The Instigator
Alchestbreach
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
godsnumberis7
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Is There a God?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Alchestbreach
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 893 times Debate No: 54555
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (3)

 

Alchestbreach

Con

I do not believe in God, simple as that I do not reject God, hate God, or whatever, just wanted to get that out of the way before beginning. I will address each round with a paradox that God has created or a contradiction of God, I would also like to note I am talking about The Christian God not any other God before we begin.
godsnumberis7

Pro

O.K. this sounds like it's going to be a good debate I look forward to debating with you and I do believe in god and he is awesome.
Debate Round No. 1
Alchestbreach

Con

Alright on to my first paradox,

The Paradox of The Stone

Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift?
If the answer is yes than he is not omnipotent.
If the answer is no than he is not omnipotent.
Therefore, both answers refute The Bible.
godsnumberis7

Pro

Imagine you are in a Geometry class, and after a long semester"s work, you have arrived at the final examination. Item #32 on the exam says, "Draw a square circle." Can you do this? No. Does your inability to draw the square circle reflect some lack of knowledge of geometrical principles on your part? No. Are you unable to do it because you lack some skill in drawing objects? No. The reason you cannot "draw a square circle" is because it is impossible. As soon as you know what the words "square" and "circle" mean, you know that such an object can never be drawn, because it isn't really an object at all. All we have done here is arrange certain words into a sentence so that it appears to be something that someone could actually do. But it is just a cleverly disguised "pseudo task." It is just impossible. Asking God to make a stone too heavy for him to lift is much like asking someone to draw a square circle. It is logically impossible. Not even God can draw a square circle " not because he lacks something, but because a "square circle" is no object at all.
Debate Round No. 2
Alchestbreach

Con

As a rebuttal I would like to point out that you only strengthened my position by saying God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift.

Anyways, on to the next one,
Epicurus's Riddle:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
godsnumberis7

Pro

The main problem with this argument is a lack of understanding of the reason for the creation of the universe. The universe was not created to be good. God created the universe as a temporary testing site for creatures to choose to love Him or reject Him. God is good, but He has allowed His creatures free-will to do whatever they want within their limited dimensionality. God has designed the universe to operate under a set of physical principles, which He, only occasionally, suspends. If God were to suspend the laws of physics on a regular basis the universe would be a universe of chaos and unpredictability. Such as universe would not be a good testing ground for confused mortal beings. The purpose of the universe is to allow God's creatures the choice to love Him. Love is not possible without free-will. Therefore God chooses to allow His creatures the ability to do evil for the purpose of permitting them also to love. If God controlled everything we did, we could not demonstrate love, since we would be pre-programmed to respond. A computer cannot love, but free-will beings can.

Atheists say that since only God can create, therefore He must have created evil. However, at this point the atheist has redefined the meaning of create. Evil was not created. Evil is manifested (committed) by free-will beings. Nice play on words, but it doesn't stand up to examination

Most atheists define evil according to their own interpretation. By defining evil as things they don't like, they have created a circular argument guaranteed to "prove the non-existence" of God. The Christian definition of evil is anything done by one of God's spirit beings (humans or angels) against Him (or His created beings). As such, God is never responsible for evil - only His created spirit beings
Debate Round No. 3
Alchestbreach

Con

Let me ask you a question, is it possible to sin in heaven? If so then that refutes the idea of free will.
Also, I feel like I shouldn't be the one pointing this out, but according to the King James Version of the bible GOD CREATED EVIL.

And I quote;
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness: I make peace AND CREATE EVIL (extra emphasis): I the lord Yahweh do all these things.
godsnumberis7

Pro

yes actually it is possible, Satan did it didn't he, but in the end were not going to want to sin in heaven

The passages you describe don't describe God inflicting evil on anyone, rather they are justly deserved punishments for evil.
It would be helpful to know the version you are quoting. The NKJV says:

I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and ??create calamity;
I, the Lord, do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7.
Debate Round No. 4
Alchestbreach

Con

I would like to point out to you that a lot of these people God had killed were innocent, like for example;

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us? (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)

The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.
When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)

These are only a couple examples, if you would like me to send you a PM please ask after giving me a friend request
godsnumberis7

Pro

They were not innocent, God did it for a reason and probably because they didn't listen like when you said he smote the men of Beth-Shem because he told them to not look at the ark of Jehovah.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro should win this on more convincing arguments......all the way through
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
it is not possible for God to make something bigger than Himself because He is Omnipresent. With God all things are possible, that does not mean it is possible for God to negate Himself by making something too big for Him to handle. People who come up with this "is it possible to do the impossible" mess only want to deny God's rule over them.

God cannot lie.
God cannot sin.
God is God.

You can lie
You can sin
You are not God.

You can make a rock so big you cannot lift it only because you are not God
God cannot make anything impossible for Himself.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
, God is able to do anything possible, but not anything impossible, and creating a stone that God cannot lift is something impossible.

Excellent answer here, Number7

You won this debate as Con's argumentts were not valid

The stone parodox is accurately rephrased as you have well showed......."Can God do something that is impossible?" The "draw a square circle" analogy was on the same line. Good answers. You should get all the points from all the voters for having the better arguement here.....and throughout the debate.

The points being made trying to prove God is not there all failed miserably.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro's arguements were logical and did answer well to Con's atheisticly biased hypothecitals. Con insisted people were innocent even after spelling out their offenses which brought punishment from God. Pro won this debate. Some voters don't know what logic is.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you can't sin in heaven. If you do, you will be cast down and confined to the fire of hell. That's what happens to all sinners who don't get saved. We can be saved now, I am saved, I believe God'snumber7 is saved by the way he or she seems to know and understand God.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
All of the people you say were innocent were guilty of disobedience. God punished them because He said He would punish them if they did what they did and they went and did it anyways and God kept His Word. The children were not innocent either. They were mouthy brats and they picked on the wrong bald man.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Nobody is innocent. The evil God creates is when he causes His judgements to fall as punishment. It is evil against the evils of evil doers. The evil created by God is not the evil which is the choice of free will beings. You are responsible for your own evils.....If God creates evil, perhaps by making a big hail stone fall on your head to give you a big headache so maybe you will reconsider your evil ways, The what God did is Just. You are trying to blame God for your own faults and God won't buy it.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
The fact that evil is rampant now does not mean God will allow it to go on rampant forever. He is more than able and more than willing to put a stop to it and He will put a stop to it.......including you with the evil if you don't believe it.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
The stone paradox is dumb. If it were valid, that means God negates himself........the question is hypothetically formed to say the questioner rejects God. God will not negate Himself. He is God and always will be God.

The stone paradox is nothng but your own desire to negate God.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yes I can if the source backs up their argument than their opponent's.
You can both cite the same source, but if A's point is made better by the source than B's point, then B should have cited another, better source, because A's choice of that Source was the better choice.

Same if an Evolutionist and a Creationist chose Creation.com as their source.
The Evolutionist chose the wrong source and the Creationist chose a more appropriate source, even though they both chose the same source.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Christian_Debater 2 years ago
Christian_Debater
Alchestbreachgodsnumberis7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is a tie because both were respectful, etc. Spelling and grammar is definitely for Con. As for most convincing arguments, that goes to Pro. Pro refuted 3/4 of Con's arguments. Moreover, Con's arguments didn't even prove God didn't exist. The only argument he had was that God was either not moral or that God can?t do __ so therefore he can?t exist. He could have brought up evolution, or anything substantial but did not. As for most reliable sources, since both quoted the Bible, this is a tie.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Alchestbreachgodsnumberis7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: neither had sources cited. conduct of both appeared to be good, con had poor arguments. pro had ok but not great rebuttals until the last round gotta give it to pro
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Alchestbreachgodsnumberis7Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to rebuke Con's arguments, all Pro did was to make Apologetic Assertions that were not even Logical, as they are assertions not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Pro's arguments are not formatted well, too hard to read a cluster of words as well as 'Semester"s' is poor punctuation. Could not fault Con's grammar. Easier to read.