gives us the ability to choose what choices we make--That is free will. He did not create us so that we could do everything. Therefore my argument still stands"
Exactly my point mate. If god gave me the choice to do whatever I want, then why am I not able to do whatever I want?

"Because he did not create us to do everything"

Then it's not free will... Because I cannot do whatever I want... Thank You.

"The essentials of this argument are simple. While God might tolerate some evils for a greater good (such as free will) there are other evils that seem to serve no greater good and are not a result of free will, such as Cancer, Hurricanes, and other things that kill millions a year. Therefore:
1. If pointless evils exist, then God does not exist.
2. Pointless evils exist.
3. God does not exist.

Answer: God has good reasons for allowing natural evils to exist. This is not to assume that we always know reasons that a particular evil has occurred. There are general reasons that show why God cold have for allowing us to suffer.
Examples include building our character and developing virtue, something that is impossible in the "toy world". Many virtues that make the world a better place are practiced in responses to evil. Consider:"

"Courage to do what's right in the face of danger"
So according to you, these deeds are justified in a way for they will give the other person "Valuable" attributes to help them in their future. Notice that god does not just put these traits inside of us, avoiding the countless of human's mass murders, wars, torture, r*pes, slow deaths... God allows these things to happen because he thinks it is the BEST WAY to give us these traits! Even though the people involved in each of these will either be scarred for life or mercilessly killed, so therefor even though they had to go through all that suffering they do not receive anything, it is for the greater good of someone else! So... That would mean that god values others lives over everyone who has pointlessly died. Is that correct pro? Do you actually think that these deeds people commit give us courage? Consider:
Ridiculous, sickening, and immoral.
"Suffering alongside someone"
Oh yes, clearly. God wants us to suffer alongside someone, that gives us a "Greater good" You see it was bad enough when it could have just been one person, but god decides that both people need to suffer. So that they can be scarred for life together. Really? Is it true that someones love for one another increases when you and them both get tortured and starved to near death at some war camp? Is it a greater service that god is doing us there? Why not have the two people bump into each other and start talking, rather than having them both suffer?
"Putting your own needs ahead of your own"
I don't know how exactly one will succeed in putting their own needs ahead of their own needs, but let's move on.

"Therefore any explanation beyond the universe must be beyond space, time, matter, or energy"or what we call God.

In other words, if the universe has an explanation, and cannot explain itself, it follows that God explains why the universe exists. Since this logic is deductive, it means that if each of the premises are true, then the answer must be true with 100% accuracy."

No. Let me show you something called retro causality:
This is the idea that the effect can happen before the cause. Such a thing is observed in quantum mechanics [http://arstechnica.com......] [http://arxiv.org......]. Why couldn"t this be the cause?
Why accept God over retro-causality?

The effect could have come before the cause, meaning pro's logic has a loophole. Thank You.

Also, about the greater good: Some evil is actually greater than the "GOOD" ahead of it. There are better ways to achieving that good rather than killing people off.

ANOTHER VIDEO:
https://m.youtube.com...
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
Debate Round No. 2
CatholicApologist

Pro

"Nope. It's like asking how the fire/triangle got there. It's not in anythings nature to just "exist"...

If you do not have a logical flaw in my argument, then you cannot prove me wrong. Just saying I"m wrong is not enough. How do you know that it isn"t in something"s nature to just "exist" as you put it? That is part of what we believe about God. It's like saying that nothing has a nature to have three sides. That's what we believe about triangles. There must be proof against it.

Then it's not free will... Because I cannot do whatever I want... Thank You."

Con misunderstands. The definition of free will is to make a choice to do what you wish. It does not state that everything you try to do will be feasible. Example: I can jump off the building in an attempt to fly, but flying is physically impossible to humans and ILLOGICAL. Please stay within the bounds of logic. God is logical, the world is logical, and so must be free will. You are saying God made us all-powerful by giving us free will. This is untrue. He merely gave us the freedom to choose what we try to do.

Answer: God has good reasons for allowing natural evils to exist. This is not to assume that we always know reasons that a particular evil has occurred. There are general reasons that show why God cold have for allowing us to suffer.
Examples include building our character and developing virtue, something that is impossible in the "toy world". Many virtues that make the world a better place are practiced in responses to evil. Consider:"

"Courage to do what's right in the face of danger"

"So according to you, these deeds are justified in a way for they will give the other person "Valuable" attributes to help them in their future. Notice that god does not just put these traits inside of us, avoiding the countless of human's mass murders, wars, torture, r*pes, slow deaths... God allows these things to happen because he thinks it is the BEST WAY to give us these traits! Even though the people involved in each of these will either be scarred for life or mercilessly killed, so therefor even though they had to go through all that suffering they do not receive anything, it is for the greater good of someone else! So... That would mean that god values others lives over everyone who has pointlessly died. Is that correct pro? Do you actually think that these deeds people commit give us courage? Consider:
Ridiculous, sickening, and immoral.

"Suffering alongside someone"

Oh yes, clearly. God wants us to suffer alongside someone, that gives us a "Greater good" You see it was bad enough when it could have just been one person, but god decides that both people need to suffer. So that they can be scarred for life together. Really? Is it true that someones love for one another increases when you and them both get tortured and starved to near death at some war camp? Is it a greater service that god is doing us there? Why not have the two people bump into each other and start talking, rather than having them both suffer?
"Putting your own needs ahead of your own"
I don't know how exactly one will succeed in putting their own needs ahead of their own needs, but let's move on.

I think Con doesn"t understand the basis of this argument. In the so-named toy world of no free will, We would not be able to exhibit these emotions or qualities. Are these emotions/qualities bad? No, actually they are considered very good qualities. While I did not state that it was fun, or pleasant to have these emotions or qualities, I did say that these emotions/qualities allow us to EXIBIT (not give, this is very important) these traits, thus allowing us to show the higher quality that we can be if we try. We don"t need to succeed, but instead try to make the world a better place, or impact someone"s life in a good way.

"No. Let me show you something called retro causality:
This is the idea that the effect can happen before the cause. Such a thing is observed in quantum mechanics [http://arstechnica.com.........] [http://arxiv.org.........]. Why couldn"t this be the cause?
Why accept God over retro-causality?"

First point: neither of your links led me to the page necessary to explain it, even after searching them.
Second Point: After examining the theory from another source, this jumped out at me. I quote: "You wouldn't be able to talk about altering, but you could talk about causing or affecting," says Phil Dowe, an expert on causation at the University of Queensland in Australia. While it would mean we cannot change the past, it also implies that we cannot change the future."

While this might appear to say that you could cause the universe into existence, this is not the case. That would be altering the time-stream in which there would be no universe. You would not be able to change the past in which there would be no existence of the universe. Furthermore, to cause the past to create a universe, you would have to create matter, which, unfortunately, is impossible.
Therefore, my good sir, you are back to the drawing board on this argument, while I have not yet changed mine.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com...

"Also, about the greater good: Some evil is actually greater than the "GOOD" ahead of it. There are better ways to achieving that good rather than killing people off."

Like what? I understand that people dying isn"t awesome, but are you considering permanently maiming people for life to be any better? When does something become "better" in terms of evil? So in your terms if natural disasters just blinded everyone for life they would not be evil? It isn't logical.

"ANOTHER VIDEO:
https://m.youtube.com...;

Refutation:
1.God can exist outside of what we consider "reality". We can only observe space, time, matter, and energy. The video does nothing however, to prove that something cannot exist outside of what can observe. See my argument from empirical evidence.

2. God did not create us primarily to worship him. He created us to share in his being (love). By worshiping, he shares his being with us, thus sharing his very divinity with us. It"s quite the gift.

3. God explained himself to us in the best way we could understand him, but if he made it completely apparent that he existed then there would be those who would revolt because of his apparent "dictatorship". He does not want to be an absolute ruler, but merely for us to share in his grace. He wants everyone to choose him, but doesn"t want people to deny him for something that He isn"t (a dictator).

4. Prophesies are only true if they come true. While I know Con does not believe that the New Testament"s prophesies were fulfilled, I believe they were in Jesus. Con has no evidence against Jesus at this point, and there is evidence that they exist. If necessary, I will bring this up.

5. Deeper into prophesies: If wars, famines, and mockerers are common, then it would be reasonable to assert that the prophesies are referring to an abundance that has never been seen before. Or, if you don"t accept that answer, consider that God might not have been prophesying, but merely reminding/warning them that it will not be easy, nor has it ever been.

I enjoyed the video. Even though I disagreed with it, It was funny :)

Merry Christmas!
DudeStop

Con

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
CatholicApologist

Pro

CatholicApologist forfeited this round.
DudeStop

Con

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.