God, whether he exists or not, is not always right.
Debate Rounds (4)
Firstly, although most of the values set by God are fair, the mistakes he make aren't just huge, they're huge God-style. Take the story with Moses for example. I'm pretty we've all grown up with stories of how people of Canaan somehow all moved to Egypt and then the pharaoh wouldn't let them go because he was being stubborn. And then guess what God did to those 'oh so terrible' children of his who worshipped other gods and didn't follow his orders? He set the plagues on his children. Yes Moses did warn the pharaoh before each of the disasters, but it was clear that the Egyptians wouldn't believe him. Imagine if the roles were reversed and the pharaoh was telling Moses about how Sobek (an Egyptian god with the body of a crocodile) or some other god will destroy every single one of the slaves from Canaan if he didn't let the Egyptians go, would Moses have believed him? No. Moses would've trusted God and ignored the pharaoh's warning. So even though God probably knew that the Egyptians will ignore the warnings and that they're supposedly his children, he set the plagues on them, which raises a second point. The bible described God as always right and knows everying that happened, is happening and will happen. If God was so powerful he would've foreseen the pharoah's stubborness and if so why couldn't he just send one, single powerful plague that shook pharaoh so much that he set the slaves free right away instead of sending all the others? He could've even changed the pharaoh's mind by force because he was so powerful but no, he just had to torture his own children until he single-handedly murdered the eldest sons of every single one of the Egyptian families, which can I remind you again, are his own flesh and blood. That was the ultimate move. The children, no matter how badly the pharoah treated the slaves and how immoral he was when he arranged for all the Hebrew baby boys to be killed, were innocent. Why did he kill the children? Even if all of them supported pharaoh's decisions, they were only children and would not have understood fully what they were doing. And then, right after God killed their children, as the Egyptians started chasing the Hebrews, God, one way or another, caused even more Egyptians to die. Chasing after the Hebrews might not have been the smartest decision after all the display of God's power but wouldn't you be angry if your children were murdered in cold blood? Does that really seem like the actions of a kind and caring father to you? To me that sounds like a guy with way too much power which he does not know how to use properly who will stop at nothing to get things his way.
God had a very good reason for not being so merciful besides being omniscient. He was simply leaving the choice to Pharaoh so as to give him a chance to turn from his lifeless idols so that he may have a chance to enter God's kingdom of heaven. But no, Pharaoh ignored the warnings, and there were nine plagues before God killed the firstborn of Egypt. That means the Pharaoh had nine chances to realize that Moses was not doing absurd magic tricks, and by his own choice, mind you. The same logic should be applicable to any other Bible story like the story of Moses. As for actually killing them? It was more than likely meant to teach Pharaoh and all the other spared Egyptians a lesson: "Don't disobey Me." And after the tenth plague, Pharaoh DID free the Hebrews. As I specified earlier, he had nine chances before his kingdom started to fall so much apart.
Counterpoint 2: The same logic is applicable between God's punishment to Pharaoh and when your worldly father punishes you for breaking one of his rules. I clearly demonstrated in my last counterpoint that God was justified in sending the plagues. When your father spanks you for, say, eating too much candy, he does that for your own good. If you choose to defy him, that was entirely volitional. I clearly demonstrated in my previous counterpoint and will demonstrate further what Pharaoh had in common with a defiant five-year-old: Pharaoh had so many chances, and never took one of them. That is what very defiant five-year-olds do. They disobey their parents repeatedly, and learning their lesson is very difficult for them. It was that difficult for Pharaoh, too. Both punishments were for the receptor's own good and for entirely volitional sins.
Counterpoint 3: My opponent argues: "Imagine if the roles were reversed and the pharaoh was telling Moses about Sobek (an Egyptian god with the body of a crocodile) and how he will destroy every single one of the slaves from Canaan if he didn't let the Egyptians go, would Moses have believed him? No. Moses would've trusted God and ignored the pharaoh's warning."
Again, my opponent's argument is invalid, because Sobek was two things Pro claims God is: not omniscient and not always right. The Christian God is infinite, while all Pagan gods were finite and therefore wrong here and there (the Greek god Zeus, for instance.) I have clearly demonstrated that these two scenarios would have been different, and that renders Pro's "reversed roles" argument invalid.
Counterpoint 4: My opponent argues: "Why did he kill the children? Even if all of them supported pharaoh's decisions they were only children and would not have understood fully what they were doing."
There is nothing in the Bible saying that God did not show them hell and clarify that He was the God of Abraham, not Anubis, their god of death and mummification, then tell them they were fools if they wanted to go to the place God was showing them, and told them He would give them another chance, but they must live their lives for Him.
Counterpoint 5: Addressing my opponent's entire argument in one counterpoint, avenging a person's wrongdoing to oneself does not make the avenger a psychopath, it simply makes them look like one. If my opponent committed a terrible crime with an intentional high negative effect on me, I would probably want to get even with him, but I would ask God to take the desire from me, and I would then no longer want revenge, so would that make me look like a psychopath? Yes. But would it actually make me one? No. I would cool off very soon. Most of the same logic should be applicable to God.
Counterpoint 6: The main idea of this counterpoint is that if God is real, He created the Solar System and therefore must be omniscient.
The Atheist explanation for how the sun formed is that perhaps some sort of shockwave from a supernova triggered dust particles to combine into a spherical cloud, thus causing a chain reaction until it collapsed in on itself, and it continued to spin faster and faster until it would blow off any and all dust that came near it, and it flattened from its own speed into a dense-cored spinning disk. It's temperature is believed to have increased over time, thus causing hydrogen to become helium through fusion, setting off nuclear reactions that caused bursts to form the sun. Atheist scientists also believe that the planets formed through a process called accretion . This implies that the solar system formed by chance, but I would like to challenge that nonsense. It would also be difficult, if not impossible, to animate this accurately because it is hard to scientifically tell what that would really make the solar system look like. That means that it would be likely that one or more of the planets was positioned incorrectly. If any of them were too close to the sun or too far away from it, simply saying, Pluto would have drifted off already, and the rest of the solar system would be a Solar Scatter instead of a Solar System. I will fully explain this in case of any need.
Key Point: The gravity of the other planets is apparently the only thing keeping Pluto from drifting off into outer space.
If any of the other planets were too far from the sun, they would drift off, taking the other planets with them, and thus leaving the planets in front of them with no gravity to keep them their distance from the sun, which means they would be vaporized, and thereby stripping them all of their gravitational pull and causing the other planets to drift out of the sun's gravity field. If any planet were too close to the sun, it would drift toward it more quickly than it does in reality, and would take smaller planets with it due to its gravitational pull. Because they would be together, their gravitational pull would increase, this causing them to go into the sun faster. This would leave the planets behind them with no gravitational pull to keep the from drifting off. It makes no difference if anything in this counterpoint is wrong, because in any scenario you look at it in which one or more planets is misplaced, the Solar System becomes a Solar Scatter in six-thousand years or less. Did a coincidental event make the Solar System stay intact like that? I think not, but if you wish to continue thinking that, I am fine with that.
Conclusion: If God exists, He was able to create a Solar System that stays organized and together all the time, that means He must be omniscient. If He is able to be right about how to make a Solar System that has stayed together all the time ever since He created it, whether it was millions of years or a mere six-thousand years, He was right about it and therefore should be able to be right about anything else.
Counterpoint 7: Having sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for our sins does not make God evil. God asked Jesus about it before sending Him to die on the cross so everyone could be save more easily, and the choice of whether or not to do it was Jesus' own choice. He did not have to do it. He did volitionally it out of love for us. Plus, He knew for a fact that He would rise from the grave.
Back to you, voice_of_truth.
Con I did not, by any chance say that the pharaoh was right. In fact if he was alive right now I would probably say that he was mentally-retarded. However, this debate is not about whether the pharaoh in the story of Moses was right but rather about whether God was right. God, if he was really that powerful, as I've stated before, should've known that the pharaoh was going to be stubborn. The con states: "That means the Pharaoh had nine chances to realize that Moses was not doing absurd magic tricks, and by his own choice, mind you." If God was really always right, he would've known that the Pharaoh was going to refuse. If God was any normal person he decisions might've been ok and even reasonable. However, God, is after all, God. He is supposed to have unlimited kindness and love towards his, may I remind you again, children and all humans. And also, your second point in your rebuttal does not make any sense. Uh, God killed all those Egyptian adults and children just to teach the pharaoh and all the other spared Egyptians a lesson? Let's not talk about the innocence of the children because I would literally go on forever but I'm pretty sure some of the killed Egyptians would've sympathised and even helped the Hebrews. Killing innocent and even not innocent people just to show others a lesson? What's God? An underground mafia boss?
"The same logic is applicable between God's punishment to Pharaoh and when your worldly father punishes you for breaking one of his rules." Um, Con I have no idea what your father was like but since you're still here debating with me I am assuming that he didn't kill you when you ate too much candy.
"The Christian God is infinite..." You can not just use the argument 'God is always right' because that is exactly what we're debating about. And also, if not Sobek, then some other god or religious figure that is like God to Moses.
Yeah there was nothing proving that God did not give them a second shot at life if he lived under his law. But then again there was nothing in the Bible to prove that God actually did give the children a second chance. And even if God did that, (assuming that God exists) He already killed them! Say if this crazy psychopath killed 20 people and then resurrected them all, even without conditions of how to live their life, he would still be trialled and then probably sent to jail to stay there for the rest of his life. Then what difference does God have with a slavedriver, and what difference does the killed Egyptian children have with actual slaves? Oh you can live again as long as you all worship me and do what I tell you to do? I don't know how God is different with the white people (sorry guys not trying to be racist) who made all those black people (once again sorry) slaves 200 years ago?
Alright con so if someone killed all of your friends and family as long as you ask your God to take the anger out of you, you can cool down in a couple of days? If you say so. I can not argue with that as I do not know you in real life but if you really can, you are clearly a much better person then me, the atheist who actually cares about their family and friends enough to hold the anger there, well not for ever but at least a few months or even years.
You obviously did a lot of research on how the Solar System was formed and how it operates. But you showed absolutely no proof that God was behind all of it. And even if he did, just because he created something that operates smoothly (by the way just might put in the little fact here that the moon is drifting more and more towards the sun every year and there will come a day when the moon crashes into the sun and gets swallowed up and the life on earth eventually ends) does not mean that he is always right.
I don't know why this was listed as a counterpoint because I said nothing whatsoever about Jesus but since you said it I am going to use it as my next argument.
Assuming that there really was a Jesus who died for all of our sins, I mean, get real. For example take that popular band with teenaged girl today One Direction. Some of them might go like, oh my god I love Harry Styles so much I so want to be his girlfriend. According to the Ten Commandments, coveting other people's property, in this case Harry Styles' girlfriend's boyfriend, is a sin. But are they really sinners? I mean if someone killed Harry Styles' girlfriend just to take her place sure but even then that would be a crime not a sin. I mean, for all we know Jesus could've just been this crazy old man parading around Europe 2000 years ago claiming that he was God's son, scaring the authorities (not saying that the authorities' reaction was right) and then dying for our non-existent sins. And all of those so- called miracles happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago. They could be pure lies for all we know. Look at the great miracles God gave us recently, with the World Wars destroying millions of innocent people's lives. And can I state that some if not most of those dead and those who suffered were Christians and Catholics, "god-fearing and god-loving" people. If only the atheists, the 'sinners' died then that, even if it was wrong to kill people it would've made some sense. If God really existed and was always right, wouldn't he have tried to save his faithful children as soon as the wars started?
Of course He did. He was just being merciful (compared to sending him to hell, anyway). But since the pharaoh had such deeply-rooted faith in his gods, there was no way one single plague could have single-handedly convince him. The real reason why God sent the plagues was to disprove the Egyptians' idols to them . To further reiterate my argument, there is no proof that God did or did not give them a second chance at life.
Rebuttal 2: My opponent argues: "Um, Con I have no idea what your father was like but since you're still here debating with me I am assuming that he didn't kill you when you ate too much candy."
I will tell you what I am talking about: I am saying that just like a punishment from your worldly father for eating too much candy, God's punishments were entirely justified, so God must be right all the time. My opponent also seems to be missing a key point in my argument: I was referring to the proportion between severity of the sin and the severity of the punishment.
Rebuttal 3: My opponent argues: "you can not just use the argument 'God is always right.' "
I will give you a new argument then: God would beat Sobek in a fight because the Christian God is immaterial and therefore untouchable to physical things.
Rebuttal 4: My opponent argues: "...oh you can live again as long as you all worship me and do what I tell you to do? I don't know how God is different with the white people (sorry guys not trying to be racist) who made all those black people (once again sorry) slaves 200 years ago?"
I will tell you how He is different: He only wanted the Jewish faith to survive. He did this by letting the Jews be slaves to the Egyptians for 400 straight years, then freeing them. This possibly made the Jews' faith stronger that God loved them, therefore it was justifiable.
"Yeah there was nothing proving that God did not give them a second shot at life if he lived under his law. But then again there was nothing in the Bible to prove that God actually did give the children a second chance."
Point taken, voice_of_truth, but all this point proves is that whether or not God gave them a second chance is irrelevant to this debate and therefore the fact that He killed the children is irrelevant to this debate.
Rebuttal 5: My opponent argues: "Alright con so if someone killed all of your friends and family as long as you ask God to take the anger out of you, you can cool down in a couple of day... you are a much better person than me the atheist who actually cares about their friends and family enough to hold the anger there..."
I am probably misinterpreting that counterpoint, but that does not make me a better or worse person than my opponent. I actually care so much about them that I would willingly die just to save their lives. Also, the Bible says to allow God to avenge others' sins.
Rebuttal 6: My opponent argues: "...you showed absolutely no proof that God was behind all of it... the moon is drifting more and more towards the sun... there will come a day when the moon crashes into the sun... does not mean that he is always right."
Again, this argument is invalid for three reasons:
1. This debate is about "God, , is not always right." This means that Pro negates any argument he makes against the existence of God or Jesus or against the accuracy of the Bible.
2. The time of the end of life on Earth due to he moon crashing into the sun could well be the same time God plans for Jesus to return to Earth, when all the saved people to be transported to heaven and everyone left behind to go to hell, and for the world to end.
3. My opponent says that I have shown no evidence that God was behind it. However, really, I did. A coincidental formation could have ended with the planets positioned in a variety of different orders, thus leaving it much less likely that the Solar System appeared out of nowhere and more likely that it was divinely created. I extend this into the "Solar Scatter" portion of my argument.
Rebuttal 7: My opponent argues: "For example...take that...teenaged girl...According to the Ten Commandments, coveting other peoples property... is a sin... but...that would be a crime not a sin."
I would like to apologize to my opponent, but he is arguing against the accuracy of the Bible and the existence of Jesus, and as I pointed out in rebuttal 6, that makes his argument irrelevant. In addition,
"Jesus could've just been this crazy old man parading around Europe 2000 years ago claiming that he was God's son..."
Again, that argument is irrelevant to this debate because it is an argument against the accuracy of the Bible.
"All of those so-called miracles... could be pure lies for all we know,"
Actually, there is hard, non-biblical evidence that Jesus really existed . If He existed, then His miracles really happened.
"...some, if not most of those dead and those who suffered were Christians..."
Another invalid argument from Pro. If God exists, He was probably telling the citizens that there was some way to get out of the war zones alive, but they could have been too scared to hear what God was saying. As for the Christian American soldiers? They died willingly for God and country.
Con, if God was really that powerful and righteous, he could've just "enlightened" all of the Egyptians including the pharaoh instead of just sending the plagues that he KNEW would not sway the Egyptians enough to really let go of the Hebrews. (The pharaoh gave permission for the Hebrews to leave and then changed his mind) You also pointed out that God did this to "... disprove the Egyptians' idols to them" but that obviously didn't work as historical evidence shows that the Egyptians continued to worship their gods even after the time that God supposedly send the plagues even if he existed.
Alright I will admit the my comparison was slightly exaggerated. However, death, is like the zero. You can not ask someone how many zeroes goes into the number 5 because the answer could be anything, from 0 itself to infinity. This comparison is compatible to death because, after death, you could no longer punish the person's physical body because they simply wouldn't feel it, whether there is an afterlife or not.
The fact that the Christian God can beat Sobek has no proof. Even if he can that has nothing to do with it. Your argument is invalid here because the debate topic is not God would be able to beat all other pagan gods.
He wanted the Jewish faith to survive? Don't make me laugh. Of course he did! In the Jewish faith he is the centre of the world! And also, look at his way of trying to help his children, oh I'm just going to make you slaves to some random stranger for 400 years to make you believe in me? What kind of father is that? And also regarding the second chance at life for children thing, you suggested it, not me. You are basically just saying that your point was invalid by saying that my point is invalid. So if your point was invalid, why did the children have to die? Please do not avoid this question because, the children, may I state again, are INNOCENT. How can you believe in a God who supposedly killed thousands of children?
Ok the first part of your rebuttal was absolutely correct and I admit that I was wrong. However, oh, so only humans have to follow the rules God made and he doesn't? What kind of king is that?
You got me there con, I should've made the debate topic more specific. But how do you know that God is going to send Jesus to save you? That argument was based on a highly unlikely assumption and therefore invalid. Also, you yourself said that the universe works in perfect synchronisation so why are you admitting that the moon will crush into the sun and the world will end?
Con you said that almost all of my arguments were invalid because I'm arguing against the bible and Jesus but how do you know that the bible was actually telling you the truth? And also even if God sent Christians a message during the World Wars that can save them but he should've predicted that his message wouldn't have been received. I accept your point about the Christian American soldiers dying willingly but what bout their families who DIDN'T want them to die?
Back to you.
Counterpoint 2: My opponent argues: "...after death, you could no longer punish the person's physical body."
In hell, the soul is punished, not the body. You have not been to hell, so you do not know how valid your argument is, and I am very glad you have not been to hell.
Counterpoint 3: My opponent argues: "The fact that the Christian God can beat Sobek has no proof."
Yes it does. The Christian God is immaterial and therefore Sobek could not even touch Him, therefore God would win. You yourself stated that Sobek had the "body of a crocodile."
"This has nothing to do with the topic."
Yes it does. It would add a fundamental difference to the story if the roles were reversed.
Counterpoint 4: My opponent argues: "oh, I'm just going to make you slaves to some random stranger for 400 years to make you believe in me?"
Actually, God was pre-punishing his children because He knew they would otherwise commit the sin of their ancestors: idolatry. He also knew that when they found themselves in heaven, all the hard work would be worth it to live for eternity with their loving father. Allowing them into heaven makes up for allowing them to spend their entire earthly lives as slaves, does it not?
"...regarding the second chance at life... thing... You are... Saying that your point was invalid by saying that my point is invalid. So... Why did all the children have to die?"
I will answer that question: What I am saying is that neither of our points on this have any evidence for, nor against them, so that is irrelevant to this debate. In case that was avoiding the question, the biggest reason was that so God could get the kids to change their minds into minds that held the correct information on how to get into the happy afterlife.
Counterpoint 5: "...so only humans have to follow the rules God made and he doesn't? What kind of king is that?"
Actually, God does follow His rules (mostly.)
How God follows commandment 1:
He does not hold anything back from use he even sent Jesus to be crucified for the Romans, and for you and me alike, so that everyone could get into heaven more easily.
How God follows commandment 2:
He does not make graven images.
How He follows commandment 3:
He does not misuse our names.
He may not follow commandment 4, but technically His work is not actually "work" in the natural sense of the word.
He follows commandment 5 because he is respectful to everyone, so that should include our parents.
In some Bibles, the sixth commandment says "thou shalt not murder." I have demonstrated clearly that His "murders" are morally justifiable, and therefore executions rather than murders.
He does not commit adultery at all because He is not lustful or married.
When God takes things from people, it is not "stealing." It is simply teaching them a lesson for placing powerless, material things above Him.
He follows the ninth commandment by always doing what He says He will do.
While He is a Jealous God, therefore breaking the tenth commandment, His jealousy is justifiable because He wants us to go to heaven and wants all of us.
Counterpoint 6: "My opponent argues: "... How do you know that God is going to send Jesus to save you? That argument was based on a highly unlikely assumption and therefore invalid."
The reality, Pro, is that the return of Jesus is a future event, so you do not know it will not happen. After all, the future almost always holds something we do not see coming. That statement is applicable to plenty of things that have happened in my own life and yours too, I take it. Stephen Hawking also once said that "the Big Bang didn't need God." But there is also a website called bigbangdidnthappen.org I have been to that slashes the atheist's Big Bang apart, so Hawking does not know that absolute disproof of the atheist's Big Bang is probably coming his way next time he googles, say, "the Big Bang didn't happen." He is likely going to click on this website and find the irrefutable evidence that the Big Bang indeed needed God. Therefore, if Hawking does not yet know that he will find real evidence that the Big Bang needed God, then the same logic should be applicable to you because if Hawking thinks he will not find the website, then perhaps you are incorrect and Jesus really will come, because the same logic is applicable between the two of you.
"Why are you admitting that the moon will crush into the sun and the world will end?
Apparently, you either dropped my statement that it could be the same time Jesus comes, forgot about it, or simply misinterpreted it. I have already clearly shown that saying Jesus will return to Earth and admitting that the moon will crash into the sun one day are not entirely contradictory.
Counterpoint 7: My opponent argues: "...even if God sent Christians a message during the World Wars that can save them but he should've predicted that his message wouldn't have been received."
There is still one other possibility, and that is the Christian citizens who were in the war zones were so scared of the war that hey forgot to trust God and relied on themselves to survive and were killed by enemy soldiers because they relied on themselves rather than God to escape the war zone with their lives.
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.