The Instigator
Atheism_Debater
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Debate_King1475
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

If God Exists (Christian)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Atheism_Debater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 70063
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Atheism_Debater

Con


In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. I wish to take this debate seriously, anyone that can prove that God is real, should accept.



Definitions:


God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe.


Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods.


Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods.


Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.



Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future.



Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.



Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.



Rules:


First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals.


A forfeit is an automatic loss.


My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round.


Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.





Merriam Webster


Debate_King1475

Pro

I accept my atheist comrade. May the best species win and good luck to you as you walk into the realm of religion and creation via an omnipotent God.
Debate Round No. 1
Atheism_Debater

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.

Arguments:

“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 18:30

“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matthew 5:48

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “

Psalm 19:7

From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection.

Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.

  • God is a perfect being that created the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.

  • God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect.

  • The world is imperfect.

  • Therefore, God does not exist.

Now onto my second point.

People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.

A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.

  • If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy therefore not intruding on his moral existence.

  • If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more.

  • If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.

  • If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.

  • God does not exist.

Now onto my last point.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent the best of luck.

Citations:

The Holy Bible

https://www.biblegateway.com...

Debate_King1475

Pro

1. God gave us free will because he wants to give us the ability to love him but that also gives us the ability to show error. All the imperfections in the world are because of us.

2. God is omnipotent and knows all. Just because he knows what lust is because he created it does not mean that he is bound by it. God created the universe and knows everything inside of it that does not mean that he is bound by it.

3. God definitely has free will. He has the ability to choose. Just because he knows what he is going to choose does not mean that he wasn't given the choice to choose. He is perfect and always chooses to do the perfect thing. So, he knows what he will do in advance but that is because he got to choose what he does in advance.

I have one question that I would like to ask you

How do you know that there is a godless universe? Because, there is no explanation for a godless universe but there is an explanation of god's universe.
Debate Round No. 2
Atheism_Debater

Con


Rebuttal:


Let me just point out a contradiction real quick.


“He is perfect and always chooses to do the perfect thing”


If God is perfect, everything he does and makes has to be perfect.


If God created us; therefore we have to be perfect for your argument to remain true. Then if we are perfect, according to you, we cannot do anything imperfect. So saying,


“All the imperfections in the world are because of us.”


Is completely inaccurate and contradictory.


“God gave us free will because he wants to give us the ability to love him but that also gives us the ability to show error.”


If God is to be perfect, then we have to be perfect, if we show error, then God is not perfect. Also the very idea that God gave us free-will is a fallacy. If God is to exist at all, then nothing can have free-will.


“Just because he knows what lust is because he created it does not mean that he is bound by it.”


Yes it does. If God knows what lust is, it means he must have felt it. If he has felt it he has broken his moral perfection. Also what you said is also a rebuttal and illegal.


“God definitely has free will. He has the ability to choose. Just because he knows what he is going to choose does not mean that he wasn't given the choice to choose.”


I don’t think you get it, I’ll explain it again so you get it. You even said,


“God is omnipotent and knows all”


Since he knows all, past, present, future there is no free-will. If God knows the future, then it is fixed, he knows what he will do in advance. Since he knows what he will do in advance, he cannot change what he does, he has no choice, no free-will.


“How do you know that there is a godless universe?”


Because of the arguments given in round 2 and since there is no evidence, I was hoping you would provide some.


“Because, there is no explanation for a godless universe but there is an explanation of god's universe.”


I literally gave three arguments for a godless universe, and you are supposed to explain a God’s universe. Your three arguments (or whatever they were, I think they were rebuttals which is not allowed) were not really arguments at all so if you could actually give an explanation of a god’s universe that would be great.


Conclusion:


In Pro’s short response, Pro hasn’t provided any arguments for his side. While I have provided three, I await next round for Pro to attempt to rebut them.



Debate_King1475

Pro

"If God is perfect, everything he does and makes has to be perfect." No. That is not true. God being perfect means that he has a perfect explanation that supersedes creating a human being with the capacity to do error, free will. This is not a contradiction because he has a better reason for creating something with free will, which causes it to become imperfect, than to create a human that loves like a robot with no emotions or feelings what so ever. Before the fall, we were perfect but we chose to become imperfect via free will.

"All the imperfections in the world are because of us." This is true. Before God created us, everything was perfect, but then we came and we did not obey god and the result was the world became imperfect.

If God is perfect and we are imperfect, then that would mean that God gave us the capacity to do error, free will. God gave us the choice to not obey him because he wants for us humans to love him without him being our puppet master.

What I mean by explain a godless universe is that you have not provide a reason how the universe was created, how life emerged, and how the whole universe can follow the laws of the universe without someone having created the laws. That is what I meant by a godless universe.

Also, you can't say that my argument is not an argument if you don't address my argument at all and just state your argument claiming that it is logical. Your argument seems logical but it is an illusion that everything has to be perfect with a god bound universe. Heaven is ultimate perfection and in order to get there we need to be able to choose to follow god and love god. That is why there is free will.

Also, going back to lust, it seems a bit off topic but like I said, if God is omniscient, then he knows all. By saying he does not know what lust means unless he experiences it claims that he attains knowledge in the way that humans experience it. But, he is omniscient and he knows all, which includes lust because he knows all.
Debate Round No. 3
Atheism_Debater

Con


Rebuttal:


I’d like to point something out.


“creating something with free will, which causes it to become imperfect, than to create a human that loves like a robot with no emotions or feelings what so ever.”


Then you say,


“Heaven is ultimate perfection and in order to get there we need to be able to choose to follow god and love god.”


Therefore in heaven (since it is perfect, without sin) there is no free-will, and in heaven we are like robots with no emotions or feelings whatsoever. Lol.


“No. That is not true. God being perfect means that he has a perfect explanation that supersedes creating a human being with the capacity to do error, free will.”


This is false. If I am perfect, and I create something that is faulty then I am not perfect, therefore humans have to be perfect. Also, I already established that it is impossible to have free-will if God exists, you did not defeat it, you evaded it. Therefore my argument still stands untouched, it is impossible to have free-will if God exists, this defeats many of your arguments.


“Before the fall, we were perfect but we chose to become imperfect via free will.”


First of all, God knew this would happen, secondly free-will is impossible if God exists.


"All the imperfections in the world are because of us." This is true. Before God created us, everything was perfect, but then we came and we did not obey god and the result was the world became imperfect.”


You literally quoted yourself and then talked about how you are right lol.


“God gave us the choice to not obey him because he wants for us humans to love him without him being our puppet master.”


God is our puppet master in heaven according to you and, again, there’s no free-will if God exists.


“Also, you can't say that my argument is not an argument if you don't address my argument at all and just state your argument claiming that it is logical.”


That’s because the argument wasn’t an argument it was a rebuttal, and if it was an argument then it completely missed the target for I couldn’t even tell it was an argument.


“Your argument seems logical but it is an illusion that everything has to be perfect with a god bound universe.”


It is not an illusion it is the truth, a perfect thing cannot create imperfect things.


“he is omniscient and he knows all, which includes lust because he knows all.”


Aha! Exactly! If God knows lust then that breaks his moral perfection rendering him godless, thank you.


Conclusion:


All of my arguments still stand untouched and my opponent has not provided any arguments proving that God exists. The arguments my opponent has provided I have defeated. Thank you.




Debate_King1475

Pro

In heaven, there is free will but we are in a state of paradise, which causes people to praise god more effectively thus eliminating sin. We can not know the contents of heaven but there will always be free will because the soul possesses free will and reason and heaven is the state, which the soul is more closely united with god.

Why do humans have to be perfect in order for God to be perfect? God does not have to create humans with the capacity to only be perfect in order for him self to be perfect. If God created humans with no capacity for error, then we would be perfect and have an equality with god.

You are not addressing my argument but rather are repeating your argument over and over again.

I did quote myself. Why did I do it? Because I have free will and I can do that if I want to.

God is not our puppet master ever. He could if he wanted to but he chooses not to in order to give us the choice to love him.

God knows lust because he knows all that does not mean that he experiences it.

Also, God did not create an imperfect thing. We chose to be imperfect by ourselves without god so god did not plan on us to fail but we happened to because free will has corrupted our reasoning, which is why we are imperfect.

You are making an assumption that if God created us and we are imperfect then God is imperfect. That is an assumption by you, which is not backed up with any evidence.

Also, you have given no viable model of a universe with no god. I can explain my model, which is simple. God created everything. But by you saying that there is no god but you have no way of proving it shows how your argument lacks evidence.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Round 3 --------
Con ----
R(R(A1c)) " Restating of A1c.
R(R(A2c)) " Restating of A2c.
R(R(A3c)) " Restating of A1c. God precludes free will. Omniscience implies knowledge of the future, which implies the future is fixed with god"s knowledge. God cannot have free will for the same reason.
R(A1p) " A1c, A2c, A3c, and lack of evidence show that god dne.
Pro ----
R(A1c) " god"s reasons for creating an imperfect creation (desire to give it free will) is perfect, therefore there is no contradiction between a perfect god and imperfect world. The world was perfect before humans were created. Humans chose to become imperfect. Free will exists so that we humans can choose to obey and love god in order to go to heaven.
R(A2c) " god can gain knowledge through means different than how humans gain knowledge (does not need to experience lust to know it fully)
Round 4 -------
Con ----
R(R(A1c)) " if heaven is perfect then there is no free will in heaven (for all the same reasons as before).
R(R(A2c)) " If god knows lust, it is not morally perfect.
Rest is reiterated from Round 2.
Pro ---
R(A1c) " There is free will in heaven. No reasons provided. God did not create imperfect humans, but humans chose to become imperfect because they have free will.

A2"s premise that there is a strict dichotomy between experiencing certain feelings and having full knowledge of them requires some evidence and justification. A3 is incoherent as of Round 1 but corrects this with a better version in Round 3. Pro does not rebut this. Pro has mostly only made assertions without arguments. Pro rebuts Con"s A2 with a somewhat clever point that foreknowledge need not preclude choice, if choice precedes knowledge. This can be easily argued against, but Con does not address this. Overall, Con has made more logically coherent arguments that go unchallenged (or poorly addressed), so I give a slight victory to Con in arguments. Sources to go to Con, because the bible was a relevant source f
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Here's my summary of this debate:
Ac refers to argument by Con, R(A) refers to a rebuttal to a particular argument.
BoP equal: Con " god dne, Pro " god exists
Round 2 ----------------------------------------
Con ----
A1c " Christian god is perfect. Perfect being should not create imperfect world. World is imperfect. Therefore god dne.
(A1c-minor) Perfect things are mental idealizations of real things and tend not to exist. Therefore, a priori belief should be heavily against.
A2c " Belief in perfectly moral god implies god does not have certain feelings (lust, envy, etc.). Without experience of these feelings, complete knowledge of them is not possible. Therefore god is either not omniscient or god is not morally perfect.
A3c " Free-will requires uncertainty. An omniscient being cannot have uncertainty. Therefore god does not have free will. Free will is required to be a personal god. Therefore god cannot be a personal god.
Pro ----
R(A1c) " God gave free will so people can love him and make mistakes. Imperfection is the fault of humans.
R(A2c) " God is omnipotent. God knows lust but is not bound by it. God created the universe, knows everything inside it, and is not bound by it.
R(A3c) " God has free will. God is perfect and so every choice he makes is perfect. He knows what he will do in advance because he chose it in advance.
A1p " Only god can explain the universe.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
This debate had very little content, but I'm about done my RFD.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Partway done my RFD. Will get back to it in a few hours.
Posted by Atheism_Debater 2 years ago
Atheism_Debater
Thank you very much, you too!!!
Posted by Debate_King1475 2 years ago
Debate_King1475
Atheism_Debater, I would like to thank you for a fantastic debate. You did a great job and I wish you good luck to your future debates.
Posted by Samyul 2 years ago
Samyul
I would accept but your opening specifications are flawed.
You only want to debate someone that can prove that God exists, which is literally impossible, and if someone could somehow prove that God exists, then there would be no such thing as athiesm or even this debate? If someone could prove God exists then it would be a huge deal in the scientific world.

Nobody can PROVE God exists, therefor nobody can debate you. I'm a Christian and I know God exists, but I cannot scientifically prove it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Atheism_DebaterDebate_King1475Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Complete RFD in comments. A2?s premise that there is a strict dichotomy between experiencing certain feelings and having full knowledge of them requires some evidence and justification. A3 is incoherent as of Round 1 but corrects this with a better version in Round 3. Pro does not rebut this. Pro has mostly only made assertions without arguments. Pro rebuts Con?s A2 with a somewhat clever point that foreknowledge need not preclude choice, if choice precedes knowledge. This can be easily argued against, but Con does not address this. Overall, Con has made more logically coherent arguments that go unchallenged (or poorly addressed), so I give a slight victory to Con in arguments. Sources to go Con, because the bible was a relevant source for this debate and used well to support Con?s case.
Vote Placed by imnotacop 2 years ago
imnotacop
Atheism_DebaterDebate_King1475Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct - both came off as reasonable. arguments - con did a better job of convincing me. grammar - pro needs to learn how to use a comma. source - god made good use of the bible and directed us to what he was quoting.