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

God loves us

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 755 times Debate No: 61567
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




1st round acceptance


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


If GOD didn't love us then GOD wouldn't have given us a chance to go to heaven or he wouldn't have made us unique and special.


Thanks to Pro for starting this debate.


As expected, the burden of proof lies solely with Pro as he is affirming a positive statement, "God loves us." There are several important things he must do in order to meet this burden. First, he must establish that "God" actually exists, for if God does not exist, the resolution where "God" is committing an action is impossible. Second, he must prove not only that a god exists, but because he has capitalized the "G," which god he is talking about and prove that this god exists, and every other religion must be wrong. Third, he must be able to prove that God loves "us." If he is unable to prove any or all of these claims, you vote Con. I believe we can safely make the assumption that he is referring to the Christian, Tri-Omni God, so I'm going to base my constructives around that. This means that, if I manage to disprove any of the traits this God has -- omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omniscience -- then he does not logically follow and thus, for our purposes, does not exist. Note that this is far beyond my burden in this debate.


Pro doesn't utilize much space in his opening arguments, so I'm going to rebut his case and then move into my own constructives. Pro states, "If GOD didn't love us then GOD wouldn't have given us a chance to go to heaven or he wouldn't have made us unique and special." There are several demonstrable problems with this statement that allow us to discard it immediately. First, it is a begging-the-question fallacy, otherwise known as circular reasoning: "You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise. This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given" [1]. Of course, the argument presupposes not only God's existence, but that he "gives us a chance to go to heaven." For this to be true, heaven must exist, but Pro provides us not evidence for this, or even clarification as to which heaven he is referring to. Second, he claims that God made us "unique and special." However, he provides no evidence for the claim at all. "Unique" means "having no like or equal; unparalleled; incomparable" [2]. For this to be true, we would all have to be one-of-a-kind, though Pro not only fails to prove this, but fails to account for how this leads us to the conclusion that God must exist. "Special" means "distinguished by some unusual quality; especially : being in some way superior" [3]. The problem with this is that it entices us to ask, "superior relative to what?" or "unusual or distinguished relative to what?" Pro fails to give us answers, or to demonstrate how this leads us to God. Even if he proved uniqueness or specialness objectively, to assert that either of these lead us to the conclusion that God must exist would be a non-sequitur fallacy: "Non formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion" [4].


I. No Evidence for God

The person affirming the existence of God always has the burden of proof, but this burden is impossible; no such evidence for God exists or has existed because the queston of god, and by that I mean any god, has no truth value. This is an impossible burden for Pro to fulfill.

II. Which God?

There are about 4,200 religions in the world [5]. Pro has capitalized "God," meaning that he referring to one specfic God, and therefore he must be able to show us why his God is more plausible than any other God. Why isn't the correct God, for instance, the flying spaghetti monster? There is as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster as there is for the Christian God.

III. "God" Implies a Personal God, which means the Riddle of Epicurus is Applicable

Pro has chosen not to argue for an impersonal, deistic god, but rather a personal God who intervenes and actively watches over our lives. Therefore, he must be capable of defending against the Riddle of Epicurus:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" [6]

For simplicity, this argument can be syllogized as follows:

P1) If God is omnibenevolent, he has a desire to put an end to ruthless, unwarranted suffering.
P2) If God is omnipotent, he is able to put an end to ruthless, unwarranted suffering.
P3) Ruthless, unwarranted suffering exists.
C1) Therefore, God is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

P1 is true per the definition of omnibenevolence.

P2 is true per the definition of omnipotence

P3 is prima facie true, and Pro would have no reason refuting this as, if he is arguing for the Christian God, he affirms the existence of suffering through the depiction of Jesus' death.

C1 follows from P1, P2, and P3.

IV. The Existence of Evil

I'm going to begin by rendering Christian doctrine and bringing us toward its logical conclusion, proving why it is logically impossible.

P1) God created the universe
P2) The universe contains evil
C1) God created evll

P1 would be true by the definition of God my opponent is defending.

P2 is prima-facie true.

C1 follows from P1 and P2

But God is omnibenevolent, so he shouldn't be able to create evil, meaning that the mere existence of evil invalidates his existence.

V. Omnibenevolence and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive

This contention follows from Contention 4.

P1) If God is omnipotent, he can create evil.
P2) If God is omnibenevolent, he cannot create evil because he is all-good.
C1) God cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

P1 is true by the definition of omnipotence

P2 is true by the definition of omnibenevolence

C1 follows from P1 and P2

VI. Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive

P1) If God is omnipotent, he is capable of having free will.
P2) If God is omniscient, he can predict his actions with 100% accuracy and therefore does not have free wil.
C1) Therefore, omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

P1 is true by the definition of omnipotence

P2 is true by the definition of omniscience, whereby God has perfect knowledge of the past, present and future.

C1 follows from P1 and P2

VII. The Omnipotence Paradox

This argument is simple: can God create a rock that is so heavy that even he can't lift it? If the answer is yes, he is not omnipotent because he wasn't able to lift the rock. If the answer is no, then he still isn't omnipotent because there was something he couldn't do. Therefore, omnipotence isn't possible.


I have refuted all of Pro's contentions and provided seven constructive arguments that take me well beyond my burden in this debate, logically disproving God. With that, I await Pro's reply.

Debate Round No. 2


O.K. first of all I never said every other religion is wrong and I will also start of by saying, why do you hate GOD and think he doesn't love us and I'm sorry if something bad happened to you but that is not GOD, that is Satan.

The proof for GOD lies solemnly in faith just like the fact the you believe that there is no GOD or if you believe in any other religion you need faith. I could say the bible is proof that GOD exist but you might not believe in the bible so you could easily say that the bible could be made up as far as we know. I am talking about the christian GOD. I will start with The Ontological argument which says " The idea that God doesn't exist is just as absurd as the idea that a four-sided triangle does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God doesn't exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. Just as knowing what "triangle" means makes it obvious that a four-sided triangle is impossible, the argument suggests, knowing what "God" means makes it obvious that God"s non-existence is impossible. The claim that God does not exist is self-contradictory." and there is proof for God and It lies in the bible and as I said earlier you may not believe in the bible so I am not going to go on and on about it.

Now for my rebuttals, My proof that God made us unique and special is that we are the only animal that is able to talk and our body is way more complex than any other animal in this world. The bible says In Genesis 1:27 " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Evil is not a thing it is just the absence of good, you can not have a jar of evil just like cold does not exist and darkness does not exist, they are just the absence of heat/light. God did not create evil but he allows evil through free will. If there was no evil then God would not give us free will because we would be worshiping God through obedience not free will if this world was perfect. God put us on Earth so we could have a choice to either worship him or to disobey God because God did not want robots. We can never fully understand why an infinite God does what he does in our finite minds and that is because we are limited but God is not limited.

For the stone paradox or the omnipotence paradox, God is beyond our knowing and he is infinite so he can do the logically impossible like create a stone he can't lift and lift it.


BobTurner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


go ahead you can still go


BobTurner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by funnycn 3 years ago
Even though Con forfeit last round, he brought up a better argument.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
God created man. Man created religions. That is why there are so many.God gave us just two covenants. The Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant between God and Jesus.Jesus walked for 33 years in the Abrahamic covenant. Walked perfectly. Never sinned. Then he took sin in his spirit. Not his sin, but ours.Suffered for three days and when the price was paid, was raised ferom thr dead to place a new covenant in the very domain of hell.Satan was no longer god of this world.He was stripped of his authority . Jesus said, ALL authority has been given to me, therefore YOU go and tell people that I , who was once dead , is alive and I have the keys of death hell and the grave.Those who believe you shall be saved, those who don't, won't.

Jesus is the very embodiment of love.He has made us free from sin, sickness demons and fear. All we have to do is walk in the freedom he provided for us. He said, " If you continue in my word, you will be disciplined like me, and you will know the truth and the truth will make you free.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
There you go again bob, words that have no value.
Posted by BobTurner 3 years ago
I challengd you to a debate, cheyenne, and you never accepted. Hush.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
That bob turner sure is a long winded fella.Too bad he says little that has value.
Posted by Boesball 3 years ago
I wanted to see Christian V other religion or another christian here. Not christian V atheist....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Had he continued, Con would have had a very good chance, but Pro wins due to forfeit.