The Instigator
silvertechfilms
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
utahjoker
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

If God is real, then he's stupid.

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 10 votes the winner is...
utahjoker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 997 times Debate No: 34880
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (10)

 

silvertechfilms

Pro

If God is real, then he's stupid.
utahjoker

Con

He was able to create the whole world
Debate Round No. 1
silvertechfilms

Pro

How does that make intelligent?

If he is really so smart he wouldn't of designed an entire civilization and then drowned it because he didn't like it. Obviously he is not infallible.

He also should of designed the human brain better to not be so tempted by curiosity, then Eve wouldn't of eaten from the tree.
utahjoker

Con

I will know refute my opponents argument.

He was first able to create an entire civilization. He created an entire civilization out of dust and this must have taken some intelligence.

I am assuming that when you speak of drowning you are referring to the great flood and Noah's ark. This shows that god first was able to create an entire civilization than have the idea of making a flood that could cover the whole earth. He was also able to give building plans to Noah for an ark, which was so well planned out that it could hold 2 of every animal for an extended period of time on water, that must have taken some intelligence. Than having killed everyone except for a few of Noah's family he was able to return civilization to the 7 billion people that live on the earth today.

He designed the human brain so that it could be curious. Without human curiosity there would be no space program, technology as we know it, or even any education. Also no human has been able to create a working human brain out of scratch this shows that god was intelligent enough to create some of the greatest things ever.
Debate Round No. 2
silvertechfilms

Pro

*now

As I stated before, "If he is really so smart he wouldn't of designed an entire civilization and then drowned it because he didn't like it. Obviously he is not infallible."

As a christians I am sure you believe that even consensual incest is wrong, if so how would you explain the repopulation after the flood? He designed an ark for 2 of every animal, you can't reproduce that way without incest. He should have designed it so as to hold at least a dozen of each animal.

As I stated before, "He also should of designed the human brain better to not be so tempted by curiosity, then Eve wouldn't of eaten from the tree."
utahjoker

Con

I will now refute my opponents arguments.

He created an entire civilization and then when the civilization failed he destroyed. Like an inventor the first time they start an invention the first draft usually is not the one that works so they destroy it and try again.

It wasn't only Noah's family on the ark some of Noah's daughters were married so they repopulated the earth. The point is that he must have been smart enough to figure out how to repopulate without incest.

If Eve never ate the forbidden fruit non of use wold be here right now. Like I said again without curiosity many of the worlds advancements would never have happen.
Debate Round No. 3
silvertechfilms

Pro

Just by saying you are going to refute something, doesn't actually prove it wrong.

If he destroyed because it was just a "first draft", then he isn't infallible. Why not just change his creation instead of destroying it? If he can see things before they happen, he would of seen this coming. Why wouldn't he of changed his creation before so he wouldn't have to destroy them. It's not a mysterious way of working, it's a wasteful way of working.

As I stated before, "He also should of designed the human brain better to not be so tempted by curiosity, then Eve wouldn't of eaten from the tree."
utahjoker

Con

He created a civilization and allowed them to do what they want with agency, but you can choose your actions, but not the consequences. Since they were evil the consequence was death you can't just change someone. God is infallible people are not.

If Eve never ate the fruit the world would not have existed. Without curiosity people don't strive for better things the United States would never exist. We would never have gone to the moon. And medicine would not exist. Curiosity is a good thing as long as it is in check.
Debate Round No. 4
silvertechfilms

Pro

You're really bad at debating. All you do is repeat the same argument that I have already proven wrong.
utahjoker

Con

My opponent never refuted my arguments only repeated the same argument over and over again. My opponent also claims that I am a bad debater even though I have a win percentage over 80% and I am in the 99 percentile, while my opponent has a win percentage under 35%.

Vote Con because God is not dumb only some debaters.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CornCob 4 years ago
CornCob
You assume you know what his goal was in the creation of humanity.
else how would you know he failed?

You assume you are what he had in mind and that you could be accomplished without prior art/process.
Else how would you know its not still a work in progress and he knew the best way to achieve what he wanted was a very long process?

You assume he valued obedience over curiosity.
How would you know the best combination for his purpose if you don't know his purpose?

What have you seen, heard, read or thought that would be of strong evidence to argue god is done? if you cant even demonstrate reasonable evidence he has finished the job how can you grade his performance of the job? Could you so much as provide a timetable and show us where we are in the process you claim he messed up?
Posted by Lucian09474 4 years ago
Lucian09474
If he is really so smart he wouldn't of designed an entire civilization and then drowned it because he didn't like it. Obviously he is not infallible.

He also should of designed the human brain better to not be so tempted by curiosity, then Eve wouldn't of eaten from the tree.

Your argument is invalid, it collapses on its own root. The title should have been: "If YHWH exists then he is stupid" that is the God you are talking about the Christian God. Do not mistake the Christian God with God as an entity
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 4 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did have an annoying format but his arguments were sound and not refuted by Con. However, he gave up in the last round, which is why Con gets the conduct point.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I quote Pro for my RFD. Pro, "you're really bad at debating".
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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: Pro gave up in round 5, which is not only not convincing, but also poor conduct.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 4 years ago
gordonjames
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO seemed very narrow in his arguments. They neither defined GOD, or any objective measure of intelligence by which to judge
Vote Placed by Guy_D 4 years ago
Guy_D
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Simpleton argument put forth by the instigator. A caveman could have destroyed Pro's claim.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was not if God has any intelligence, but if God according to the arguments put forward by Pro is stupid, I have to agree with Pro, that in being able to foresee such a calamity regardless of wanting to give everybody freewill, even if everybody has free will that should not take away Gods ability to see future events as they happen.....Con never gave a decent rebuttal to this problem, with an argument that God may have sufficient reasons we don't know of to allow such a drastic event as wiping out an entire population, simply mentioning that he gave enough thought to spare a few to repopulate the earth is not enough to cut it for me. Also arguing that God has intelligence, is not enough, even those who are highly intelligent can often be stupid at times. I feel Pro put a good case forward as to why God can be deemed stupid, and Con never tackled these enough for me.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll change my vote. As Ragnar said, Pro just argued against God's infallibility and not his intelligence for most of the debate. He did not really meet his burden of proof. Also, Pro said "you're really bad at debating". That is an unnecessary personal attack in my books. Conduct point goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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 fell back from his position to point out god isn't "infallible," instead of proving by current standards of measurement to be stupid. I'm going to side with con's several claims about how smart someone would need to be to have done so much (even if I disagree with the incest comment, as that was almost certainly needed with so few people). Either anyone who cannot match one of the stated feats is a complete idiot (god being just a normal idiot), or con wins.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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: While con wasn't able to thoroughly answer some of pro's claims (like Adam and Eve), nothing pro said could really outweigh the abilities of God. Stupid is a strong word and a God who could create the universe, design humans, bring about a massive flood and such, is not stupid regardless of whether some of his actions seem really unnecessary.
Vote Placed by ATHOS 4 years ago
ATHOS
silvertechfilmsutahjokerTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree. If God created this world he'd be the author of a 'tale told by an idiot'.