The Instigator
DebateSpirit
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

God unjust because He let non-believers go to hell afterlife?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,561 times Debate No: 9468
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

DebateSpirit

Con

Hello, and welcome whoever accepted this debate.

To begin with, I'll start with some definitions:
_God: 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. (Christian Science). the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
_Hell: 1.the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits.
_Unjust: 1.not just; lacking in justice or fairness: unjust criticism; an unjust ruler.
_non-believer: a person who lacks belief or faith, as in God, a religion, an idea, or an undertaking.
_afterlife: life after death.
( dictionary.com )

A person, ladies and gentlemen, always need 2 things, love and discipline. I believe in your life time, there were times when you got grounded, even got beaten up by your parents, I understand that. But why did they do that? Why did they do that when you done something wrong? Why did they lock away your phone, your XBox, TV, forbid you to hang out with friends in months, why? It's because you deserve it, it's a warning for you that say: "Hey! If you do that, there will be a consequence."

Hell, as the definition above stated, is a place to punish the wicked afterlife. Yes some of us think that we're fine, good, just, perfect but the fact is that we're not, Heaven can't tolerate sins, if you clean your house up do you want your kids or your husband to step their dirty shoes in? No.

That's why God can't be call unjust just because He let people choose their own way to Hell or Heaven, that's in a matter of fact, is a right decision from God.
Danielle

Pro

Definitions:

God -- Omniscient [All-knowing] ; Omnipotent [ All-powerful] ; Omnibenevolent [All good]

Con's Argument:

God cannot be considered unjust for sending people to Hell; It was their own choices that led them to their fate.

My Rebuttal:

First off, Con's sole argument is irrelevant to the resolution, which specifies that the people up for discussion should be limited to non-believers (those who do not believe in God's divinity) - not just people who sin and are punished for their sins. In that case, I'd argue that it would be entirely unjust for non-believers to be punished for something out of their control. For instance, most people learn their faith from their parents and families. If they are not exposed to a religious doctrine or environment, chances are they would not know of or believe in the very scripture which my opponent is trying to defend. How can Con justify punishing people for being born into a situation out of their control?

Furthermore, one cannot help whether or not they TRULY believe in something. For instance, no matter how hard I try to convince myself to believe in Santa Clause, or even a concept such as homophobia (supporting that ideology), I simply cannot based on a violation of intrinsic logic and reasoning that I cannot suppress no matter how hard I try. In other words, you cannot force yourself to believe in something if you simply don't. You can try as hard as you'd like, but this is something that you simply can't control. So again, I affirm that any God who would punish someone for something out of their control is an unjust God.

Moving on, I accept my opponent's proposed definitions and in addition submit the three qualities universally attributed to the Abrahamic, monotheistic God; a God that is indeed all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good. We will proceed in assuming that my opponent will accept these definitions, as he has already cited God as having similar attributes. That said, let us proceed with the argument assuming that someone did actually believe in God (veering off the resolution at hand, specific to my opponent's contention) and applying His traits to the argument.

I affirm that the Abrahamic God possesses all of these attributes based on the following observations --

1. If God cannot always know what is going to happen today, tomorrow and forever, then God could be wrong about the things that He has prophesied and promised will happen. If that is true, then we can have no confidence in Him or His promises. Since God is the Truth, that simply doesn't fly according to John: 17:17.

2. Ephesians 1:4 says that God has chosen us before the beginning of the world. If God allows freedom of choice and doesn't know how these freedoms will be exercised, how could He know with any certainty that we would even come into existence, let alone have chosen us before the beginning of the world? Again, this simply cannot be a valid circumstance. So, we must hypothesize that God in fact knows every choice that we will make before we are ever created, and presumably before Creation itself.

3. Psalm 139:4 describes God as knowing everything about me and all of us in stating, "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely." It seems to me that this suggests a "complete" knowledge of what I will say and do in the future, thus further establishing my point about God's omniscience. John 3:20 further establishes this point in stating, "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

4. If God knows what I am going to say and do before I do it, then God should change His plans/circumstances in order to prevent anything bad from ever happening because he is omnibenevolent, i.e. all-good. Yet in Samuel 15:29, the Bible asserts that God never changes his mind.

5. Revelation 19:6 in the King James Version of the Bible asserts, "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." Matthew 28:18 also exhibits, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This is all pretty straight forward if you ask me.

So, we can conclude that God all-knowing God who knows the very thoughts, acts and character that one will possess before they are ever created, and yet He allows them to be created anyway. He does nothing to alter their choices even though he is all-powerful and could potentially prevent the reality of sin. So, in a sense God is ultimately responsible for the very sins he punishes people for committing. If the people were never created, they wouldn't sin in the first place. Moreover, if God altered the circumstances for those people, again the sins would be avoided.

The next part of my argument rests on the reality that free will is an illusion thereby negating any free choice that an individual might make I assert that free will is indeed a false ideal based on these premises: First, everything in the universe (including people) are governed by the laws of nature, and are subject to the physical laws that control everything around us. Because of that indisputable fact, it is obvious that every action has a previous cause. Even the choices that we make are selected based on previous states of the universe. For instance, if I order an LIT at the bar, it's either because I've tried them before and liked them, someone recommended it to me, they were having a special on LITs that night, etc.

As you can see, my choice was not really a free one but rather the result of previous states of nature or choices that others have made. Because I have no control over the choices that were previously made (which dictated my choices) or the laws of nature which everything and everyone are subject to, it is reasonable to conclude that while we indeed have the power to make various choices, these choices are not at all free. We do not have free will.

Because we do not have free will, again it is unfair and unjust for an all-knowing God to create beings with the inability to freely choose their own destiny. Because we are all created in God's image, and God knows that we will go to Hell before we are even created, he is making the decision to create us anyway despite knowing our torturous and eternal fate. I'd like my opponent to explain to me how that is reminiscent of a God that is all-good. Even suggesting that going to Hell is some kind of pay back for our sins, surely there is no sin on earth that is deserving of such a harsh and wretched punishment! Moreover, even if we do require some kind of discipline in order to be fulfilled human beings, shouldn't God's benevolence be of a higher moral code than revenge or punishment? Note that being damned to Hell is of much harsher consequence than a meager spanking or relinquishment of TV by your parents.

So, in conclusion of the first round, I submit that it is unfair for God to send people to Hell in all of its agonizing existence for eternity as a punishment for whatever sins they may commit in a mere human lifetime... Especially because God is not only responsible for the creation of those people, but their choices and the circumstances that led to those choices in addition with the very fact that He could have prevented such sins and punishment from ever occurring. In order to win this debate, my opponent would have to prove that people have chosen their sins, non-belief or choices freely, in addition to the fact that such a crime committed on earth warrants the penalty of eternal damnation. Moreover, Con will have to prove that God choosing to grant life and give someone a "soul" was the good and proper choice even knowing that this soul would never achieve peace in this life or beyond. I wish my opponent the best of luck and look forward to a great debate.

Source:

Bible Quotes: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DebateSpirit

Con

Thank you for my opponent argument, sorry for posting this late.

"First off, Con's sole argument is irrelevant to the resolution, which specifies that the people up for discussion should be limited to non-believers (those who do not believe in God's divinity) - not just people who sin and are punished for their sins. In that case, I'd argue that it would be entirely unjust for non-believers to be punished for something out of their control. For instance, most people learn their faith from their parents and families. If they are not exposed to a religious doctrine or environment, chances are they would not know of or believe in the very scripture which my opponent is trying to defend. How can Con justify punishing people for being born into a situation out of their control?"
_ First of all, I think my opponent had gone out of the topic, my topic is "God punishes NON-BELIEVERS...", not the unknown. non believers as I had stated the definition are the people who "lack belief or faith, as in God, a religion, an idea, or an undertaking.", how can you don't believe in something if you don't even know it? The Bible also said in Romans 2:11-14 "2All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)", God will not punish those who ignorant of Christ.

"Furthermore, one cannot help whether or not they TRULY believe in something. For instance, no matter how hard I try to convince myself to believe in Santa Clause, or even a concept such as homophobia (supporting that ideology), I simply cannot based on a violation of intrinsic logic and reasoning that I cannot suppress no matter how hard I try. In other words, you cannot force yourself to believe in something if you simply don't. You can try as hard as you'd like, but this is something that you simply can't control. So again, I affirm that any God who would punish someone for something out of their control is an unjust God."
_ Why did your parents give you presents in Christmas? Secretly put it so you can see it in the morning? To convince to you that Santa is true. So is God, to say that you turn around you, look at the nature, the complexibility of life and to say that God does not exists, that takes a great leap of faith to believe so. God makes His presence obvious, clearly, transparent, translucent, it's your choice to either look at those wonders and say: "There is no God" or admit "There is a God."

"1. If God cannot always know what is going to happen today, tomorrow and forever, then God could be wrong about the things that He has prophesied and promised will happen. If that is true, then we can have no confidence in Him or His promises. Since God is the Truth, that simply doesn't fly according to John: 17:17."
_ All actions of human's lives had been known by God, I don't see why His prophesies can't come true. If human actions had been records in His hands, He knows what will happen, then that will helps Him even more to fulfills His prophesies, because the prophesies themselve had also, already created ahead of the future itself.

"2. Ephesians 1:4 says that God has chosen us before the beginning of the world. If God allows freedom of choice and doesn't know how these freedoms will be exercised, how could He know with any certainty that we would even come into existence, let alone have chosen us before the beginning of the world? Again, this simply cannot be a valid circumstance. So, we must hypothesize that God in fact knows every choice that we will make before we are ever created, and presumably before Creation itself."
_ I suggest we should read that part again: " 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:"
So did God chosen each individuals before the beginning of earth? No, but rather He had chosen that CLASS of people since the beginning of earth, a standards that had been created before the foundation of earth. Should you remember God didn't choose Moses or Abraham alone, but rather the whole Israel, for they're the CLASS of people the God had chosen, the ones that had succeeded His standard.

"3. Psalm 139:4 describes God as knowing everything about me and all of us in stating, "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely." It seems to me that this suggests a "complete" knowledge of what I will say and do in the future, thus further establishing my point about God's omniscience. John 3:20 further establishes this point in stating, "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things."

4. If God knows what I am going to say and do before I do it, then God should change His plans/circumstances in order to prevent anything bad from ever happening because he is omnibenevolent, i.e. all-good. Yet in Samuel 15:29, the Bible asserts that God never changes his mind."
_ God also give people the free choice to do things as they want, a love without freedom is not a good love, and because God loves you, He gave you a total freedom in your life for you to be able to choose, God or sins. Also God want. Also God do want good things to happen to you, but in His will. For example, if Hitler prayed: "God, help my army to destroy the Americans, and I'll convert to Christianity...", it is good for Hitler to become a Christians, but it will be totally barbaric for God to grants Hitler wish, therefore, He didn't.

"So, we can conclude that God all-knowing God who knows the very thoughts, acts and character that one will possess before they are ever created, and yet He allows them to be created anyway. He does nothing to alter their choices even though he is all-powerful and could potentially prevent the reality of sin. So, in a sense God is ultimately responsible for the very sins he punishes people for committing. If the people were never created, they wouldn't sin in the first place. Moreover, if God altered the circumstances for those people, again the sins would be avoided."
_ He can, but He didn't. God will responsible for all these if God forces you to do the crime, but since God didn't, it's not His responsible that you committed a crime. God had given you the Bible, teach you what's wrong, what's right, establishes churches, go there every sundays and you'll know wrongs and rights, so it's totally your choice.

Conclusion: God had given you free choices, He created the physical systems in earth, creates wonders. It's your choice to do not believe that there's no God behind all those. So therefore, God is not unjust for letting non-believers in hell.
Danielle

Pro

Rebuttal:

1) Con begins by saying, "I think my opponent had gone out of the topic, my topic is "God punishes NON-BELIEVERS..." However, as I pointed out in the last round, Con's opening argument discussed people's sins and the appropriate punishment for them; not whether or not they simply BELIEVED in God. As Con himself pointed out, he has defined a non-believer as: People who lack belief or faith in God, a religion, an idea (religious) or an under-taking. My very first example of people who don't believe in God based on non-exposure to God or scripture absolutely fits within the parameters of this definition. Nevertheless, I will address Con's question - How can you believe in something if you don't even know it? Good question. I'd like to pose that very same question to the theists out there who firmly believe in the existence and omnipotence and omniscience of a God that they can barely define let alone know.

2) Next, Con uses an analogy comparing God to Santa Clause (Interesting...). My point was that one cannot force themselves to believe in anything if they simply don't. Con's response was that God's existence is definite given the complexity of nature, and that God makes his presence "obvious and transparent" so we do have a choice whether to believe in Him or not. First of all, while nature is complex, it is not perfect (conditions to sustain human life). Second, just because nature is complex does NOT mean that God is responsible. One possibility is that people credit God for the complexities of nature because science is not yet advanced enough to define or explain every phenomenon. For example, before Galileo's breakthroughs on celestial discovery, the people thought the moon (A) did not orbit around the sun, (B) not subject to the laws of gravity because it was a heavenly planet, etc. History as shown us repeatedly that as our knowledge of science, mathematics, physics and technology increases, former mysteries can be reconciled via logic and reason, and with explanations that have nothing to do with God but rather nature itself. In other words, attributing nature to God is a basis without any proof.

Moreover, I'd argue specifically that God makes his presence "obvious." If that were true, why would anyone choose to be atheist or agnostic? If an omnipotent God were real and this was a "transparent" reality, then anyone would be foolish not to believe in Him. On the contrary, I would argue that faith is hard (in fact, it's a virtue), as there is literally NO factual or scientific evidence in God's favor. For that reason, any reasonable person whose beliefs are determinant on proof or substantial facts should be appeased by God; He should give them solid and indisputable evidence to satisfy their skeptical knowledge.

For instance, you have noted that you are a Creationist, whereas evolution is actually the MOST SUPPORTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY. "Most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament," says one source, including National Geographic magazine [1]. In other words, why would God make this the reality if faith was supposed to be easy? I maintain that faith - especially for those who are in favor of science, logic and reason - is very difficult, and an all-knowing and just God would make His existence easier to understand and accept if He didn't plan on punishing people (that He created in His image with all of their skeptical attributes) for their non-belief.

3) In agreeing with the verses that I have cited from the Bible, Con acknowledges that God is in fact an all-knowing God. He posits that "He knows what will happen... (He) already created ahead of the future itself." My point was that an all-knowing God who knows everything about everyone and everything (including the individual - not just a class of people) should have reconsidered granting life or a soul to those He knew in ADVANCE would be tortured and condemned to Hell. Con did not successfully refute this point.

4) Next Con states that God gave people free will to love Him or not. However, in choosing not to love (or believe in) Him, God will PUNISH THEM BY SENDING THEM TO HELL. What kind of choice is that? Certainly not a free one! For if you don't choose to love God the way he wants and expects you to (He sounds a little narcissistic and needy if you ask me), then he will CONDEMN YOUR SOUL TO HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY. In other words, love with an ultimatum is not free love. Moreover, loving someone out of fear is not REAL love either. If God truly wanted you to demonstrate free love, He would allow you to choose without threat of such a harsh punishment.

5) Con uses Hitler in his next example in stating that if Hitler prayed for his army to destroy the Americans and convert them all to Christianity, that it would be good for everyone to become Christians; however, it would be barbaric for God to grant Hitler's wish. There are several things wrong with this example. First, this is an entirely fallacious argument: Reductio ad Hilerum. Second, you're not supposed to pray to God for favors. Moreover, if God already knows everything that's going to happen, then there's no point in praying for a miracle anyway seeing as how it has already been determined what will happen... What makes you (or Hitler) think that God will change His mind? Anyway, let it be considered that people do barbaric things in the name of or for God ALL the time. Allah aside, let's not forget the CRUSADES i.e. Holy Wars, during which time Christians ate Muslim babies!!! [2]

6) Con's next position is that God is not responsible for your sins, because he did not force you to do the crime. Additionally, God has given us tools (i.e. the Bible and Churches) to show us the light. What Con failed to mention is that the Bible is unsupported and written by men with flaws and faults, just like everybody else - not God himself - And additionally, Churches are some of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. Consider the MANY historical examples of the Church being motivated solely by profit and power. Nevertheless, Con has failed to counter my argument which was that if we didn't exist, we couldn't sin. Since God is responsible for our creation (according to Con), then ultimately He is responsible for our sins. Further, since we do not choose the situation(s) we are born into, then any crime we may commit as a result of our up-bringing, environment, etc. should also not be attributed to us in some circumstances.

7) As a final note, I'd like to point out that Con COMPLETELY ignored my entire argument regarding determinism (countering the very essence of free will). Since that is a major part of my argument, I'd like the readers to consider my dropped points. I gave an entire analysis on free will including an example that my opponent didn't refute. Since I reject the theory of free will entirely, I'd ask that my opponent please provide an acknowledgment of my well supported theory (determinism).

Conclusion:

"God had given you free choices"

Nope.

"He created the physical systems in earth, creates wonders."

Prove it.

"It's your choice to do not believe that there's no God behind all those."

Nay.

"So therefore, God is not unjust for letting non-believers in hell."

He is, actually.

Anyway, let's see what Con's got in the final round...

Sources:

[1] http://www.gallup.com...
[2] http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DebateSpirit

Con

I'm sorry to let my opponent waiting for this debate:

Rebuttal

1)"However, as I pointed out in the last round, Con's opening argument discussed people's sins and the appropriate punishment for them; not whether or not they simply BELIEVED in God. As Con himself pointed out, he has defined a non-believer as: People who lack belief or faith in God, a religion, an idea (religious) or an under-taking. My very first example of people who don't believe in God based on non-exposure to God or scripture absolutely fits within the parameters of this definition"
_ My definition of "non-believer" are "the people who lack of faith in something, my opponent sold argument is non-sequitur, like I said, could you lack of something if you never know it exist? For an instance, can I lack of faith in the Bovialiaria monster? No, because it does not exist, it's something that I just though in my head and typed out the computer. My opponent try to prove that people who ignorant to God, for an example, the Christian God is really a misguided point to you, our audience. To my opponent, he said "I'd like to pose that very same question to the theists out there who firmly believe in the existence and omnipotence and omniscience of a God that they can barely define let alone know."my friend, this point is totally irrelevant, if they firmly believe in something, can they be called "lack of faith"? If they just can't define God easily, it'ss a lack of wisdom, not faith.

"2) First of all, while nature is complex, it is not perfect (conditions to sustain human life)"
_First off, I think it better if we define what is perfect: "conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type"
While my opponent proposed that because nature is not perfect, it does not present God, but he forgot one thing that nothing are perfect, I have never said nature are perfect, but rather I told him that it's complexities will require a Creator.

"Second, just because nature is complex does NOT mean that God is responsible. One possibility is that people credit God for the complexities of nature because science is not yet advanced enough to define or explain every phenomenon. For example, before Galileo's breakthroughs on celestial discovery, the people thought the moon (A) did not orbit around the sun, (B) not subject to the laws of gravity because it was a heavenly planet, etc. History as shown us repeatedly that as our knowledge of science, mathematics, physics and technology increases, former mysteries can be reconciled via logic and reason, and with explanations that have nothing to do with God but rather nature itself. In other words, attributing nature to God is a basis without any proof."
_ As my opponent proposed, the complexities does not present God, he gave us a solution: "Because science is not yet advanced enough to define or explain everything.". Now I'll ask my opponent, what is science? Is that rather a divine from Heaven, a God that can define everything or just simply a microscope for us, human, to look at things with a better perspective? The increasing of science and technology is simply to be said that human perspective of things had evolved and changed dramatically, but it can never know or can ever find all the truths of science nor does it can disprove that God exist. Logic and reason are not gods, as my opponent had confidently stated that it can answer everything in nature.

"Moreover, I'd argue specifically that God makes his presence "obvious." If that were true, why would anyone choose to be atheist or agnostic? If an omnipotent God were real and this was a "transparent" reality, then anyone would be foolish not to believe in Him."
_ As the atheists or agnostic believe, everything are naturely preserved without the help of a Supreme Being so called God. But they also ought to know in reality, who had created those preservations of nature? Simpler, to look at the nature and deny the existence of a God takes faith, my opponent also said: "I would argue that faith is hard (in fact, it's a virtue), as there is literally NO factual or scientific evidence in God's favor", there's not evidence that everything create itself either, no evidence of natural selection..., then how can people believe in those theories like that? That said, not anything can't be scientifically answered are not true, for an instance, if I were back in thousands years ago, can I say: "Bacteria not existed.", just because no one had "scientifically" explained it? This argument is just simply another Argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument of ignorance.

"For that reason, any reasonable person whose beliefs are determinant on proof or substantial facts should be appeased by God; He should give them solid and indisputable evidence to satisfy their skeptical knowledge."
_ My opponent had painted God as a beggar for people to be saved, to people to believe in Him. So I'll ask my opponent again, is God a God or a slave? Is God is a God or a mother who's begging her 3 years old son to eat lunch? God is a God, God had given you all the proof that He wanted you to see, but it's your choice to believe or not to believe. That said, God had given Jesus Christ, His Son to preach the Gospel, His people to preach His Kingdom(Philosophy speaking), therefore God does not have to keep give you more and more to begs you to believe.

"My point was that an all-knowing God who knows everything about everyone and everything (including the individual - not just a class of people) should have reconsidered granting life or a soul to those He knew in ADVANCE would be tortured and condemned to Hell. Con did not successfully refute this point."
_He KNOWS that those people will be condemned, not to condemn them, so basically He knows that those people will condemn themselve. My opponent is trying to use this point to say that it's unjust for God to let people go to hell, no, He knows where will you go, but it's wtill your choice to choose where you'll go.

"In other words, love with an ultimatum is not free love. Moreover, loving someone out of fear is not REAL love either. If God truly wanted you to demonstrate free love, He would allow you to choose without threat of such a harsh punishment."
_ My opponent is trying to ignore the fact here, God needs people to believe in Him so He can helps them, He does not FORCE them to hell.

My lines are simply not enough for this long debate, But I will give my new debates with these informations next time, but still hope to see all my opponent's new arguments.
Danielle

Pro

1. My opponent is trying to argue that there is a difference between a lack of faith in Christ and being a non-believer in Christ. He gives the example of a Bovialiaria Monster (???) and says he does not lack faith in it; he cannot lack faith in it because it does not exist - it's just something that he thought up. What my opponent fails to recognize is that the same thing could be said about Jesus Christ. There is just as much evidence for the Bovialiaria Monster as there is for Christ's DIVINITY. Jesus the person may have existed; however, to believe in him as being God is something that takes faith. I'll use another example to prove my point. Abraham Lincoln was a real person who existed. To believe in his divinity would take faith. I could believe in Abraham Lincoln the same way that I believe in Jesus (that they both existed), but I don't believe in either of them as being holy or divine in terms of religion. So, my original point stands. One may very well know of Christ as in know that Jesus the person existed as a historical figure (because he's very prevalent in history and even religion courses); however, that does not mean that they know to have faith in Jesus. In other words, I maintain that God is punishing those people who were not taught how or why to have faith in Jesus.

2A. Pro insists that nature's complexities require a Creator. Since this is a 5-round debate, I'd like for Pro to explain why nature's complexities require a Creator, and we'll move on from there. I maintain that while nature is complex, it may only be complex to our human understanding. Moreover, just because it is complex does not necessarily mean that a Creator (other than the universe or nature itself) is necessary.

2B. Next Pro questioned the validity of science, logic and reason in comparison with God. You'll notice that I never said that these things trumped God, but rather that these things were tools in helping us measure and solve the mysteries of the universe. He says that God's infinite wisdom far exceeds the advancements modern technology has given us; however, he's ignoring the fact that many people (myself included) question the existence of God in the first place. I feel that this point has led us very far from the original resolution at hand. My point is that non-believers may not believe in God because the rules of simple logic and reason point away from the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. As I've pointed out, a God cannot be all three. My opponent has not refuted this. Also, let me remind the readers that my intent was to explain how if a God existed and truly were all of these things, he would make that apparent and acceptable not only based on faith alone, but by providing hard facts so that the skeptics he created (in his infinite wisdom) could be saved too.

3. Next Pro asserts that there is no evidence of natural selection. That is a ridiculous argument with no basis. As I've said, Evolution is one of if not the most widely accepted scientific theory in the community. "The new study provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms – ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds – and finding that the overall link between them is positive" [1]. To win this point, my opponent will have to prove that there is more empirical data proving the existence of God than Evolution. Good luck.

4. Again, I've encountered another hypocritical argument put forth from Pro. He provides the example of argumentum ad ignorantiam - an argument of ignorance - claiming that just because we don't know of or cannot prove something does not mean that it doesn't exist. Hello! Apply this fallacious argument to his negation of Evolution. As I've said, there is more evidence to support that and other scientific approaches to the creation of the universe than to simply and ignorantly attribute it to God. To clarify, just because we cannot prove everything via science yet does not mean that it cannot be done. Moreover, I never said that God didn't exist. I said that the Abrahamic God cannot exist (logically) given my explanation of how it would be impossible for God to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent all at the same time. And finally on this point, again I feel that this debate has gone way off topic. This is supposed to be about the salvation of those who do not believe in God - not debating the existence of God in the first place.

5A. Pro writes, "God had given you all the proof that He wanted you to see, but it's your choice to believe or not to believe." I maintain that there is not nearly enough evidence to logically conclude that there is a God, and as such, it would be unjust for Him to expect rational and intelligent people to believe in Him. A good analogy to this ideology would be a teacher giving students a test that asked questions about material not covered in class. Pro might say, "The teacher told you what the test was about - it's your job to know everything about it." However, if the professor left out A LOT of things, and then expected his students to just know and understand the material, undoubtedly people would argue that this was unfair.

5B. Additionally on this point, using Jesus as a reason to believe in God is flat out dumb. First of all, if some guy today went around preaching that he WAS God, we would throw him in a mental institution. The only reason that didn't happen to Jesus was because of the time period during which he apparently made these claims. Does anyone wonder why miracles happened back then and not today? It's because today we are a lot more knowledgeable and can prove and disprove things using science, physics, etc. Moreover, much of what you read in the Bible is absolute rubbish. For instance, the fact that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born (the concept of the Immaculate Conception) was not included in the original Bible. Instead Pope Pius IX decided in 1854 that she simply must have been a virgin. In other words, someone decided 1,854 years AFTER the birth of Christ that his mother must have been a virgin, when there is absolutely no evidence to support this (and obviously NO ONE ELSE IN THE HISTORY OF TIME HAS GIVEN BIRTH WHILE BEING A VIRGIN). This is proof that Catholics and other Christians literally just make things up as they go along. Why should people believe in transient dogma? [2]

6. Pro states, "He KNOWS that those people will be condemned, not to condemn them, so basically He knows that those people will condemn themselves." So, what Pro is saying here is that God is not omnibenevolent (all-good). This argument cannot stand, because we have agreed that the God in question is an all-good God. For God to not use his infinite wisdom and infinite knowing to save someone that He is responsible for creating, would not make him an all-good God. In that case, why should people love/trust in Him to begin with?

7. I've stated that love with an ultimatum (the thread of eternal damnation in Hell) is not demonstrative of free will or free love. Pro simply responds by saying that God needs people to believe in Him so He can help them. This is entirely irrelevant.

8. Once again, I'd like to point out that my opponent did not respond to ANY of my argument regarding MY NEGATION OF THE CONCEPT OF FREE WILL. I cannot say enough how that is indeed a major part of my argument, and Pro is digging his proverbial grave is not responding to my incessant pleas to address this rebuttal of mine. I understand that we have character limits; however, my opponent can avoid them by not quoting everything I say directly and instead just summarizing as I have. Good luck.

Sources:

[1] http://www.physorg.com...
[2] http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 3
DebateSpirit

Con

DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Forfeited Round -- Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
DebateSpirit

Con

DebateSpirit forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited not one but two rounds of this debate, and as such, has failed to present a competent argument to my rebuttal. I encourage a vote for the Pro based on conduct and arguments alone. I'd like to thank my opponent anyway for the opportunity to debate such a topic.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
PRO gets all seven points due to multiple forfeits.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
DebateSpiritDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
DebateSpiritDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
DebateSpiritDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07