Is God the Loving Creator of the universe?
Debate Rounds (3)
However that doesn't necessarily mean that God is the creator or that He even exists. In fact, to the layman's perspective, we as humans seem to have been left here to live and die with no real purpose. Many people go throughout life with that mentality and spend their entire existence searching for meaning. They invest their money in things that make themselves feel wanted, appreciated and loved because deep down, we all have that desire to feel wanted. However, time has proven frequently that filling up our lives with fame, success, wealth and sex only provides a temporary sense of fulfillment.
Take a one-night stand for example. You have that craving for sexual satisfaction, so you find someone else who consents with you to share that intimacy with. Time and time again I have heard people say that it doesn't hurt anyone if it only happens once, but it always does! Lust is the reason so many people get divorces after being married only a few years; Because what they felt was only a passing urge. Now I also know people who waited until their wedding day to even kiss each other because they knew that marriage is a promise, not a "Hey sure, let's try this." And those marriages are the most likely to last for an entire life because those two consenting adults agreed that they weren't in marriage for just the sex, but also for the commitment and growth that came with it. Ask any grandparents who've been together for over 50 years how they managed to stick together? (If you don't' know anyone like that, then it further proves my point)
Now why did I say all that? Because I believe that there is a God who created the universe for a purpose: To reflect his love. I believe that when God created mankind, he made a man and woman to be together forever. God never intended divorce or death or anything wrong to happen in the world. God wants us love Him because we want to, not because we have to. If you walked up to anyone out of the blue and told them to love you or you'd kill them, what do you suppose their reactions would be? Fear? Anger? Laughter? Because that's exactly how I've seen most people react when I tell them that God wants humanity to love Him. What they don't usually consider is that God has allowed us to choose to believe in Him. Because when you choose to believe in something, your emotional connection to it is far greater and more passionate.
But here lies the problem. Sin. Because God gave us the option to follow Him, there is also the option to not follow Him. Like I said before, it's not what God want's, but He's not going to force us because He loves us enough to let us want to love him ourselves, without any force. This of course leaves the door open for billions of people to denounce God and say that He's not real or He's evil, but God has never left humanity. People will say that God is not a loving God because he left us to die alone on this earth, but this argument is invalid because we are the one's who have left Him. As I said earlier, so many people go through life, looking for ways to make themselves happy, whether it be through fame, money, sex or affirmation. There's a reason we all want to be loved and accepted: It's because God made us that way. God made us with the intention that we would eventually choose to follow and love Him and no mater what we try to fill ourselves with, nothing will ever be complete enough to fit in that hole; A hole that can only be filled through the love of God.
Does all this make sense? Am I getting though to you that God is a loving being and created us to love him? God allowed sin into the world because that's what we wanted in that moment; In that moment, we were trying to fill what only God could provide! Yes, bad things happen to good people, but that's due to our own sin. Everyone has sinned and God put in place long ago, when he created the earth that the penalty for sin is death. That means that no matter how good a life you've lived, that there is no way to escape dying.
But God didn't leave us without hope. He knew that we'd mess up with our ability to choose for ourselves, so He created a second chance. He gave us all the chance to have eternal life with him again, like we did before we sinned. He came down to earth in the body of a man named Jesus and told us of the way to get to Heaven, where even after we die, we'll be able to be with Him and be fulfilled by His love! He even made it simple for us because God knows how well we follow directions.
All we have to do is believe that Jesus came as a man without sin because He was God, and he payed the penalty for every man's sin; then, now and forever. Because He died (the penalty for sin) and was sinless, that payed the way for all humaity to recieve something that we don't deserve: Eternal life with God in Heaven. We have the choice to believe that God is loving and has given us this gift of life, or we can ignore it and search for meaning and self-worth some other way for ourselves.
So the question I leave you with is: Do you want to believe?
[Paragraph 1: Introduction]
"It didn't create itself and any historian will tell you it hasn't been around forever."
Honestly, this sentence scares me. But, can Pro tell us how the Universe exists? And perhaps proof that it popped into existence?
"The universe and everything that inhabits it was formed and molded by an intelligent designer and we can see that because anything natural is not random."
Could you provide an example of something which is "natural", but not happened by chance?
"If it were, nothing would work at all!" (Leading up to) "Nothing that we can prove through science would even be able to exist through chance!"
Could you back this up? Assuming God didn't make the world, we'd assume the Universe happened to be like this, perhaps by chance. Scientists have shown how Earth could've formed, core accretion, and how life can form, abiogenesis, which you reference in your next sentence.
"Next time you have a match and rock, try to create a living animal out of that. It can't be done."
Pro is straw manning (creating a misinterpretation of the matter, and disproving that) abiogenesis. In order for abiogenesis to work, Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen atoms must form a chemical reaction with inorganic matter. Fire doesn't make a chemical reaction when applied to anything which doesn't turn into ashes. If it did become ash (Carbon), the other elements would escape the reaction, having the opposite result. Because of this, Pro's objection is invalid.
"However that doesn't necessarily mean that God is the creator or that He even exists."
Pro must prove God's existence, or He can't be a "loving creator", since A) If He doesn't exist, then He can't be a creator. And B) If He doesn't exist to create the world, then how would He be there to love?
I concede that humanity cannot always be fully happy. And when exposed happiness, it will wear down. However, the question still remains: "Does God exist? And if He does, is he loving?"
"I believe that when God created mankind, he made a man and woman to be together forever. God never intended divorce or death or anything wrong to happen in the world."
God never wanted death? Every being dies, whether by a predator, illness, or murder. Pro must prove God messed up with His magic, and made us mortal accidentally. Divorce, that doesn't always happen when people get bored with their husband/wife. Let's say the wife was a criminal, and the husband only knew about it last week. The husband would definitely divorce.
"If you walked up to anyone out of the blue and told them to love you or you'd kill them, what do you suppose their reactions would be?"
Okay, a few things wrong with this premise. 1) I'd personally call 911 if someone did that, but God isn't affected by police, so no problem for God. 2) If God wanted love back, then why not create a population full of theists; people who know He exists, and respect Him.
"Because that's exactly how I've seen most people react when I tell them that God wants humanity to love Him."
They reacted afraid? Assuming You told them the previous sentence ("God wants to be loved, or you die"), they might be. But you can't love something that doesn't exist. If you just told them "God wants love", then Pro's previous statement shouldn't be there!
"when you choose to believe in something, your emotional connection to it is far greater and more passionate."
I chose to believe in magic once, but realized it likely isn't real. This is the same for some priests. (SOME priests.) They realize God doesn't answer any prayers, and will stop believing He exists. This love wears off as well, so the whole point just cuts off.
"This of course leaves the door open for billions of people to denounce God and say that He's not real or He's evil, but God has never left humanity."
Or, you know, maybe God did leave, or perhaps never existed. Pro needs to prove God loves humanity. and didn't leave. "not real" must be negated by Pro. "evil", I doubt I'd go THAT far, but Pro needs to prove God does love and care for our sake.
"People will say that God is not a loving God because he left us to die alone on this earth, but this argument is invalid because we are the one's who have left Him."
Actually, I was going to approach from this angle. "God has left us" is a piece of my own argument. Pro asserts humanity left God, but is this the case? Pro needs to further explain how we've abandoned the Lord and back it up.
"God made us with the intention that we would eventually choose to follow and love Him"
So instead of making us born as theists, we are to eventually believe in God after age (example) 20? That doesn't make sense to me. Some people are Anti-Cristian, however. I doubt an Anti-Cristian would let up to an attempt by a Cristian. (I am not Anti-Cristian, just letting you know)
"God allowed sin into the world because that's what we wanted in that moment" (when we stop believing)
OKAY! "Penalty for sin is death" What exactly do you mean by "sin"? Is it shallow, such as murder (if it goes as far as eating a chicken for survival, that's mean of God), or does it go as far as not believing in God? If it goes that far, it kind of sounds like tyranny.
"That means that no matter how good a life you've lived, that there is no way to escape dying."
OKAY! God's a tyrant! You said he never wanted death, now you're saying it's a punishment. Now that I've gone to this point, God is a tyrant. How much of a tyrant he is depends on how far sinning goes to. Does it go as far as petty theft? Picking up a dime (Tyranny. Even if it's a "lucky penny"!)? Or not believing in God (Pure tyranny. The "love or you shall die" policy is just wrong.)? Anyways, if God agrees to the death penalty for a little mistake, that's pure tyranny!
That will be it for my rebuttal. Characters are limited. Now for my argument!
Point 1: Criteria Needed;
In order for God to be a "loving creator", criteria must be met.
Criteria 1: Exists
If God doesn't exist, then how would He be able to create the world, let alone exist to love? Pro must prove God exists first of all.
Criteria 2: Loves
After Pro confirms God's existence, another criteria needs to be proven: Does God care?
Pro claims God came down as Jesus to tell us how to win God's heart and get to heaven. And claims God never sinned. This is false. The unescapable penalty of death sounds like a pretty big sin. Yes, heaven may be a thing, but in order to go there, we need to die. If we wanted eternal life in heaven, we'd have to possibly suicide, but that in itself is a sin. How would one reach heaven anyways? Pro needs to bring forth the required qualifications in order to be in heaven. Until said criteria is proven, it will be said that heaven is impossible to reach, and God is a tyrant.
Thanks for reading, and back to you, Pro!
Response to Question 2: Natural order is the easiest thing to prove because it doesn"t require any human modification. Take for example breathing. Unless impaired by lung disorder, you breathe without thinking about it. Your body is already on a preset program that makes you breathe when you do. It"s the same with your heart and digestive system. You don"t tell yourself to break down your Big Mac with amino acids because your body is pre-programmed to do it for you. But how was it programmed to do that? Your mother didn"t reach inside your brain and write your DNA to work that way. Not to mention, every single human on earth is designed to work that way! Yes, there are people with disabilities and that"s sad, but it"s because of sin that diseases arise. You can"t blame any one person"s sin for the problems of the world. So often I hear, "what did I do to deserve this?" You didn"t do anything. But our world is full of pain because we choose it.
Response to "Invalid Objection": I don"t understand what Con means when they say "If it did become ash (Carbon), the other elements would escape the reaction, having the opposite result." Could you explain how you mean and why you say the Pro objection is invalid?
Response to Argument: I get this question a lot. "How can you prove God?" And I often respond with this. You can"t prove God. If I could prove God, then that would be bringing Him down to a human level at which He isn"t since He has the power to create a universe. He"s God, for crying out loud! Why should we have to limit God?! If we bring him down to our level and fully understand Him, then He can"t really be God.
Here, let me reiterate myself: Think about wind. You can"t see it, but you know it"s there because you see the effects it has around you. Leaves rustling, breeze against your cheeks. God is the same way. We can"t see Him, but God is beyond what we can see and comprehend. You see His effects everywhere you go. You see Christian"s overjoyed when they talk about God. You see starving children smile when they"re told about Jesus" sacrifice so they can have life after death.
The Con side mentioned "petty theft." Is there ever a thought that goes through your head that says "Hey, maybe I shouldn"t do this."? If so, then GOOD! That conscience of yours with a moral compass is the morality that God put there. How else can so many of us humans around the world agree that anything is wrong? Murdering, adultery and betrayal are all seen by most people as bad. People didn"t just unanimously decide that those things were wrong because the sinful, human approach is "I make my own choices." America is so divided that Presidential votes are almost always close to 50/50. If everyone made their own choices, people would kill one another just because the want something they don"t have. Oh wait, people do that? Oh yeah, we call them criminals: people who, by their own choice, disobeyed the law.
God is not a tyrant because He allows people to die. It"s in fact a blessing that we don"t live forever. Think about if we as humans could live forever. Everyone who ever lived, good and bad, would still be around and not only would it be crowded, but terrible people like Hitler and Ted Bundey would still be alive today, terrorizing and torturing people. There would be no way to leave this sinful world and we would definitely want out before long!
God is not a tyrant because of death because he is not the one who chose death. We are. In Genesis chapter 3 in the Bible, man is given the ultimate paradise and God gives him the choice. Man can choose to live happily in this paradise with God forever, under the condition that he doesn"t eat from just one tree in the garden. Or he can choose to disobey God and eat from the tree because it"s something he wants and does not have. Of course, mankind makes the choice that people today still make. He believes he is entitled to something that he does not have and therefor, he takes it. This choice, which all people make is the reason God made mankind mortal. He did not want us running around living for ourselves forever, because that"s not how he created us. He created us to love one another because He first loved us.
I"d finally like to say that I am in no way against anti-Christians, atheists or agnostics. I as a Christian myself am told that I should treat others with respect and love them as I love myself. While this can prove to be a difficult task when others challenge my beliefs, I just have to hold strong and believe that God will make Himself known to everyone when the time is right.
Thank you for reading. Back to you, Con.
I will reiterate the criteria for a loving creator: A) must exist to create the Universe, and B) must love. I will be defending my point that God doesn't meet these criteria.
Point 1: God doesn't exist
Pro admits she is unable to prove the existence of God. However, she brings up objections as follows:
"If I could prove God, then that would be bringing Him down to a human level at which He isn"t since He has the power to create a universe."
Would it? Elaborate on what you mean by "human level". Will being at a human level make God just weaker, or even mortal? If so, all I'm asking for confirmation of his existence, it's not relevant if God becomes mortal in the process.
"If we bring him down to our level and fully understand Him, then He can"t really be God."
Irrelevant. How would proving an all powerful deity make him human level, anyways? However, all I'm asking for is his existence, not that He stays God. I'm not sure what God does anyways in the modern world.
Pro attempts to compare the Lord to wind, but fails. Wind, as Pro says, blows leaves, and kites. God, however, isn't the same way. At least we're touching he wind. People brighten up when they HEAR about God. We're not physically touching God, only hearing religious preaching, which is not the same thing.
Here's an analogy. Which do you believe more, my computer is blue, or that the night sky is black? You can verify one easily; that being "the night sky is black", since we can look at it. The former, however, you don't see my computer, much like you not being able to see God. Both my blue computer, and God could be false assumptions.
Believing doesn't count as proof for existence either. Perhaps there's proof of a timeless, spaceless, uncaused, immaterial, unimaginably powerful being which created the Universe... There actually might be.
Point 2: God doesn't care.
I concede that if everyone was immortal, then bad people would roam around. But that contradicts what you said in Round 1; "God never intended divorce or death or anything wrong to happen in the world." He's all powerful, isn't he? Just remove Hitler from existence, and voila! No more worries. God could've made the perfect population... why isn't this true?
Pro's explanations are: A) If we choose to believe in God, we'll like him more. B) God allowed sin, allowing the unescapable PUNISHMENT of death.
My response to A, is isn't he supposed to be powerful? Why not make the population theists if he likes to be loved? And B, it says "punishment". That's a negative connotation, and we can't escape it. We're dead sooner or later.
Pro provides a counter, however, which I will defend myself from.
"He (Man) believes he is entitled to something that he does not have and therefor, he takes it." Also known as greed. Why are we a greedy population anyways if God never wanted it?
Let's say you're in a room. Another person claims if you resist picking up the $500 on the ground for 10 minutes, you will meet mermaids. In this analogy, one would normally pick up the $500 instead of waiting for the mermaids, since, as far as humanity is concerned, mermaids don't exist. The same with God and Heaven. If you aren't religious, and pick up dropped dollars, you won't go to heaven.
Speaking of heaven, I'm not sure if Pro gave criteria for being in heaven. I'll provide some criteria, stringing together some of Pro's statements, and my own logic.
In order for one to reach heaven, you must:
- Be killed.
- Win God's heart
In order to win God's heart, one must:
- Believe in, and respect Him
- Make very few sins
- Disrespecting God
- Causing unhappiness
Now that I've shown criteria, let's deduce something, shall we?
P1: To reach heaven, one must not sin
P2: Mortality is man's punishment for sinning
P3: One cannot go his entire life without making at least 40 mistakes/sins
C1: Therefore, one can't easily reach heaven
P4: In order to reach heaven, one must also win God's heart
P5: To win God's heart, one must believe in the ability to be with Him via heaven.
P6: To be in heaven, one must pass away
P7: If one was to die, and go to heaven, you can't tell other people heaven certainly exists
C2: Therefore, heaven may not exist, and if we're not believing in heaven, God won't accept us into heaven
C1: We are unable to reach heaven easily
C2: We cannot prove heaven even exists, therefore making it harder to reach in the first place
C3: Therefore, heaven, as far as I'm concerned, does not exist.
C4: If heaven doesn't exist, then God can't reward us.
Final Conclusion: God wants to "reward" us with something which doesn't exist. IF it does exist, it's too far out of our reach.
Therefore, God is trolling us humans. If THAT's not tyranny, it's a bit more subtle. But it's still mean either way. To reach heaven, a theist must make no more than 20 errors, and believe the unreachable heaven is reachable.
Pro is unable to show God created the Universe, and I have shown why heaven is unreachable, therefore validating my stance that God is not caring.
I feel like this question must be answered also: Theists pray for their own wellbeing, correct? Then how come God doesn't answer these? If he's refusing, God's a tyrant. Pro must also refute my logic showing God creating an unreachable paradise, as well as presenting how to know if a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, changeless, uncaused, immensely powerful being such as God, exists. If God doesn't exist, how could the Universe be created?
Back to you, Pro. Good luck with your rebuttal.
Thank you, Con for your arguments and thank you for being a good opponent.
As for God being caring... I've debunked Heaven, which may or may not exist. If God wanted to "reward us" with heaven, He should've made it easier to reach, instead of putting a restriction on it, like I've shown.
Again, I accept Pro's concession, and good luck next time. Good game, and vote Con!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.