The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

God's wrath appears in response to defiance against Him.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 5 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,691 times Debate No: 57141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (5)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Atheism and agnosticism is defiance against God. God's wrath remains on those who are defiant against God.

In this debate I will preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and God's warnings of fiery destruction in eternal hell fire for all who insist of defying God.



God loves you and He wants you to know His love and not experiecne His wrath.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing against the following resolution:

God's wrath appears in response to defiance against Him.


Because PRO is affirming this resolution, he bears the entirety of the burden of proof. Not only must he prove this statement to be true, but he must prove also the underpinnings of it equally true. For instance, in order for God's wrath to appear in response to atheism and agnosticism, God's wrath needs to exist, i.e., God needs to exist. PRO, therefore, must be able to prove conclusively that God in fact exists. If I am able to cast enough doubt on the existence of God, or neutralize PRO's arguments to the extent that he cannot fulfill his BOP, he cannot possibly win.

With that, I wish PRO the best of luck for an interesting discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

The proof is your own death. If you won't believe God's wrath is in response to your evil, your eternal death is sure and you will never know anything other than God's wrath......even though you deny it now.

God loves you.

I hope you find this to be more than intersting.


Your defiance against God is evil and will incurr nothing but God's wrath proven in your death and ultimately in eternal torment of the Lake of Fire if you finalize your death insistant that God's wrath cannot be proven.

Casting doubt on the existance of God will only cause His wrath to build against you more.

Go ahead and cast doubt. Go ahead and say God cannot be angry with you because He is not there.

Go ahead and see where it gets you.

God's wrath is on you now, and you are pretending not to notice and not to care. God won't excuse you for pretending, and He won't accept your argument saying He cannot be proven as your excuse that you should not feel His wrath.


You are defying God and He will make sure you know He does not appreciate it.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

As I said in my opening piece, and as Pro has not disputed, he must be able to prove God in order to prove that God's wrath will come upon atheists and agnostics. If God doesn't exist or possibly does not exist, his wrath also doesn't exist or possibly does not exist. If that is the case, the resolution is negated. Therefore, PRO must be able to conclusively prove God's existence.

Thus far, all of his arguments hinge on the existence of God: if God doesn't exist or possibly doesn't exist, they fail, and he hasn't met his burden of proof. At this point, I am going to rebut each of his arguments and then provide my own contentions negating this resolution.

PRO states, "The proof is your own death."

My mortality in no way proves the existence of God. We don't know what happens after we die. The fact that I am mortal and will one day die is not proof of God, but only of the fact that I will die, as will everyone. reading this.


PRO states, "If you won't believe God's wrath is in response to your evil, your eternal death is sure and you will never know anything other than God's wrath......even though you deny it now."

I find it interesting that PRO states that not believing in God will lead to my "eternal death," which implies that he believes that I will simply cease to exist after I die, but he then goes on to say that I will be eternally tormented in the "Lake of Fire." Pro's remarks are inconsistent. If he states that I will perish and will experience an "eternal death," how exactly will I be tormented? Using his own logic refutes this resolution.


Of course, using my standard negation argument, this argument by PRO hinges on God's existence, which of course he can't prove, so the contention fails, anyway.

PRO states, "God loves you."

This is of course irrelevant to the resolution, though I must point out that it actually acts as a contradiction, if anything, on PRO's part. If we assume that God exists, how could he both love me and impose his wrath on me for daring to question his existence? That is, for using the inherent capacity he supposedly gave me to think and to reason and to question, I am either going to perish eternally, or be tormented forever, according to PRO. Does he not see that his remarks indicate a significant contradiction?


PRO states, "I hope you find this to be more than intersting."

This is indeed interesting. Thank you, PRO.


PRO states, "Your defiance against God is evil and will incurr nothing but God's wrath proven in your death and ultimately in eternal torment of the Lake of Fire if you finalize your death insistant that God's wrath cannot be proven."

I have already pointed out the contradiction in what PRO has written regarding what he thinks will happen to me upon my death, but regardless of that, his remarks hinge on the existence of God. But, in addition, he assumes the existence of a personal God who desires to be worshipped and punishes people who dare to question him when there is in fact no evidence for his existence, but at the same time, supposedly loves us. How does this make any sense? Again, I would love to see PRO's evidence.

PRO states, "Casting doubt on the existance of God will only cause His wrath to build against you more."

This is a baseless statement that, as far as we know, is not grounded in evidence, but merely PRO's opinion, so naturally we can discard it.


PRO states, "Go ahead and cast doubt. Go ahead and say God cannot be angry with you because He is not there."

It's interesting that PRO is saying this when he believes that, in doubting the existence of God, I'm dooming myself either to eternal death or to torture. But, yes, I will cast doubt because there is no evidence.


By the way, I have never said "He is not there." Some atheists may, but I have not. I merely would like to see some evidence as to whether or not he is there. I'm "agnostic," if you will. PRO's burden, obviously, is to prove that God exists.

PRO states, "Go ahead and see where it gets you."

My response to this, I suppose, is identical to my response to his previous remark.

PRO states, "God's wrath is on you now, and you are pretending not to notice and not to care."

This remark by PRO is not only baseless, but insulting. He is suggesting that I am "pretending" not to notice that God's wrath is supposedly upon me. This isn't the case. I don't happen to know whether God's wrath is upon me because I don't know whether God exists.

Listen to his logic, though: he is essentially suggesting that atheists and agnostics do not exist. If I am pretending not to notice God's wrath, by PRO's estimation, then I would have to believe in God. If that is the case and we accepted this notion as universal, there would be no such thing as an atheist or agnostic. I challenge PRO to defend this supposition.

PRO states, "God won't excuse you for pretending,"

He again asserts that I am pretending. How can this be so? And if it were so, wouldn't it be true that the sin he is speaking of is "pretending," rather than disbelieving?

PRO states, "He won't accept your argument saying He cannot be proven as your excuse that you should not feel His wrath."


Again, PRO is merely prozelytizing rather than arguing. He needs to prove his remarks, rather than merely stating them. This, again, is an assertion on his part, one of which I would love for him to prove or try to prove.

PRO states, "You are defying God and He will make sure you know He does not appreciate it."

This is another baseless assertion by PRO, but also another contradiction. If I perish eternally, in his judgment, then I won't know that "he does not appreciate it." How does this make any sense given what PRO has already said?

At this point, the resolution has already been negated, but I have some remaining character space, so I am going to run a few more contentions.

C1) Problem of Evil Effectively Refutes the Christian God, which negates the resolution

For this following syllogism, I would like to credit Envisage, who worded it quite eloquently (1):

"P1) If the Christian God exists, then gratuitous suffering will not exist.
P2) Gratuitous suffering exists.
C1) Therefore, the Christian God does not exist."

The Christian God to which PRO is referring, or the 03 God, is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. This means that, in the Christian view, he is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. In other words, this would mean that he knows of what is happening and what will happen, has a desire to end suffering, and is powerful enough to end it. If this is the case, why do people suffer? How can he be all-powerful if he does not end it, or all-good if he allows it to continue, provided that he knows it is occuring?

C2) Occam's Razor and the Origins of the Universe Call into Question the Necessity of a God

Occam's Razor boils down to this: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better" (2).

In reference to this, Stephen Hawking wrote the following in A Brief History of Time (2)(3):

"We could still imagine that there is a set of laws that determines events completely for some supernatural being, who could observe the present state of the universe without disturbing it. However, such models of the universe are not of much interest to us mortals. It seems better to employ the principle known as Occam's razor and cut out all the features of the theory that cannot be observed."

This leads us to the conclusion that, if we have another, more plausible explanation with fewer assumptions than the theological case for God, the explanation with fewer assumptions is usually accurate. In this case, this would be self-creation.

I am out of characters, so I will pass back to PRO. As it is, the resolution is negated.


(1) http://www.debate.org...;-- Syllogism taken from Envisage's Round 1 opening argument
(2) http://math.ucr.edu...;
(3) Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, page 57
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

As I said, you are defying God and He proves His wrath by your death.

I don't have to prove anything, God proves Himself. All you are doing is causing God's wrath to build againt you for defying Him. He loves you and He does not want to pour out His wrath on you, but you are going to leave him no choice if you don't stop saying He cannot be proven. Your rebuttals in defiance against Him won't get you out of His wrath. You are trying to throw things in my face in defiance of God. It does not matter how much you insist he cannot be proven. He is God and you are one of His creatures and He loves you and if you do not stop defying Him, He will make sure you feel his wrath. I don't have to prove anything. God is God whether you accept proof or not. Even if you fall into the fire of Hell today, you will defy God the same way you are defying Him now insisting His wrath cannot abide on you and never being able to know anything but His wrath against your defiance of Him.


God's wrath s on you now but you refuse to recognize it and that only causes His wrath to build. How long do you think He will be merciful to you and hold back from pouring out His wrath on you? This could be your last day......in fact, as far as I know, God could have called an end to your defiance already......maybe you are already gone off to Hell.

Hello? are you still there? God is still there. Are you?
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

The debate is already over because PRO has not fulfilled his burden of proof and has dropped my two main contentions. Extend them.

I will now respond to each of his arguments.


PRO states, "As I said, you are defying God and He proves His wrath by your death."

I never said that I was defying God. I don't believe in God. For it to be true that I supposedly know that I am defying him, I would need to believe in him. However, I do not, and you've provided no evidence or reason that I should believe in him.

PRO states, "I don't have to prove anything, God proves Himself."

This is positively laughable. How has God supposedly proved himself? I have seen no evidence for him, nor has PRO provided any, and his burden of proof in this debate does require that he prove the existence of God. His argument essentially boils down to "God exists because trust me." But what he saying is nothing more than assertion, and should thus be discarded.

PRO states, "All you are doing is causing God's wrath to build againt you for defying Him."

This is another assertion by PRO, one which he hasn't proven in the slightest bit.

PRO states, PRO has dropped my argument that if God existed and actually loved me, he wouldn't "pour out his wraith" on me merely for questioning his existence with a capacity he supposedly gave me.

Why would God have no choice but to pour out his wraith on me if in fact he exists? Isn't he, in your judgment, omnipotent? Why would an omnipotent God have no choice? Doesn't he create the rules by which he operates?

PRO's arguments are unbelievably dogmatic and unfounded.

PRO states, "Your rebuttals in defiance against Him won't get you out of His wrath."

In other words, he is going to continue to make assertions without evidence instead of responding to my rebuttals, thus dropping points again and again.

PRO states, "You are trying to throw things in my face in defiance of God."

This isn't true. As I have said, I don't believe in God, so I cannot defy him, at least not intentionally. I am not trying to, as you say, "throw things in your face." Rather, I am merely responding to your arguments.

PRO states, "It does not matter how much you insist he cannot be proven. He is God and you are one of His creatures and He loves you and if you do not stop defying Him, He will make sure you feel his wrath."

If he can be proven, then why haven't you proven him? Why have you only provided assertions and circular logic? Why are merely restating the resolution instead of making arguments in defense of your case?

Once again, PRO's case boils down to "I'm right, so therefore I'm right, because trust me."

PRO states, "I don't have to prove anything. God is God whether you accept proof or not."

In order to win this debate you did need to provide proof, which you haven't done, and thus you haven't fulfilled your BOP.

It's not a matter of accepting proof because you haven't provided any. If you provided proof, I'd reconsider my position, but you have provided none, so I have no reason to trust your position as a matter of blind faith.

PRO states, "Even if you fall into the fire of Hell today, you will defy God the same way you are defying Him now insisting His wrath cannot abide on you and never being able to know anything but His wrath against your defiance of Him."

PRO dropped my argument pointing out his contradiction as to what he thinks will happen to me upon my death.

Again, this is nothing more than an assertion which hinges on the existence of God. For me to defy God, I would need to believe in him, which I don't. So this point doesn't bring PRO even remotely closer to fulfilling his BOP.

PRO states, "God's wrath s on you now but you refuse to recognize it and that only causes His wrath to build."

PRO simply keeps repeating himself instead of providing evidence. How can he prove this? He is essentially saying that I must believe in God but and simply choosing to defy him.

Let's even consider a hypothetical scenario where his supposition is true and atheists/agnostics don't exist. If that were the case, how is anyone plagued to eternal damnation? I thought the ultimate sin was denying God. If, according to PRO, no one can defy God, no one can be subject to his wrath.

It's interesting that PRO can believe in something for which there is no evidence, but then he meets a living, breathing atheist, and refuses to believe in him.

PRO states, "How long do you think He will be merciful to you and hold back from pouring out His wrath on you?"

I have no idea, probably because I don't believe in him and you haven't provded any evidence to change my opinion or to fulfill your BOP, so therefore I have no reason to believe in him, and therefore this question becomes utterly irrelevant.

PRO states, "This could be your last day."

My last day to live? That's quite possible, as is anything else, but that doesn't prove the existence of God.

PRO states, "In fact, as far as I know, God could have called an end to your defiance already......maybe you are already gone off to Hell. Hello? are you still there? God is still there. Are you?"

No, I'm still here, and the resolution is still negated.

It's interesting that now PRO has made up his mind and has decided that, instead of perishing eternally, I will go to hell, in his judgment.


Anyway, there isn't anything left to respond to. PRO didn't make a single substantive point supporting his position or fulfilling his burden of proof.


Therefore, I highly urge a CON ballot.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
The debate was not about God's existence.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Oh boy, a Muslim has voted that God' s wrath does not appear in response to defiance against Him. I guess that means the Muslims won't be murdering people who refuse to bow to Allah and say Muhammed is his prophet.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Its up to you if you want to admit you deserve to die and burn in Hell or not admit it.

Will you admit that you deserve to die and burn in Hell forever? I know I deserve to die and burn in Hell forever.

If you will not admit this, you cannot come into agreement with God and in hope (false hope) of not falling under punishment in God's Judgement, you will accuse God of not proving Himself to you and you will be cast away from God forever if you do not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved from the frie of Hell.....Believe it or not.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I have a new life from God in Jesus Christ, nothing can change my mind about that. Jesus Christ is LORD!
He is coming to judge the quick (living) and the dead. Every word, thought, imagination, and action will be brought into judgement. You can't keep secrets from God.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I know you are wrong. I was like you before i realized i was wrong. There is a new man in me, Christ in me, Jesus Christ Himself in my by His Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God in me, I am born of His Spirit and am a joint heir of heaven with, through, by, in, and for jesus Christ forever. Bought and paid for by His blood, He paid my penalty in death to save me from Hell fire for eternal life.

I know you are wrong, and I know you are willfully denying that God has revealed Himself to you because i know He has revealed Himself to you. You prefer to say He has not or He can not or He will not because you know that if you admit He is God and jesus is LORD, it will change you forever and you will probably lose a lot of the friends you love when you renounce your own pride and take sides with God against your sin and all sin.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
I never said there isn't a God. I said I don't know whether there is one. Your logic is unbelievably circular as it presupposes that I'm wrong. I would pose the question back to you: what if you're wrong? That's why I want to debate you; I want to see if you can change my mind, or if I can change yours. I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong on this. Are you?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
As long as you say nothing other than there is no God, I'm not going to bother with you.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
You are closed to being wrong or you would admit you are wrong. God Himself is the evidence and He has made Himself known to you. You are in denial and there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

You are under death penalty with no fear of the Judge. If you want to finalize your death that way, your blood is on your own head. I have tired to tell you how you can be saved. You are rejecting God's offer of eternal life in preference of what you have now...........death, that's all you have and all you will ever have in the fire of Hell if you don't repent and believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST.....He died for you because He created you and loved you, he was buried to take your sin away, He rose from the grave to justfiy you if you will believe on Him but I guess you won't because you keep insisting there is no evidence to believe in. Your own death is not enough evidence of God's judgement against your sin, so eternal death will be yours in the Lake of Fire if you do not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved before you finalize your death in this world.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you say there is no God so you have nothing to debate about. You are wasting your breathe.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
JohnMaynardKeynes
Of course there is something to debate about because you've made a claim -- God exists and has already revealed himself to me, you say -- and I reject the claim due to lack of evidence. If we were to debate it, you could try to convince me that I'm wrong. I'm open to being wrong.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
LifeMeansGodIsGoodJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because PRO seemed to be threatening CON; Arguments because PRO didn't even seem to try to counter any of CON's points; Sources because CON offered sources. One question: CON, what's up with the small text?
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
LifeMeansGodIsGoodJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a Christian, but setting that aside, Pro did not really respond to Con at all. There are multiple proofs of God's existence that they could have brought up. I thought Con, while I personally do not agree with them, brought up logic and argumentation that was not addressed by Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
LifeMeansGodIsGoodJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor argumentation
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LifeMeansGodIsGoodJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: BOP not filled.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
LifeMeansGodIsGoodJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I am Christian, but if the intent is to convince someone Pro failed miserably. Con's arguments, though admittedly I am biased here, may not be in my estimation all that strong on their own, but contrasted with essentially God, death, and ... wrath? No one can be convinced intellectually by that.