The Instigator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
claraoswinoswald
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is an omnipotent god inherently 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 4 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 48899
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

In this debate the question "is an omnipotent god inherently evil?"

Definitions, so the debate does not degenerate into apologetic semantics.
Inherent: belonging to the basic nature of someone or something.
Omnipotent: having complete or unlimited power.
Evil: causing harm or injury to someone.
god: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people. i.e. Allah, Yahweh.
or
the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe.

All definitions from Merriam-Webster.com

First round: Acceptance
Second Round: Opening statements
Third Round: 1st Rebuttals
Fourth Round: Rebuttals, restating the case and closing remarks.

This is open to any theist, but I ask that we keep away from semantics.
claraoswinoswald

Con

i agree with all your definitions except your definition of omnipotent. instead i would like to offer the following counter definition from the oxford English dictionary: Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute. i would also have it be known that i am only 15 years old, so i apologize in advance if i make any theological errors. i would also request while this is a tricky subject that the rounds remain civil.i look forward to debating.
Debate Round No. 1
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.

Firstly, I believe my opponent incorrectly attributed the extra definition given in their round 1 opening statement to inherent and not omnipotence. This is based of a Google search, so if I am wrong please could my opponent clarify in their 2nd round opening statement.

My opening statement will be short and simple. Additionally it will require a short yes or no answer from my opponent. Using this answer then I am sure that I will be able to show that an omnipotent is inherently evil.

This argument can be considered a simple derivation of the problem of evil.(1)

My question to my opponent is this, "would an omnipotent god allow a young girl to be raped and then stabbed to death?"(2) According to my definition of evil, this man certainly inflicted harm onto this girl. A such if an omnipotent god did not stop this murder and rape then this god is allowing evil to happen. It follows then that said omnipotent god is inherently evil.

It is easy to show that this is an inherent trait of said god, as these types of cases happen on a regular basis.(3,4) This means it is a repetitive characteristic of this omnipotent god and can be called a characteristic attribute.

My opponent could possibly bring up the free will argument as a counter to this argument of inherent evil by pleading that god does not want to interfere with the free will of the rapist/murderer. But by doing this, then my opponent will be saying it is acceptable to murder and take someone else's (the victims) free will away. This leads to bigger problems such as what recourse do we have to be prosecuting criminals as god has decided its not necessary to interfere.

I hand the debate over to my opponent for opening statements.

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2) http://www.foxnews.com...
(3) http://www.enca.com...
(4) http://www.gmanetwork.com...
claraoswinoswald

Con

i apologize, i did misspeak. i meant to say the definition of inherent. now that that is clarified i would like to move on to build my case. im a bit confused on if im supposed to simply give my case or rebut also, so i will do both.
to answer my opponent's question, yes an omnipotent god would allow for a young girl to be raped and stabbed to death. the question begged to be answered then is why does god allow evil. first off you must understand that god did not create evil. in genesis, god creates the world, and says "it is good." for something to be good it is inherently not evil. god did create man and being all knowing knew that man would rebel against him and bring evil into the world, but this is different than god creating evil himself. so yes i guess it is because of our free will that evil came into the world. i by no means am saying murder is acceptable in this however, because that murder and rapist will pay for his/her actions one day.

now for my first point: we are the evil ones! as i pointed out before, we brought evil into the world, not god. but, being fallible, man has a tendency to shift blame. when bad things happen they tend to point their finger at god and say "if your so perfect and just how could you let this happen?' then deem god evil and unjust, but the fact remains it is man's fault! god created everything perfect and good, and we destroyed it not god. do you consider god unjust in the scenario of the raped and murdered girl? do you consider him unjust in the holocaust? or how about when he commanded the Israelites to kill all the midianite men, woman, and children? how could an omnipotent god who is not evil allow these things to happen? 'because the consequences of sinning against and infinatly holy and righteous god are infinite!' and "Because of sin we deserve to pay for eternity. We don"t even merit the right to be breathing this moment. The evil that befalls us shouldn't shock us but it is the lack of it. God"s wrath against us for our disobedience and rebellion towards him is completely just." to quote http://realchristianity.wordpress.com.... evil is a result of our rebellion, and evil, not god's. instead god forgave us and wiped away our sins by having his son die for us.

i again apologize if i did anything incorrectly. this is my first time doing one of these. i now hand it over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent.

To clarify, the opening round was meant to be only for opening statement and not rebuttals. I ask however that voters do not penalize for conduct as my opponent is new to DDO. For future reference if there is a format specified in round one just follow that.

Now back to the debate.

My opponent in their opening statement said I must understand that god did not create evil. My opponent also goes on to say that we are the evil ones, and that we created evil by use of our free will. However, what or who created evil is not the question of the debate, the question is whether an omnipotent god is evil?

My opponent then asks me do I think god is unjust for "the scenario of the raped and murdered girl?" or "in the holocaust?" or "when he commanded the Israelites to kill all the midianite men, woman, and children?" I would like to say, not only do I think god is unjust, I think god is evil to allow this type of suffering and harm to come to anyone. This is especially true when you are all powerful.

Lastly my opponent has said that the punishment for sin is eternal, is this what one would expect from an evil god? Yes, I believe we would. Whereas a non-evil god would not punish someone for eternity. By bringing this point up I believe my opponent defeats their own argument.

As my opponent got to my question earlier than I thought, let me rebut the rebuttal. My opponent answered my question of whether an omnipotent god would allow a little girl to be raped and killed in the affirmative, yet still claims this does not make god evil. So let me use analogy here. If someone that could swim was walking past a lake and a child fell in, would we call this person evil if they did not jump in and try to save them? The answer is yes we would consider them evil. The difference with god and a human in this case is that god is omnipotent, hence the child should never fall into the lake in the first place and possibly die. So in fact, in this analogy god is worse (more evil) than the human who does not help the child, as god has unlimited power.

May I add that my opponent has said that murder is not acceptable, this means my opponent is a better person than the god they are defending.

I hand the debate back to my opponent
claraoswinoswald

Con

wow! I commend you. you are an excellent debater, still however I would have to disagree with your claims.

your main premise if I'm correct is that bad things happen, and god does not stop them, therefore he must be evil. I would have to argue against this once again with the free will argument. if god controlled every aspect of our lives, and made it so no one ever did anything wrong, we would not be humans, because part of being human inherently is making our own rational or irrational decisions. if an omnipotent god was controlling every aspect of our decision making, we would not be human. therefore in order to be human we MUST have free will.
http://www.gurusoftware.com...

now with man's free will, man chose to bring evil into the world as I explained in my earlier speech. man created evil, not god. while omnipotent is one of god's attributes, he also has many others such as in ps 18,30 "as for god his way is perfect'. I ask you how could a perfect god be evil? this is not irrelevant to the debate, because without understanding the root of evil, we cannot understand why an omnipotent god could allow for evil, and not be evil himself. throughout all of history, I think we can agree that, when unsuccessful, rebellions are punished. this is the same in this case. god allows for evil to be here as a punishment to us, for rebelling against him and causing evil in the first place. he also punishes us with sending people who do not repent to hell. in this way, the evil of the world and the question of hell are answered. god is only giving us what we wanted. to bring it even further, god offers a way out. he does not leave us to be stuck in that vicious cycle, but instead allows for us to be in a perfect eternity with no evil if we only truly believe that his son died for us. an evil being would not allow a way of escape.

all my arguments made can be cross applied to the rebuilding of my case as well.

my opponent makes the hefty claim near the end of his last speech that "May I add that my opponent has said that murder is not acceptable, this means my opponent is a better person than the god they are defending."

god by no means says murder is acceptable. as mentioned above everyone will pay for their sins one day. whether through Christ's blood or in hell, is the question, but god will punish injustice and evil.

I now hand the debate to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for the kinds words and an excellent debate, and now onto my closing remarks.

MY opponent has relied on the free will argument and the source/existence of evil as their main arguments in the debate. However both of these arguments fail and I will reiterate in my closing statement why.

If we look at the free will argument, then we need to necessarily say that god has given us free will and as such god is allowing this evil to happen. When allowing evil to happen you are an accomplice and as such you are part of the evil perpetrated. This is especially true when you are omnipotent. Secondly, if we say that the person who raped and murdered the young girl has free will, then we are respecting that persons free will. However, on the other hand we are not respecting the victims life. So in essence god is choosing free will over life, that to me is evil. If I may indulge with an analogy, would you let a drunk person drive on a crowded motorway? The answer is no. Even though we are infringing on their free will, we are keeping the lives of other safe.

My opponent has also reiterated that the source of evil in the world is very important in the debate as it is not one of god attributes. Again my opponent believes that evil comes form man, and again I say this not relevant as the source of evil is not under discussion in this debate.

However, let me elaborate a little why this argument does not help my opponents case. If god made everything in this world, then their should be no evil unless god made it. This is backed by the scriptures my opponent uses, that is John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."(1) As such when my opponent states "man created evil, not god.", this is demonstrably false from a biblical perspective.

Regarding my statement in the last round "May I add that my opponent has said that murder is not acceptable, this means my opponent is a better person than the god they are defending." The reason I was pointing out that my opponent is more moral than god is as follows. God allows murder/holocausts/genocide to happen and as pointed out above god is culpable. In contrast my opponent would not allow this to happen, as is evident in their statement "i by no means am saying murder is acceptable".

At this point I would like to add that my opponent has not addressed the argument in the previous round of eternal damnation. Why would a loving god allow someone to suffer eternally? The only way this is possible is if god is evil.
It is my belief that in this debate I have successfully shown that an omnipotent go is evil.

Now I hand the debate over for the last time to my opponent for their final remarks.
claraoswinoswald

Con

claraoswinoswald forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Hi Hematite12 (love the name BTW)

I think my opponent made an error, so I addressed that in my opening statement.
Posted by Hematite12 3 years ago
Hematite12
"i agree with all your definitions except your definition of omnipotent. instead i would like to offer the following counter definition from the oxford English dictionary: Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute."

Uhm.... That isn't the definition in the OED... OED says: (Of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

Omnipotent has nothing to do with characteristic attributes, I think you are thinking of the definition for "essence"?...

OED defines essence as: The intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Dang this was just open for challenge, I clicked Yes I'd like to debate and bam... unavailable lol. If you'd like to debate this topic again in the future I'd be open for the challenge. Good luck to you both.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Hi claraoswinoswald

Just want to check, I think you meant the definition for inherent right?

Good luck in the debate
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
iamanatheistandthisiswhyclaraoswinoswaldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
iamanatheistandthisiswhyclaraoswinoswaldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
iamanatheistandthisiswhyclaraoswinoswaldTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro since Con forfeited. Con also lost points for poor spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
iamanatheistandthisiswhyclaraoswinoswaldTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con immediately requested new definitions which should really be done in the comments, not the debate. Plus forfeit. ... I personally find the definition for evil to be rather weak.