The Instigator
Ocarina
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

If God does exist, he is evil. (Abrahamic god)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 41383
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Ocarina

Pro

I am an atheist. I will do my best to prove that if God does exist, (which doesn't make logical sense in the first place but for the sake of argument we will assume he exists) he is indeed evil, and shouldn't be worshiped if you don't want to worship an evil god.
Stonewall

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. I will be attempting to prove that God (here assumed as being real) is not an evil being. I assume that this is merely an acceptance round, and I look forward to my opponent's first real round of debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ocarina

Pro

Hello good sir, it is a pleasure to meet and debate this topic with you.

First, I must start off by defining the word "evil". Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent. Now, very bad things happen to innocent people everyday, as we all know. I will now give you a hypothetical everyday example and explain the role God plays in it. It would be pointless to argue that things like this don't happen everyday, in which the end result is a murder or rape of an innocent person, because all you have to do is read the news.
There is a woman and her son walking down a street. A rapist comes behind the mother, grabs her, forces her down and rapes her. A murderer comes behind the son and slits his throat. Now, I will express what is known and said about God. He is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Since he is omniscient, he is all knowing, therefore knowing that that woman is getting raped and her son is getting murdered. Hell, he knows what's going to happen before the rapist and murderer even think about committing such crimes. Since he is omnipresent, he is right there, watching it happen, witnessing the mother getting raped and the son get murdered, yet, he allows this to happen. One could argue that God doesn't want to interfere with freewill, and that God gave humans the power to choose to do evil things. First of all, in the Bible, God performs miracles, which is indeed interfering with freewill. Okay. Keep in mind, if God performs a miracle and interferes and stops the rapist from raping the woman, and the murder from murdering her son, 2 people's freewill be affected (the murderer's and rapist's). If he does nothing, 2 people's freewill will be affected (the mother's and her son's ). Whether he chooses to help or not, at least 2 people's freewill will be affected. Therefore, him not doing anything is taking the murderer's and rapist's side in the situation, therefor favoring evil. Those who favor evil over good are evil beings. One could also argue that in the end the rapist and murderer will go to Hell so they will learn their lesson. This is illogical because you can't learn a lesson if you're dead. And will the rapists and murderer's torture in Hell un-rape her, and un-murder her son? No. And being burned in Hell for eternity still won't teach them why it's wrong to murder and rape. So that right there is pointless. Why doesn't an all-good doing god put some type of action into place to make the murder and rapist realize that what they were about to do to these people was wrong, so that they themselves, could possibly go out and teach other people why it's wrong to do such things, and actually start a chain of goodness and understanding? There is no lesson to be learned because it isn't like you can commit rapes and murders anymore once you're dead. But, as God would have it: A woman raped, a boy murdered, and two men tortured forever. What do you think Superman would do? Do you think Superman would allow this and not stop the rapist and murderer? God is supposed to be good, Superman is supposed to be good. Why are they on two different sides of the saving? Just a week or so ago there was a story of a grandmother who killed her baby granddaughter with a sludge hammer. Where was God during this? Right there watching it. Why? Why does he allow the deaths of innocent children? Everything that happens is a result of God because he can choose whether or not he will interfere, and everything that happens is within God's "plan" (which actually contradicts humanity's 'freewill'). God's plan requires the deaths of children and innocent people, God = Good. Hitler's plan requires the deaths of children and innocent people, Hitler = Bad. It is the same thing, yet one being is looked at as good, and the other is looked at as bad. God is like Hitler, just like Hitler, because he allowed Hitler to carry out his plans. His inaction, is action. Surely an omnibenevolent god wouldn't allow evil that seems so pointless. There is no point in killing a baby, and a child that dies of cancer, or a baby that is smashed to death with a sludge hammer will never be stronger, for their tribulation...they will die from it. It's absolutely pointless. I'm not saying he needs to get rid of every evil and hardship, but he allows excessive, pointless evil, like what happened in the everyday scenario I described above, or the baby that was beaten to death with a sludge hammer. What good will come of that? Him, being an all-powerful god, could stop it effortlessly, yet he does nothing about it.

Another thing: there is an issue with God's consistency. When that off-duty police officer stopped that mass murder in December 2012 in San Antonio, people called that a miracle (because people often attribute miracles to him), but just this year over 3,000 people were killed by Typhoon Haiyan. Let's say that God did have something to do with this. He saved a few people by putting a cop in the right place at the right time, yet at Sandy Hook several children were murdered. He allows Hannah Anderson's rescue from her kidnapper, yet allows Typhoon Haiyan to kill 3,000 people.

My issue is that theists put God in a "win-win" situation. If 8 year old Roy Barns survives being shot in the head, it's a miracle. If Tommy Young's uncle dies from being shot in the head, it's "God works in mysterious ways".

So, he allows unnecessary evils to happen to some people, but not to others. The fact that he allows pointless evil that he can easily prevent is proof enough that he is evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent. I look forward to your response.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://townhall.com...
Stonewall

Con

I wish these debate rounds were longer. Ah, well. As this debate specifies an Abrahamic God, I will use various texts for my argument.

"Now, I will express what is known and said about God. He is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent."

These ideas might be said, but they are certainly not known. In fact, if anything is known about God, it is that He is entirely unknowable. Nobody can say anything definitively about God. Thus, the basis of your argument (these four ideals) are quick to be refuted by various texts. Some of your points don't even factor into what makes God an inherently bad figure. Omniscience, omnipresence, for example, only speak to God's viewing an event, or being there. This, in itself, has nothing to do with God's badness or goodness, speaking only to the fact the He is there, much like an audience member at a movie. I'll address omnipotence later on.

"One could argue that God doesn't want to interfere with freewill, and that God gave humans the power to choose to do evil things. First of all, in the Bible, God performs miracles, which is indeed interfering with freewill"

Your point about God performing miracles in the Bible is essentially hearsay. Let me explain... the Bible, Quran, and Torah all speak to God's miracles in each respective book-- as of hundreds of years ago. However, this does not speak to what God does today. No holy book, by itself, speaks to God's providence today; the respective religion handles that. On the other hand, we people do have free will. Science has shown this. Okay, you could get nit-picky and say, "Well, synapses fire millionths of a second before we make a decision," yadda yadda yadda. But let's just assume that's free will. It is our decision to do what we want, when we want (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

"(I)f God performs a miracle and interferes and stops the rapist from raping the woman, and the murder from murdering her son, 2 people's freewill be affected (the murderer's and rapist's)."

Fair enough, as God edits an event for a more preferable outcome.

"If he does nothing, 2 people's freewill will be affected (the mother's and her son's )."

But that's not true at all. My free will has absolutely nothing to do with someone else's free will. If someone decides to kill me, my free will won't stop it-- we are all constantly at the mercy of someone else's free will. Somebody (let's say a bystander) not doing something about it has zero to do with my free will.

"Therefore, him not doing anything is taking the murderer's and rapist's side in the situation, therefor favoring evil."

But to take away someone's free will is evil. It is not favoring evil to let the dice fall where they may, it is essentially random. Even if you know where the dice will land, it is not in favor of the other players to change what you might want it to be.

"One could also argue that in the end the rapist and murderer will go to Hell so they will learn their lesson. This is illogical because you can't learn a lesson if you're dead."

That's more of an atheist thought than Christian, don't you think?

"And being burned in Hell for eternity still won't teach them why it's wrong to murder and rape."

1. Like spanking a child for doing something wrong, something tells me they'd figure it out. 2. The Bible never says Hell is for eternity. In fact, in the (arguably) most famous quote in the Bible, it is said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." In different places in the Bible, like here, those who die in sin do just that-- die. Cease to exist. Which is what atheists believe anyways, so there's essentially no harm done (http://www.miqteens.com...).

"Why doesn't an all-good doing god put some type of action into place to make the murder and rapist realize..."

Because that would be interrupting free will. God won't break scientific knowledge (free will) for no reason. Just because He could doesn't mean he should or will.

"God is supposed to be good, Superman is supposed to be good. Why are they on two different sides of the saving [sic]?"

Because God gave Superman free will to stop the bad guys if he so desired. He's not going to force Superman to do it; that would be against Superman's free will, which we've established as bad.

"Why does he allow the deaths of innocent children? Everything that happens is a result of God because he can choose whether or not he will interfere..."

If you know, for a fact, God could intervene. You don't; nobody knows that. Giving people (like those kids in Africa) advantages instead of letting those dice fall is interfering with free will for someone.

"(E)verything that happens is within God's "plan" (which actually contradicts humanity's 'freewill'). God's plan requires the deaths of children and innocent people, God = Good."

As I've been trying to prove this round, there is nothing to suggest that God has a "plan", intervenes in free will, or requires "the deaths of innocent people" like your inevitable and flimsy Hitler analogy would suggest.

"God is like Hitler, just like Hitler, because he allowed Hitler to carry out his plans."

By that logic, God is just like Bill Gates because He allowed Bill Gates to donate billions to charity. God is just like Abraham Lincoln for freeing the slaves. God is just like John Wayne Gacy for killing thirty children. It works both ways. This analogy is very poor and makes no sense.

"I'm not saying he needs to get rid of every evil and hardship, but he allows excessive, pointless evil..."

He also allows excessive, beautiful good. Like I said before-- it works both ways. The world is not such a dark and scary place as your pessimistic argument would try to make it sound. The world is a two-sided coin. There's just as much good as there is bad.

"Let's say that God did have something to do with this (cop and typhoon thing)."

Fair enough, but let's say He didn't. He let the dice fall. Good things happen, bad things happen. How people perceive it is irrelevant.

"My issue is that theists put God in a "win-win" situation. If 8 year old Roy Barns survives being shot in the head, it's a miracle. If Tommy Young's uncle dies from being shot in the head, it's "God works in mysterious ways".

As you said yourself, this is your issue with theists. Lots of theists don't think this way. This speaks nothing towards God, and is essentially useless in this argument.

"So, he allows unnecessary evils to happen to some people, but not to others."

He's not allowing it, He's letting us have our own free will. Let's say this argument worked the other way, and exclusively good things happened all the time, but people began complaining about God making them not do stuff. Then we'd be having a debate about "Should God allow free will?" People would simply find something else to attempt to shoot down God being good. This does not speak to God's goodness or badness.

___

Sources placed throughout my argument. I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Ocarina

Pro

Okay. So, what you are saying about miracles, is that God performed them in pre and slightly post-biblical days but not today? Fine, if they're hearsay, it's possible that they are false. So then God possibly never performed miracles: -10 miraculous points. Furthermore, if God is "unknowable", as you say, than it makes no sense to believe in him. Believing in something that you don't know exists, have no evidence of, and don't know anything about period is pointless and foolish.

The mother's freewill is affected because her will is to break free, but she can't. The rapist is stopping her freewill. No, a regular person bystander has nothing to do with your freewill, the rapist's or murderer's freewill, or even the situation at all because they are limited by their humanity, but a O,O,O,O god bystander would. So, do you refute the statements that God is these things: omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient? If so, he is useless, and if you don't believe these things about God then my argument is meaningless. If you believe God is just a lazy man in the sky who really doesn't care either way about jack squat, then he is just that, but many theologians would refute that view of God, and the O,O,O,Os are values and traditions passed on from the early church, although not in the Islamic faith, so my argument is a bit more Christian view-attacking.

"But to take away someone's free will is evil."
You're right. It's immoral, but either way it's immoral, whether he takes away the freewill and helps the mother and son, or doesn't do anything and allows the evil. At least if he interferes the innocent won't be harmed.

"1. Like spanking a child for doing something wrong, something tells me they'd figure it out."

You're assuming. This isn't true at all. It does not teach them WHY it's wrong, it only teaches them that if they do it again, they can expect to get a beating for it. Again, this showcases God's "you bad. you burn" primitive, barbaric mindset. This shows that God doesn't think things through, and that he goes off of pure emotion and hatred for the criminals instead of showing that he is a wise being, possibly the wisest being in existence. This also shows that God really can't forgive, another example being that if God could forgive, he wouldn't have to sacrifice a magician in a remote part of the Middle East 2,000 years ago (assuming that that actually took place).

'"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."'

What about those who don't believe in God? They will perish then, right? They can commit the same actions as a theist, yet perish because they didn't buy into the idea of something that is illogical to start with (but that's another argument for another day). That is profoundly immoral, so that is evil. Those who do the same things should get the same punishment.
"If you know, for a fact, God could intervene. You don't; nobody knows that."
So than it is possible that God is just a useless, lazy being, unworthy of worship.
"there is nothing to suggest that God has a "plan", intervenes in free will, or requires "the deaths of innocent people"'
- Here are some Bible verses that constantly refer to God's plan: Jeremiah 29:11, Ephesians 2:10, Jeremiah 1:5, John 3:16 (the exact quote you gave me earlier about 'for god so loved the world' is a plan). Need more verses?
- Yet again, miracles suggest he intervenes in freewill, whether they actually happened or not, they still suggest it.
- So there are some things outside of his plan that he doesn't want to happen? What use is he? He's not great and powerful as suggested by every holy book ever written about him and what is said by almost every believer.
"He also allows excessive, beautiful good."
But you just said earlier that you don't know if God in fact could intervene, meaning that excessive good isn't a result of God if he can't intervene. And excessive evil wouldn't be either, if you truly believe that he can't intervene. So, can he? You are a theist, right? Tell me if he can or cannot.
"He's not allowing it, He's letting us have our own free will."
So then he indirectly allows it because he allows us to have freewill in the first place.

In your eyes, then, God is just a useless, lazy being in the sky who couldn't care less about what he creates?
If you don't believe he intervenes in human lives and interacts with humans, what makes you believe he created them (assuming you're a theist)?

My statement that God is evil is only applicable if the beliefs that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent are accepted. However, it can be argued that if these are true then he is also good. This means that he is bipolar. Is he then confused on what to do or how to run a good and prosperous universe? Is he a being with a good and bad side? If he is two-faced, then he is untrustworthy. That's where I think this argument is headed.

I look forward to your response.


Sources:
http://www.openbible.info...
The Holy Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com...
Stonewall

Con

"Furthermore, if God is "unknowable", as you say, than it makes no sense to believe in him. Believing in something that you don't know exists, have no evidence of, and don't know anything about period is pointless and foolish."

But this debate isn't about believing in God, is it? For the sake of this argument, it was agreed that God was assumedly real, yet you bring up His probable non-existence on more than one occassion. What you believe about God is absolutely irrelevant here.

"The mother's freewill is affected because her will is to break free, but she can't."

You're confusing "free will" with "desire". "Free will" is defined as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate". The situation here is more about desire (for lack of a better word): "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." (1, 2) By the free will logic, my free will is affected because my will is to have a million dollars, but I can't. Even if someone's in my way, they have nothing to do with my free will.

"So, do you refute the statements that God is these things: omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient? If so, he is useless, and if you don't believe these things about God then my argument is meaningless."

That sounds like a forfeit. But hey, you said it, not me.

"If you believe God is just a lazy man in the sky who really doesn't care either way about jack squat, then he is just that..."

I never said God was lazy or even implied it; I merely said that He was impartial and didn't show favoritism. Perhaps this isn't a perfect attribute, or even just a good attribute, but it's still a far cry from "evil", which was the only requirement for this debate.

"...but many theologians would refute that view of God, and the O,O,O,Os are values and traditions passed on from the early church, although not in the Islamic faith, so my argument is a bit more Christian view-attacking."

Theologians can say whatever they want, but that isn't my point of attack. I'm sure a theologian could formulate an advanced Bible-based proof for God's goodness, but frankly, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not at that level of education on the subject. But I'm more than capable of proving God isn't an evil being.

"You're assuming. This isn't true at all. It does not teach them WHY it's wrong, it only teaches them that if they do it again, they can expect to get a beating for it."

If I'm assuming they'll learn their lesson, you're assuming that they're not. Works both ways. No point made, I suppose, on either side. Moving on.

"(Letting people burn in Hell) shows that God doesn't think things through, and that he goes off of pure emotion and hatred for the criminals instead of showing that he is a wise being, possibly the wisest being in existence."

Why does God have to explain why rape is bad? Every philosopher and lawmaker over the years has insisted that, among things like murder and cannibalism, rape is one of those inherently immoral things. It doesn't take a supreme being to tell someone, "Rape is bad. Mmkay?"

"What about those who don't believe in God? They will perish then, right? They can commit the same actions as a theist, yet perish because they didn't buy into the idea of something that is illogical to start with (but that's another argument for another day). That is profoundly immoral, so that is evil."

In what way is giving atheists exactly what they expect "profoundly immoral"? God is giving them exactly what they want. Atheists die with the confidence that nothing will come from their death, and they are right. That's a really beautiful thing, I think. God doesn't have to be the jerk who says, "I'm right, you're wrong, ha ha!" He's being the bigger man and letting exactly what they wanted to happen happen. I see nothing immoral about this at all.

"So than [sic] it is possible that God is just a useless, lazy being, unworthy of worship."

Meh, possibly. Thank you for reiterating my point that nobody can be sure.

"Here are some Bible verses that constantly refer to God's plan..."

You know what, I can give this point to you. Maybe God does have a plan. But, outside of His acts in the Bible (the potential miracles we both already established as simply hearsay), there is nothing today to suggest it.

"Yet again, miracles suggest he intervenes in freewill, whether they actually happened or not, they still suggest it."

Reworded: "If miracles happened, it suggests He intervenes in free will. If miracles didn't happen, it suggest He intervenes in free will." That's a faulty conclusion.

"So there are some things outside of his plan that he doesn't want to happen? What use is he? He's not great and powerful as suggested by every holy book ever written about him and what is said by almost every believer."

Again, this debate does not care for what use God is or what everyone says. It's strictly about, "Is God evil?" So far, you've been unable to provide proof that God isn't neutral, which is essentially what your debate is going to come down to.

"But you just said earlier that you don't know if God in fact could intervene, meaning that excessive good isn't a result of God if he can't intervene."

First of all, I was simply showing the opposite side of your argument. If God allows evil, then you suggest He could also allow good. In that case, you're refuting yourself, showing that God is not completely evil, and thus shooting your argument in the foot. I intend to cite this later as a reason for your own doublethink in regards to God.

In the other case, God is not, in fact, an interventionist. You're right, I don't know what God can and can't do.

"Tell me if he can or cannot."

I would never say if He can or cannot. Would you?

"So then he indirectly allows (unnecessary evils) because he allows us to have freewill in the first place."

In the same way He, in this case, indirectly allows unnecessary goods. Again, with everything you cite as "allowing bad things to happen," it simply furthers the case for also allowing good things to happen, which suggests that God is not evil. You're proving yourself wrong.

"In your eyes, then, God is just a useless, lazy being in the sky who couldn't care less about what he creates?
If you don't believe he intervenes in human lives and interacts with humans, what makes you believe he created them (assuming you're a theist)?"

I refuse to divulge this information in this debate based simply on the fact that it is irrelevant in this debate. I'm only here to try and persuade you and the audience that God is not inherently evil. On that note, your side comments about how a lazy (your term for "neutral") God is not worth worshipping are totally unnecessary.

"My statement that God is evil is only applicable if the beliefs that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Omnipresent are accepted."

Then you should have stated that in the establishing round of this debate. You didn't, you merely claimed that an Abrahamic God is evil and that you would attempt to prove so. So far, you have been unable to show the burden of proof that He is not O, O, O, O. On that note...

"Is he a being with a good and bad side? If he is two-faced, then he is untrustworthy."

My point to show that God is, by your definitions and statements, at worst a neutral God. As I said before: "Neutral" is a world away from "evil". However, you take "neutral" to mean "lazy", "confused", "two-faced", and "bipolar", which are poor half-synonyms, where words like "impartial", "unbiased", and "unprejudiced" would be more reasonable. Trying to skew a word of objectivity to mean something childish or of negative connotation is either mistakenly or intentionally misleading.

Your go.

1. https://www.google.com...
2. https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Ocarina

Pro

First, forgive me if everything I say doesn't directly, 100% relate to the topic of "God is Evil"

You still haven't said if you refute the statements that God is OOOO.

"I never said God was lazy or even implied it;"
I never said that you said that, but you did imply it based on your what you said it's possible that God does = not interfere. Lazy: not liking to work hard or to be active. So, assuming that God can do what he likes (because he is perfectly powerful as shown in the definition of God below), he can be looked at as lazy if he does not interfere on either side.

"I'm sure a theologian could formulate an advanced Bible-based proof for God's goodness, but frankly, I'm not a theologian, and I'm not at that level of education on the subject."
Okay then, so a theologian could do that, and he can formulate Bible-based proof for God's evilness. True.

"If I'm assuming they'll learn their lesson, you're assuming that they're not."
You don't get it. It doesn't teach them WHY, read, WHY <----- it is wrong. It teaches them what to expect when they do it. This still showcases God's (you bad. you burn) barbaric, primitive mindset. It is pointless if nothing is learned.

"In what way is giving atheists exactly what they expect "profoundly immoral"?"
Atheists don't want to perish. That's not giving atheists what they want. Atheists want God to be proved which has yet to happen, so that is why atheists even exist. What you said doesn't make sense, seeing that most atheists don't believe in an afterlife. And it's still profoundly immoral to punish someone more than another over the exact same thing, just because one didn't by into an idea, he will perish for the same sins. You have yet to prove that's a good thing for atheists. You see nothing immoral about it because you are a theist.

Are you also saying that God's "plan" is also hearsay along with miracles and other things that are in the Bible about God? His goods and evils could be hearsay, and if he doesn't do anything, evil or good, then he's not neutral, he's indifferent. He just doesn't care, but that's not the same as being neutral. Being neutral, you still concern yourself with issues, but you don't take sides. What you are presenting is that he is indifferent. You are different from most believers. You take God in a more of a literal sense, but the definition if God is: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. Perfect in power = omnipotent, perfect in wisdom = omniscient, and perfect in goodness = omnibenevolent. So if you don't believe these things, you technically don't believe in God, which would make you an atheist, making this argument, both sides, useless. With these at hand he could most certainly intervene. Also, being perfect in goodness, he wouldn't allow excessively evil things to happen at all, seeing how he's on the good team. By definition he is supposed to favor good and only do good, but he allows pointless evils, and pointless good. He isn't supposed to allow pointless evil at all. So, since he does, he defiantly can be looked at as "two-faced" although you don't agree with that choice of words. Like you said, it doesn't mean he does interfere, but it wouldn't make sense to create something imperfect and never bother with it again (humans are imperfect). If he truly sits back and just observes, than he's unworthy or worship. He deserves as 'thank you' for creating the universe and the things within it, but that's it. (forgive me for getting a little off topic, just food for thought).

So, I believe we have come to a conclusion here. I have lost, although as I pointed out above, both arguments are useless if you don't follow the definition of what God is. You have proved to me that God is not an evil being, but in your word choice, "neutral" although it is more so that he is indifferent. If you say he is neutral, it is just as logical to say he is two-faced (in the context of God, of course). If you say he doesn't care or doesn't concern himself with the issues of the universe, than he is indifferent.

Please respond to clear up any misconceptions, but you still won.

Sources: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Stonewall

Con

"So, assuming that God can do what he likes... he can be looked at as lazy if he does not interfere on either side."

I suppose; I see that more as simply being fair. But, hey, semantics.

"Okay then, so a theologian could do that, and he can formulate Bible-based proof for God's evilness. True."

So, in admitting a theologian could argue for good as well as evil, you admit that God is not inherently evil. It seems as though every other point you make is against your original statement.

"You don't get it. It doesn't teach them WHY, read, WHY <----- it is wrong."

And you are ignoring the part where everybody, read, EVERYBODY <------ knows that rape is an immoral activity. God doesn't have to teach these rapists; everyone and their mother can tell them why it's wrong, because we have God-given reason. Think of it likes this: When a child does something bad in class, it is the parent's job to tell them why what they did was bad, but they still face the teacher's punishment.

"Atheists want God to be proved which has yet to happen, so that is why atheists even exist... And it's still profoundly immoral to punish someone more than another over the exact same thing, just because one didn't by [sic] into an idea, he will perish for the same sins. You have yet to prove that's a good thing for atheists. You see nothing immoral about it because you are a theist."

If atheists truly wanted there to be an afterlife, they would at least convert to agnosticism (which is all anyone is, anyways). As far as I'm concerned, in saying with certainty that there is no God, you essentially have accepted and dismissed any sort of afterlife. In that, you are content with what you have here. If you truly wanted to believe in an afterlife, you would have faith or, at the very least, agnosticism. Giving atheists the confirmation that there is nothing beyond their life is giving them exactly what they are content with, and is thus not immoral.

And you say that as if you know I'm a theist.

"...the definition if God is:
the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe... So if you don't believe these things, you technically don't believe in God, which would make you an atheist."

If you're going with Merriam-Webster's. I went with Oxford's, the first result on Google for "God definition", which states that God is, "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions)
the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." This is a more lenient definition, but still within the realm of this debate's Abrahamic God. You really should have defined 'God' in the very first round of this debate, but here we are, discussing minute details, and not meeting this new criteria.

And again, what does it matter if either of us are theists, atheists, deists, agnostics, apatheists, or whatever? Any atheist could potentially argue God's goodness, just as a theist could argue God's badness. This does not discredit an entire debate. I'm sorry that when you started this debate you did not expect an argument that didn't rely so heavily on Bible-thumping. You expected some narrow-minded Christian to take this on so you could point out some flaws in the Bible and discredit them. Instead, you got this dude who can accept both sides of the argument and plays to both sides' insecurities.

"...but (God) allows pointless evils, and pointless good. He isn't supposed to allow pointless evil at all. So, since he does, he defiantly can be looked at as "two-faced" although you don't agree with that choice of words."

You know what, fine, let's use "two-faced". I don't care. You still admit that God is not inherently evil, which is all this debate relied on.

"So, I believe we have come to a conclusion here. I have lost, although as I pointed out above, both arguments are useless if you don't follow the definition of what God is."

What? If I don't follow the definition of what God is? I'm sorry you didn't bring up a definition until literally four rounds into the debate merely as a means to backtrack and hopefully save what little basis for your argument you had in the first place. That is not my issue.

___


Voters, this debate has consisted of issues over clarification and definitions. Nevertheless, on numerous occasions, my opponent has admitted that God is, at worst, simply an indifferent God. Perhaps this is not an admirable attribute, but it is certainly not evil. If my opponent would, in the future, like to more clearly establish his terms and conditions, I might return to take that argument. Regardless, my opponent has admittedly tossed the debate. Still, I encourage the voters to vote for whoever made the better argument, keeping in mind the only requirement for this debate is to prove that God is not an evil being. Many thanks to my opponent for a strong (albeit somewhat confusing) argument, and I look forward to any debates with him in the future.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ocarina 3 years ago
Ocarina
@cbcullen84 - Yes, they are technically from the perspective of an atheist, but more so from the perspective of a logical mind. If this life isn't some kind of gift, than it's pointless. So, some people will suffer on Earth, and then they'll go on to suffer for eternity? Omnibenevolent god? I think not. "the rapist and murderer will go to Hell...the point of which isn't to learn a lesson, instead it is to be confined there as eternal punishment for their actions" so God's thought process is "you bad. you burn" pretty much. It's pointless. Why should a rapist be unmercifully tortured FOREVER? Why can't he pay his dues, and that's it? Why doesn't God set it up as such that when a murderer dies, he must go through what it feels like to be murdered, and a rapist must experience what he put others through, and that's it? Being an omnipotent god, he could figure out how to do this. Now that's a fair and just plan from a just, and omnibenevolent god. But because God lacks the power of forgiveness, this doesn't happen. And if the son who was murdered was a believer, and did indeed go to heaven, then the murder did him a favor by killing him because Heaven is much better than Earth. In that case, why not go out and kill every believer? We'd be doing them a favor. And if God doesn't interfere with out lives, that only backs my point that he is evil because he allows pointless evils. It's not "made clear" in the new testament because he still performs miracles (Mary con conceived through the Holy Spirit = Virgin having baby without actually having sex), which interfere with free will. The angel told Mary strait up that she will bear God within her...she didn't have a choice in the matter as shown in the Gospel of Luke. So, God always has interfered with humanity, but now you say all of a sudden he chooses not to? And if you don't believe God interacts with humanity at all, and you can't see him, touch him, or hear him, and he is space-less and timeless, why do you believe?
Posted by cbcullen84 3 years ago
cbcullen84
Your observation on the rapis & murderer are from the perspective of an athiest and rightfully so, however when arguing against God and Religion, you must take into account that God doesn't intend for this life to be our gift. If the Woman and Son die and they are believers then they go to Heaven and their untimely and brutal demise will count for nothing against them whereas the rapist and murderer will go to Hell...the point of which isn't to learn a lesson, instead it is to be confined there as eternal punishment for their actions.

And to address the selective interventions, God (As much as he is credited for them) does not interfere with our lives...this is made clear in the New Testament. A Cop in the right place has nothing to do with God and neither does the Tsunami, if God were to interfere with one then he would have to interfere with them all.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
This is an interesting topic. Unfortunately, I don't feel that I'm well-versed enough in theodicy to properly argue for Con. I look forward to reading the debate, though.
No votes have been placed for this debate.