If god was real he would've created immortal beings
Debate Rounds (4)
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.
In Scenario B God decides to take a simpler more effective route.
1) He creates a world of Immortal and holy god like creatures that mimic his holiness.
2) These immortal beings are pure and sin free and thus can communicate with the lord as suggested in Genesis.
3) There would be no suffering in a world full of sinless, immortal beings and no unnecessary death or cruelty.
4) All beings would know God and thus be eternally grateful to God for creating them putting to rest any dispute about the existence of God.
5) God would be pleased with the purity of his creation and how much they love respect and praise him thus strengthening the relationship with god.
Scenario A is clearly a better scenario not just in the interests of God wishing to be close to his children and the desire for the purity of his children. This would also end all suffering and would ensure everyone has the same knowledge about God ultimately unifying everyone around the world around this undeniable truth.
Scenario B Lacks any clear purpose of God or at least doesn't define the purposes of god by Bible definitions.
If God truly exists Scenario A would have been reasonably within his powers and reasonably sufficient for his intentions with his creation here on earth and would ultimately be a better plan all round.
As I observed last round, God would not necessarily want to "be close to his children", "end all suffering", or have everyone believe in a single "undeniable truth". The perfect, divine utopia Pro has described actually sounds quite boring: a reality which would eventually become mundane and uninteresting to both its ruler and its inhabitants. Why should we believe that this is what God wants? Why should Pro get to dictate what constitutes a "better" plan? Attempting to determine what is "in the interests of God" is futile, because we have no possible way of knowing what God's goals or desires are. God does not have to conform to Pro's conceptions of what an all-powerful being should be like, which is why Pro's argument is fatally flawed.
Again, Pro misses the point. Perhaps God wants his beloved children to have to earn heaven. Perhaps God and his angels watch people struggle on the dystopia known as Earth as some sort of reality TV show. Perhaps heaven doesn't even exist. The resolution of the debate does not specify that "God" has to be as he is portrayed in Abrahamic religions. The crux of my argument is that if an all-knowing and all-powerful being such as God exists, we have no way of knowing God's goals, and so it is impossible for us to make absolute claims about what he "would have done". Pro's claim is literally impossible to affirm.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jingle_Bombs 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con forget to argue the existence of angels or enternal Christian life in this debate. Which is both unusual and unfortunate considering the writing of the resolution. Likewise, Pro is right to believe that an omnipotent God could have created a better world, but fails to argue persuasively against Con's rebutalls to know exactly what God's goals & actual intentions are. This defeats the moral "would have" clause which is nessesary in order to win this debate. Pro may counter the inability "to know Gods plan" in the future by weighing it against the best interests of humanity - which Pro would have had a much more appropriate claim to. Instead of "would have," God "should have" made a better world with immortal beings.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.