The Instigator
ChristianPunk
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Buckethead31594
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is God Evil?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Buckethead31594
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 42505
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

ChristianPunk

Con

My opening statement will also be an invitation to anybody who can use reason, rationality and even if they want to quote the bible to prove me wrong.

I believe as a 19 year old Christian who is still reading the bible and learning, that God is love and that we can go to heaven by accepting Jesus Christ died on the cross for us and that he loved us doing so that he wanted to be our sacrifice. Call me crazy, but that's my belief. Now I will say this. I am aware of the flood that wiped out the earth, the slaughter of caanites, and all other things, but I am also aware of things that happened later on like Jesus saving a woman from being stoned for adultery, healing people of leprosy and blindness, resurrecting Lazarus, and other acts where he also was humble. He wasn't like our brimstone preachers today and scribes back then. He actually let a prostitute wash his feet when the religious said the sinful woman wasn't supposed to, he let Matthew (who was considered a sinner) to join his disciples, and he preached to the poor and sick, not the rich and healthy. And as my belief goes, God was also Jesus Christ. Many instances occurred where God appeared to people as a man. So why was Jesus different? He was actually born from somebody and he lived his life on earth as Jesus. If God was so evil as some people try to claim him to be, why would God become Jesus and do the things I have listed? He even saw where Peter cut off the ear of a Roman soldier when they were going to take him away. He told Peter to stop and he put the ear of the Roman soldier back on him. God knew violence wasn't the answer, but he also knew violence wouldn't stop. The only thing he wanted to do was to give us a chance to be forgiven and go to heaven. Because he believed people could change. Sorry if I seemed like I was preaching, but I just wanna get out as much from the bible that points God's good deeds. And if anybody wants to challenge me with modern times and God's works, then go ahead.

God has told people to stone others and I am still looking into that. But I guess it's probably why instead, we have the death penalty. It's a more humane way of killing instead of just getting savages to murder somebody with stones.
Buckethead31594

Pro

Greetings, ChristianPunk!

I would love to debate this topic with you--it has been a long time since I have had a good theological debate. To clarify (as stated in the comments), the resolution is referring to the Christian deity, Yahweh. First off, let me begin by stating that I will be arguing as an agnostic; meaning, I find it scientifically and theologically improbable for us to prove God's stance on morality solely off of the Bible. Although there are instances where God does wonderful things, there are also instances of terrible things.

Also taking into consideration that Con has not specifically stated the rules, allow me to do so: Con has chosen to hold the burden of proof to the extent of the resolution that God is not "Evil." Pro will have to dismantle Con's arguments in any way that they deem necessary. No ad hominems. No evidence unless it is cited.
Let us begin!




"I believe as a 19 year old Christian who is still reading the bible and learning, that God is love and that we can go to heaven by accepting Jesus Christ died on the cross for us and that he loved us doing so that he wanted to be our sacrifice"

Not contending; Con has chosen to use The Bible as his primary source for his argument. Let us focus and address the logic behind this phrase:



"God is love and that we can go to heaven by accepting Jesus Christ"

My opponent has faith in the theological belief that because God allows Free Will; he is inherently good. There are many instances in the Bible to denote God as inherently evil[1] Therefore, it would be just as easy for me to assume that God is evil or neutral in the sense that by ignoring some people's "choice" for Hell, he is denying them the potential opportunity for eternal happiness. Surely any God who is Love, would want the best for their children- no matter what they do? Let's use logic to find out:



1. If God is All Powerful and All Loving:

a. He would be able to shape the future of mankind in a way that everyone would have an equal chance for Heaven.

b. There would be no need to rely on Him to save them, as he would be both powerful and loving enough to forgive/protect/save them even after they die.

c. He wouldn't necessarily have to reveal himself, but his existence would become apparent as we grow closer to death.

d. Free Will would exist, although God would always forgive and save his children regardless of their choices.


2. If God is All Powerful and Neutral:

a. He would be able to shape the future to his bidding; he would prefer certain people over others. A chance to get into heaven relies solely on his ability to choose.

b. If God was neutral, the need to rely on Christ as the only way into heaven would be inherently evil (among other things).

c. If he was neutral, his potential to become corrupt would manifest itself in his emotional responses to mankind's behavior.

d. Free Will could exist, if God so chooses it to.


3. If God is All Powerful and Evil:

a. The future would only exist if God willed it; he would initially hate everyone and everything. Heaven would not exist.

b. If God was evil, there would be no heaven. His destructive qualities would insure mankind's downfall.

c. He does what he wants when he wants. His corruption would hold no bounds.

d. Free Will would not exist, unless it existed as a means for control (e.g. false hope, delusion).


4. If God is Impotent and All Loving:

a. He wouldn't be able to control your life- but at least he would try to love you unconditionally.

b. Heaven wouldn't exist unless it was in the form of an illusion; it wouldn't be much different then waking life. He would try his best though!He may or may not exist. It depends on the circumstances.

c. He is an emotional being who acts on selfless instinct

d. CONTRADICTION: God would be human, thus making him no longer God. As a finite being, he would be susceptible to corruption. His ability to love would be rendered conditional.


5. If God is Impotent and Neutral:

a. He wouldn't be able to control your life- he might like you if you make a good impression.

b. What is heaven? He wouldn't even know. He would just speculate its existence.

c. He may or may not exist. It depends on the circumstances.

d. He is an emotional being who acts on opportunist instinct.

e. CONTRADICTION: God would be human, thus making him no longer God. As a finite being, he would be susceptible to corruption. His emotions and choices would shape his actions.


6. If God is Impotent and Evil:

a. He wouldn't be able to control your life, but he would certainly try. He will always hate you.

b. He would care less about heaven. His desires would exist only in the present.

c. He may or may not exist. It depends on the circumstances.

d. He is an emotional being who acts on selfish instinct.

e. CONTRADICTION: God would be human, thus making him no longer God. As a finite being, he would be susceptible to corruption. His emotions and choices would shape his actions.


As you can see, logic clearly dictates that Jesus wouldn't be necessary if God were truly all loving and all powerful. Moving on.



"I am aware of the flood that wiped out the earth, the slaughter of caanites, and all other things, but I am also aware of things that happened later on like Jesus saving a woman from being stoned for adultery, healing people of leprosy and blindness, resurrecting Lazarus, and other acts where he also was humble."

It is no doubt in my mind that Jesus rebelled by acting with love in a society that scorned him for it. Nonetheless, If God was truly omnipotent and omniscient[2] as the Bible claims, he wouldn't have to change his mind; he would always know the right choices to make. If my opponent wishes to argue to the extent that Jesus was also Yahweh- the same deity from the Old Testament -he would need to explain as to why God would initially act with such hatred towards his people, then only later attempt to convince the masses that he was "good" by doing humble deeds. For if God would have made the right choices initially, there would be no reason for Jesus to come save us in the first place. It would make more sense to say that Yahweh and Yeshua were two separate "deities" all together. Otherwise, this would render God as corruptible, and thus, no longer all loving.



"And as my belief goes, God was also Jesus Christ."

I've addressed the contention about Yahweh being Jesus in my previous point.



"If God was so evil as some people try to claim him to be, why would God become Jesus and do the things I have listed?"

As mentioned before, he wouldn't unless he was neutral and therefore, inherently evil.



"God knew violence wasn't the answer, but he also knew violence wouldn't stop. The only thing he wanted to do was to give us a chance to be forgiven and go to heaven"

So end violence with more violence? This may sound a bit brash, but if God- being omniscient -knew that violence wasn't the answer, why did he kill at least 25 million people- all of which were recorded from the Bible[3]? This "chance" to get into heaven should have always existed if God was truly loving.



"Because he believed people could change."

This is the beauty of the Christian deity{s} as opposed to other deities- in the idea that God has faith in mankind--one of the more attractive aspects of Christianity. Still, he could have exerted more patience with humanity before choosing to wipe out the Earth with the Great Flood. Logically, if he is omnipotent, he should be omnipatient- correct?



"{The death penalty is} a more humane way of killing instead of just getting savages to murder somebody with stones."

It is somewhat irrelevant, but theoretically, what's the difference? Perhaps it is the very act of killing others that makes someone a savage[4]?




This concludes my first round. I await my opponent's response.










[1] http://goo.gl...
[2] Job 37:19, Psalm 147:5, 1 Samuel 2:3, Isaiah 55:9, Job 28:24, 1 John 3:19-20, Hebrews 4:13, etc.
[3] http://goo.gl...
[4]http://goo
Debate Round No. 1
ChristianPunk

Con

As I would like to point out, Pro has pointed only towards the killings and focuses on that with half of his statement. The other half filled with If He Is'.

1a. He already shaped it so everybody has an equal chance for free will. ANYBODY can enter heaven.
b. Agreed, but God has emotions since he loves us. Love is an emotion. And he can feel jealousy. So he could also feel hurt. [1]
c. That's why some think they see him. A testimony evidence and personal experience is two of the best pieces of evidence since it is somebody who has actually seen or felt the thing that is being questioned.
d. Free Will would. And he does forgive regardless of choices. But you can't be lazy and say "I won't ever ask for forgiveness."

2b. Not since Christ was one of God's human forms, but was one where he lived and stayed on the earth. To fulfill the prophecy.
c. He would have emotional responses, but he was sinless and he was obedient to the message he was teaching. He wasn't like the hypocrite scribes and Pharisees of the time.

4a. God doesn't control your life. You control your life. He only controls where you go in the afterlife.
c. He acted because rules were broken. Would you punish your children if they misbehaved at a young age or let him or her get away with it. Psychology has taught that if you encourage the habit by ignoring punishment he or she hates, then your reinforcing the attitude. But don't let my Psychology 101 book be the example. My mom lost me because my dad hated how she wouldn't think of anything of my F's in schools and she blamed the teachers, I went with him. My step mom is A and mom is B. Mom has my bro and sis. She lets them do whatever with no or lil punishment that's not really punishment since she wanted to be their friend (yes, she even said she wanted to be more their friend instead of their mom). My step mom punished me with belt whippings, taking away my phone or video games, or forbidding me from watching TV if I failed in school or misbehaved. I turned into a guy with Asperger Syndrome who you wouldn't think has Asperger. My bro and sis turned into rebels that cuss my mom out and when my mom tries to control them now, they tell her to go (bleep) herself. So if God was selfish, he would've acted like B, which was my mom. Because that meant he would also go drinking all night and flirt with guys that beat on her. If he loved his people, he would show them punishment, but try to make up for it later by offering rewards like chances to see awesome movies or go to SeaWorld (best day). [2]
d. God was Jesus and refused Satan's offer during the 40 days during his fasting. He even refused to be king of nations. And Satan is offering this. Don't you think you should think of Satan being the corrupt one with politics?

Ok. Using Psychology, God acted with hatred towards people out of love by punishing. (I admit, this is why I was considering being atheist since I am against genocide.) God was angry at people for breaking his rules and sinning by killing people, so he became an angry God since he had emotion, but later on before Jesus, he saw that no matter how many times he sent plagues, slaughtering, and death, nothing was changing. It was still a world of non believers, murderers, and corrupt people. So he could've felt bad and that's what turns him to try to empathize with people. God had appeared as other forms to people, but he wanted to appear as a poor man but started at birth and lived on Earth. So he got to feel what it was like to be human. To have empathy. And to feel pain.

He did warn people with his laws. And with people who knew God's laws. But because people failed to listen and act out of selfish jealous needs, they got punished. Caanites were murdered because they kidnapped Israelites.

Humans before the great flood were not humans like us. From what I read, they wouldn't hesitate to kill or rape an innocent child. Evil was at an all time high. He is omnipatient. You read the book of Job right? Many times he was tested and he waited for Job to say he still believed in him.

Your fourth source isn't that reliable since it's more of just an average blogger, but even still makes good points. I admit we won't find equality. And would you say the people that administer the needle to people in death row were savage? Would you call hunters savage? Would you call killing a man who is threatening to rape your wife and daughter savage? And if it was savage, it's a better savage then turning little kids into murderers because that's what they did. I bet little kids were told to stone. Kinda like KONY 2012.

1: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...
Exodus 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me

Exodus 34:14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)

Deuteronomy 4:24 For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Psalm 79:5 How long, O LORD? Will you be angry forever? Will your jealousy burn like fire?

http://www.allpsych.com...
Buckethead31594

Pro

I am sorry that it took so long to respond, I have been very busy lately. Anyway, How does one just ignore the obvious killings on God's part? My opponent has chosen to use the Bible has his primary source for his arguments- and I have done the same to refute his arguments, but have also tried to use logic to answer the "what if" questions.

Let us begin



"b. Agreed, but God has emotions since he loves us. Love is an emotion. And he can feel jealousy. So he could also feel hurt. [1]"

Whether or not love is only an emotion, is an entirely different debate. Regardless, I will concede that Yahweh is depicted as a jealous and emotional god.

"c. That's why some think they see him. A testimony evidence and personal experience is two of the best pieces of evidence since it is somebody who has actually seen or felt the thing that is being questioned."

But what about those people who claim that God made them do terrible, terrible things? Wouldn't that also be evidence for God's evil tendencies?

"d. Free Will would. And he does forgive regardless of choices. But you can't be lazy and say 'I won't ever ask for forgiveness.'"

Contradiction. You claim he forgives regardless of choices, only then to state that he will only forgive you if you ask for forgiveness. Regardless, I have addressed this issue in my logical diagram from my last round: If he could forgive but chooses not to, he is either neutral or evil- not all loving. In this case, since he is omnipotent he could certainly forgive if he wanted to. Further stating that God could only forgive us if we asked him first can only mean one of two things: God is not powerful or capable enough to forgive us, or he is evil because he chooses not to forgive us unless his selfish demands are met first.

"2b. Not since Christ was one of God's human forms, but was one where he lived and stayed on the earth. To fulfill the prophecy."

I have nothing to respond to this statement.

"c. He would have emotional responses, but he was sinless and he was obedient to the message he was teaching. He wasn't like the hypocrite scribes and Pharisees of the time."

Yes, Jesus could be considered an exception to this rule- but not Yahweh. This may be the downfall of this debate, because we may not be arguing for the same definition of "God." I was not claiming that YHWH was any of the things expressed in my logical outline from the last round. I was simply using logic to define the standards that a god would have to meet, if he was to exist with a certain personality. Logically, YHWH can only belong to one of those categories (as you have conceded)- so my question would be, which one? If we observe the Bible, he could only belong in the "Neutral" and/or "Evil" category because of his actions in mankind's past. This is why I was arguing for Jesus to be a separate deity all together, as he would most probably go in the "Good" category for god. Their actions, (Yahweh's and Yeshua's) are so different that It would only be rational to separate them as two different deities, and therefore, two different gods. I am not arguing for this, I am just stating why I think we may be arguing for the wrong definition of "God."

"4a. God doesn't control your life. You control your life. He only controls where you go in the afterlife."

If he could control our lives, but doesn't want to, it would only mean one of two things: he doesn't care about us, or he is sincerely good. Since he has obviously demonstrated that he is not sincerely good (by letting evil run rampant in the world), we could only assume that he must not care about us at all- and thus, must be inherently evil.

"c. He acted because rules were broken. Would you punish your children if they misbehaved at a young age or let him or her get away with it....If he loved his people, he would show them punishment, but try to make up for it later by offering rewards like chances to see awesome movies or go to SeaWorld (best day). [2]"

Yes, I would punish my children. But I am not God, for God could only act within a certain realm of rationality or he would contradict himself. But you may ask, "if God is all-powerful, wouldn't he be able to create a contradiction?" The answer is no. Omnipotence does not equate to the ability to do anything. Omnipotence equates to full control, without breaking the system (which is what a contradiction/paradox would do). Furthermore, if an all-loving God was able to do anything, he could have gone back in time and prevented Satan from ever being created. Secondly, who says mankind must react like children to God, the Father? If God was truly looking out for every one of his children, he would have prevented a lot of terrible things from happening long ago. Like I said before, he either can or can't. If he can, but chooses not to- he's indifferent or evil. If he can't, he's not God.

"Ok. Using Psychology....To have empathy. And to feel pain."

So when was the idea of sending Jesus to Earth conceived? Before time? After giving up on humanity? If it was before time, God was either careless or idiotic to let so much chaos imbue so quickly. If it was after giving up on humanity, he would not be omniscient, ergo, he would not be God. Besides, toying with human emotions is not an act of love, at all. But rather, an act of selfishness.

"He did warn people with his laws. And with people who knew God's laws. But because people failed to listen and act out of selfish jealous needs, they got punished. Caanites were murdered because they kidnapped Israelites."

God would truly be an idiot to think that every single one of his children would "listen" to his laws. Humans are naturally curious creatures (you would think God would have learned this by now, considering that fiasco at the garden of Eden). So what does God do to solve the problem? Offer his children this "beautiful" freedom of choice:

"Abandon your culture, your humanity, your innate curiosity and conform to my will so that you can join me in heaven. Or, choose to rebel and seek truth from lies that I have created (I made Satan, he made lies, therefore, I made lies- obviously) and condemn yourself to an eternity of hell. But Jesus still loves you."

Let's just hope that his love is powerful enough to free the "unlucky" ones from their everlasting torment.

"Humans before the great flood were not humans like us. From what I read, they wouldn't hesitate to kill or rape an innocent child. Evil was at an all time high. He is omnipatient. You read the book of Job right? Many times he was tested and he waited for Job to say he still believed in him."

Well thank God, for our sake, there's more "good" people in the world to outweigh the "bad." Regardless, I thought you were arguing for an "all-loving" God? Instead of intervening and using his omnipotence to convince those people to be "good" people, he lazily massacred millions of men, women and children. Perhaps to demonstrate his power? Sounds like something a selfish, evil deity would do.

"Your fourth source isn't that reliable since it's more of just an average blogger, but even still makes good points. I admit we won't find equality. And would you say the people that administer the needle to people in death row were savage? Would you call hunters savage? Would you call killing a man who is threatening to rape your wife and daughter savage? And if it was savage, it's a better savage then turning little kids into murderers because that's what they did. I bet little kids were told to stone. Kinda like KONY 2012."

Fair enough, I will admit that I quoted myself on my own blog post. Regardless, it was more of an afterthought than an actual argument. As for your examples of what a savage could be- what does my opinion matter? Only God's. I will conclude by saying: it's simply sad to see that God is not powerful enough, nor loving enough to forgive those he deems as "savage."


I rest my case.

Debate Round No. 2
ChristianPunk

Con

Allow me to examine your contradiction claim. God can forgive, but would you want to be forgiven? If it is so much as asked in your heart, then you are forgiven. Think in your head to be forgiven by God, you are forgiven. God will forgive anybody if they just ask. How hard is it to ask? Everybody asks for forgiveness in all ways already.

I thought we were arguing about the Judeo-Christian God based off of what I was stating..

Ok about controlling lives, this questions me. I'm starting to think your like a Jean Jacques Rousseau towards God when it comes to human behavior. How about I do this? Example time. Your getting breakfast. You have the free will decision to choose pop tarts, cereal, oatmeal, fruit, or salad. You decide on a Monday morning, that you would like to have some pop tarts. But God controls you and says, "Sorry, but no. Your having either fruit or salad today. You can have pop tarts tomorrow." You have lost free will because you have every right to eat your own pop tarts. Now that's the God you saying is good since you stated the free will God is inherently evil. So I guess people like Stalin, who said your either an atheist or your arrested, was good. I guess Vladimir Putin, who said you can't be gay or support them unless you want to be arrested, was good. I guess Kim Jong Il and Un are heroes and saints in your eyes. Sorry if I sounded hostile, but you get the point I am sure.

We need evil to exist for a reason. To balance out the scales between things. Black and White. Good and Evil. Left and Right.

Well it wasn't perceived before time. It was afterwards.

He didn't think everybody would. He knew there would be those that would disagree. Nobody will agree on one thing. Some people are pro Nazis and Fascism. I ain't. Your bold print quote about abandoning culture is not entirely true. I don't abandon my culture. My culture is straight edge, punk rock, and family life. I already was a teen and hated people who did drug or drink beer. I wrote songs about murdering drug heads and drinkers. But I found God and found out I was an idiot.

God does forgive those he deems as savage. They just have to ask for forgiveness. Ask and you shall receive.

Let us imagine a world without God. Shall we. A world where the idea of one never existed. Let me name off the tragedies that would still have occurred.

Columbine High School. 15 died while 21 where injured.
Virginia Tech Massacre. 33 died. 25 injured.
Newton shooting resulted in the 28 deaths mostly consisting of little children. People were shot 3-11 times.
There have been school shootings for a while and it is still growing. But there's more.
Floods, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Tornados, and Lightning exist. Killing people.
Viruses exist.
Wild animals exist of deadly species.
Deadly fish inhabit the ocean of deep levels.
Fires exist.
Accidents still occur.

And since God doesn't exist. What are we going to do?

Back to the world with God involved. Are you going to look for somebody to blame or cry about these incidents forever? Don't talk about Why did God let my mother die? Let it strengthen you to find a cure for the virus that killed her. Help find a way to prevent shootings while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Find a way to prevent future accidents of all kinds. I always notice this. That the people who always make complaints about God being evil because he didn't stop something, is usually the people who don't bother wanting to help by making causes. I hear Sam Harris talking about cancer, but at least he actually supports or wants people to support the St. Jude Charity. He also talks about how floods killed a ton of people, but why don't he find or create a charity that can help prevent that. We've already created robots and A.I. of all kinds. I am sure we can come up with something by now.

I rest my case.
Buckethead31594

Pro

I thank my opponent for humbly expressing his beliefs and concerns. Nonetheless, many a fallacy is found upon the close examination of his arguments.


"Allow me to examine your contradiction claim. God can forgive, but would you want to be forgiven? If it is so much as asked in your heart, then you are forgiven. Think in your head to be forgiven by God, you are forgiven. God will forgive anybody if they just ask. How hard is it to ask? Everybody asks for forgiveness in all ways already."

My opponent is arguing that forgiveness is as simple as asking for it in one's heart. Regardless of how simple the procedure may seem, until my opponent concedes that God has either: A- already forgiven everyone's transgressions because he is both powerful enough and all-loving to do so, or B- that God is evil and will not forgive unless his procedure of asking for forgiveness is met, be it "simple" or complicated, my opponent is forced to concede this point, as both choices (A, and B) would not require Jesus' sacrifice.


"I thought we were arguing about the Judeo-Christian God based off of what I was stating..'"

This is the problem with "God." Such a vague term that can almost be used interchangeably. And yes, I would confirm with my opponent that we are arguing to the extent of the conclusion as to whether or not Yahweh is "Evil." My logic stems from verses in the Bible. God is unchanging, God is omniscient, God is omnipotent, etc.

Now to analyze my opponent's analogy:


"Your getting breakfast. You have the free will decision to choose pop tarts, cereal, oatmeal, fruit, or salad. You decide on a Monday morning, that you would like to have some pop tarts. But God controls you and says, "Sorry, but no. Your having either fruit or salad today. You can have pop tarts tomorrow." You have lost free will because you have every right to eat your own pop tarts."

Incorrect. First of all, the very act of God infringing on one's choice of breakfast does not remove free will. All it does, is confirms that God could only be inherently evil. Remember, free will would exist if God was truly benevolent- but he wouldn't take away our rights, even if he didn't agree with how we handled our freedom (my opponent conceded these points earlier in the debate). Free will could exist if God was neutral, and it wouldn't exist if God was evil (unless it was a means for control). Therefore, Con has just confirmed my point. God is either evil, or neutral- I thank my opponent.



"Now that's the God you saying is good since you stated the free will God is inherently evil"

Please, don't twist my words. I would ask my opponent to please reread what I have written. I stated that the Omnipotent Neutral, Omnipotent Evil, Impotent Neutral and Impotent Evil factors of a potential God where inherently evil. My opponent claims that God is omnipotent and all-loving; the first factor. I have adequately proven how Yahweh cannot fit into this first factor- perhaps Jesus could, if he was a separate god all together. If Jesus was God, for the sake of this debate, then his previous actions would disable any hope of him fitting in the first factor. Therefore, Yahweh cannot be all-powerful and all-loving.



"So I guess people like Stalin, who said your either an atheist or your arrested, was good. I guess Vladimir Putin, who said you can't be gay or support them unless you want to be arrested, was good. I guess Kim Jong Il and Un are heroes and saints in your eyes. Sorry if I sounded hostile, but you get the point I am sure."

Conjecture. READ MY LOGIC- These men would be either Impotent/Neutral, Impotent/Evil. Their actions would never make them Impotent/All-loving. If my opponent was to take the time to carefully reread my 6 points, he would see how this is obviously the case.


"We need evil to exist for a reason. To balance out the scales between things. Black and White. Good and Evil. Left and Right."

We simply cannot argue semantics in this debate. Evil does not exist. It is merely the absence of Good. Or perhaps, Good is merely the absence of Evil? At least by my opponent's definitions. Either way- both would not be able to exist in a universe that is governed by an all-powerful, all-loving God. Ignorance of rampant evil equates to an inherently evil deity. While acceptance of rampant evil equates to a deity who is not all-powerful. I feel as if I keep repeating myself.


"Well it wasn't perceived before time. It was afterwards"

Like I said, if it was after giving up on humanity, he would not be omniscient, ergo, he would not be God. Besides, toying with human emotions is not an act of love, at all. But rather, an act of selfishness and therefore, an evil act. Refutations extended.


"He knew there would be those that would disagree"

So what choice do those people have? Meet the demands of a selfish, angry god by asking for forgiveness, or burn in hell? As I have said, many times, such options wouldn't even exist if God was truly all-loving and all-powerful.


"God does forgive those he deems as savage. They just have to ask for forgiveness. Ask and you shall receive."

And what if a savage didn't ask for forgiveness? Suppose they don't. My opponent is arguing that they would be choosing an eternity of suffering- surely an all-loving God would do everything in his power to prevent this from happening?


"Let me name off the tragedies that would still have occurred..."

Conjecture. I'm afraid that this is only a matter of opinion, and cannot be accepted as an argument in this debate.


"Back to the world with God involved...I am sure we can come up with something by now."

As inspiring as this passage may sound, it ignores the fact that everything we do- we do. God never actually shows up and fixes the problem, permanently. Such is the aspect of an all-loving God, one that we can only use our supposed free will to conjure up in our minds for self closure- obviously a grand delusion at work, with a more sinister agenda.


On to Con.

Debate Round No. 3
ChristianPunk

Con

ChristianPunk forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Pro

Con has forfeited Round 4. Extend all refutations.
Debate Round No. 4
ChristianPunk

Con

ChristianPunk forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Pro

It is a shame that Con did not complete the debate. Nonetheless, I thank him for his time.

I have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Christian deity formally known as Yahweh is, in fact, evil. And thus, I would encourage the readers to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
I apologize about my fourth source, It took me twice as long to format my argument. The word processor on the website seems to be a bit glitchy. Here is the link to my fourth source:

[4] http://goo.gl...
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Alright, just making sure. Thank you.
Posted by ChristianPunk 3 years ago
ChristianPunk
I pretty much stated my evidence on God's justice.
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
That's ok! Basically it means that whoever has the burden of proof (BOP) has to present the evidence. The contender has to rebut said evidence. So if you have the burden of proof, you will present the evidence and I will try to debunk it.
Posted by ChristianPunk 3 years ago
ChristianPunk
idk what burden of proof means.
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Last question: your opening statement seems to indicate that you would like to hold the burden of proof. Following standard debate procedure, Pro generally takes this stance. We don't have to be orthodox though- would you like to hold the burden of proof?
Posted by ChristianPunk 3 years ago
ChristianPunk
Yes.
Posted by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Although it may seem obvious, by "God," you are referring to the deity known as Yahweh- correct?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
ChristianPunkBuckethead31594Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I wasn't really convinced by either argument. I understand that as long as God is omniscient (which the one in this debate is defined as such) he can't be all-loving, due to the whole created Hell and Satan thing. However I don't think Hell and Satan makes him entirely evil. It might make him neutral. I keep reading these arguments and I'm going in circles, so I'm going to leave the arguments as a tie.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
ChristianPunkBuckethead31594Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: As Pro pointed out, it is hard to determine the Biblical God's morality because he has committed acts of both terrible evil and merciful goodness, making it hard for me to decide who has more convincing arguments. Sources and Conduct go to Pro because Con forfeited and didn't cite sources.