The Instigator
RandomTruth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blackleadersareneeded
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

God's incompetence - 3rd try!

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 2 votes the winner is...
Blackleadersareneeded
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 54006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

RandomTruth

Pro

Note: This is a third attempt at this debate - the first two are not yielding strong enough debates.

This is only open to religious folk and please directly address whether the actions of God show his incompetence.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Believers like to claim that God is perfect and all powerful but his actions belie that claim:

1. He is constantly getting humanity wrong. Adam & Eve, The Flood, Babel all show that he clearly has little understanding of what free will means and is constantly having to have do overs.

2. The three religions that he created clearly shows that he is poor at communicating his aims properly. From the 10 commandments onwards, he appears to not have his own rules about how he should be worshipped down pat. Even worse, his lack of clarity and his ambiguity has opened the doors to tens of thousands of denominations.

3. He also can't even keep his physical creations consistent, having to work around its limitations with special miracles and one-off events that cannot be explained and indeed are contradictory to known science. Surely better planning and more flexible specifications for the universe would have avoided these cheats.

In summary, God is incompetent in creating a universe that he doesn't have to bang into place and cheat, mis-managing his creation of humans from free-will to how we're supposed to appropriately worship him.

Thoughts?
Blackleadersareneeded

Con

1. Adam&Eve, Noah's arch and other bible stories are on one level of reality, just stories. If you take them literally than the whole bible can seem like one huge contradiction. These stories aren't meant to be taken literally but Meta physically, this means they have a spiritual teaching behind them and therefore are meant to teach the soul a lesson. We must also remind our self that the bible was written by humans not by god. So if you think about it, the bible is a primitive way to understand god, in the process of writing the bible humans tried to project (primitive) human emotion, thinking and reasoning on forces they could not understand. Which to me doesn't discredit the bible as a good source for spiritual guidance.

2. The three main religions are not of direct creation of god. Religions were created by man and as I said before man can not fully understand omnipotent forces such as god or the universe, hell half the time we can't understand ourselves and each other! So through this misunderstanding; contradiction, confusion and all other systemic problems that religion has, was born. This is why I don't trust the word of a religious leader, no matter how revered he/she might be.

3. Miracles are too subjective to be taken definitely or seriously. I think that the universe was created with fundamental truths and that our perception of right or wrong has nothing to do with these truths. A big part of science is the study of our universe or the study of where we come from much like religion. Humans must realize that religion is a work in progress just like science and that we all must continue to challenge the doctrine and dogmas of religion; like the Buddha did, like Jesus did, like Muhammad did and take everything with a grain of salt.
Debate Round No. 1
RandomTruth

Pro

1. If the Bible is a myth then why do people take Jesus' virgin birth, his miracles and his resurrection so literally!
2. This is blatantly wrong; Judaism was a religion of a single tribe/race committed to by God himself. Christianity is a based upon Jesus' who is also God. And Mohammed was a prophet with direct connection to God!
3. This is not the topic at hand though - we are discussing whether the God of the Bible is incompetent, not whether he exists or not.

Please address the OP!
Blackleadersareneeded

Con

1. I never said the bible is a myth. I stated that the bible contains stories that convey a higher meaning. (you must look beyond the syntax of the bible.)
2.You contradict yourself because you get your information from the bible and other holy text closely associated with the bible but who says those are definitive sources. These accounts were written by people that lived thousands of years ago and cannot be fully proved that God or some omnipotent being called them to into establishment.
3. This is the topic at hand, I'm trying to convey that your idea of the bible and god are incompetent, is based off misconceptions taught to you by people who fail to challenge what they believe themselves and so by you asking whether the bible is incompetent is a sort of subconscious way of finding answers. I used the Buddha and Jesus because in the text describing their lives, both of them share a common theme, challenging convention, challenging what people believe and take for granted.
Debate Round No. 2
RandomTruth

Pro

1. You did say they were myths:

1. Adam&Eve, Noah's arch and other bible stories are on one level of reality, just stories.

Either way, your point remains invalid until you can demonstrate a higher reading that makes good appear competent.

2. You are now inventing your own Canon and your own Bible! Again, with no proof or reference to back it up. Your point remains unsupported and is thus invalid.

3. No, my idea that God is incompetent is drawn directly from the Bible and trying to read my mind as to why I am doing this does nothing to address my point.


I don't believe that you have made a single point that has been supported by something other than handwaving and referencing non existent knowledge. Therefore, you have disqualified yourself from being able to make a substantive argument.

We only have 3 rounds and you have continued to fail to address my direct points adequately. Good luck with your last post, my OP remains standing. Thank you for your thoughts and rationalizations.
Blackleadersareneeded

Con

Blackleadersareneeded forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
RandomTruth
@jonbonbon: There is the character described in the Bible called "God" that people believe in. That character doesn't have the property of competence as far as I know. Care to elaborate?
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
The easiest way to win this debate is a simple logical analysis. Pro's arguments are worded in a way that presuppose the existence of God. It is inconsistent with the definition of God for him to be incompetent. Therefore, pro contradicts himself.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
RandomTruth
@ Blackleadersareneeded

This is still nothing to do with my point that God is incompetent. I'm not making a judgement as to whether it is 'good' or 'bad' what he has done but that he is doing so in a manner that shows a lack of knowledge and understanding of his own creations.
Posted by Blackleadersareneeded 2 years ago
Blackleadersareneeded
I offer a new perspective on religion. God does not need our worship god does not have needs but god has a desire to know God and all of gods glory and nuance. What you deem horrible or bad is only that, what it seems to you. Hitler dying was good for most and bad for some. instead of looking at things in such a separatist of categorical way look at things as they are and the bigger picture. As Plato put it, everything he knows can be proved wrong. I live by this teaching and I always challenge my every belief so the knowledge I have given you, is in actuality incomplete until I die and see for myself.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
RandomTruth
@didymus: I did respond.
@Azag: his mismanagement of characters of free will reveals incompetence. His anger and his killing of his own creations are just a sign of his poor planning, overacting and terrible messaging.
Posted by Azag 2 years ago
Azag
The incompetence of God isn't the issue...your examples all show his Wrath caused by free will. So all examples you gave was God dork stamping mankind for arrogance or ignorance...or just because we are offending him...btw...I am not religious.
Posted by Blackleadersareneeded 2 years ago
Blackleadersareneeded
Come guy your turn
Posted by didymus 2 years ago
didymus
I'll assume this means that you won't participate in our debate anymore? As I said, as an atheist I may have not been completely serious in the debate, but I still think I made some decent points that you seem to want to ignore. You barely read my arguments and your counter-arguments were only to the first line of each, not even the most important part.
Posted by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
Lol, dude I could get into this and troll you really hard, but I think I'll leave this open.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
RandomTruthBlackleadersareneededTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't make it clear he was debating the god presented in the bible being competent. For a better debate in the future I'd reccomend making the topic he wants to debate a little more clearly.
Vote Placed by Youth 2 years ago
Youth
RandomTruthBlackleadersareneededTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: A very disappointing debate. I'd like to take the instigator on on this topic one day.