The Instigator
The-Holy-Macrel
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
republicofdhar
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Is god bad for not helping some areas of the world? (assuming that he exists)

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 2 votes the winner is...
republicofdhar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 62150
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

The-Holy-Macrel

Con

Debate rules: (the numbers are for the round number.)
1 Acceptance
2-4 Arguements
5 Final conclusion and goodbyes
republicofdhar

Pro

Thank you for the invitation, I accept. May this be an enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 1
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

God has a reason for everything. In the garden of eden when adam and eve betrayed god he sent them out of the garden because they had eaten the apple of the tree of life. A bit harsh? No. He sent thm out because when creation is not pure it has sinned and sin separates humans and god. In my first debte i made an equasion God creation = purity sin.
God is pure and creation sins two positives and negatives are grouped. Balance is needed so he took man's sin when he died on the cross then god had sin which cancel each other out and creation (humans) have purity and can go to heaven to be with god. God cannot make that switch for you. He canot make you worship him so he tests us. If he made us worship him then we wouldn't be able to be pure and not go to heaven because when you admit your sins that switch happens but it would be out of fear. That isn't god god is a pure being. Since he cannot make us worship him we must have faith and belive he is there although we have though we have no logical proof. That is what faith is. We have to accept the world as it is. Every big issue today is man-made or produced. God cannot just come down and fix everything, we have to do it ourselves. He will give us the oppertunity, the courage, the strength but we need to fix our own problems. He does help but usually only in that manner.

With this i conclude god is not bad but reasonable and wise when interacting with the world.
republicofdhar

Pro

I would like to begin by noting that Pro has failed to provide key definitions for this debate. In order to keep the debate running effectively, I will begin by firstly defining the following:

1. God = an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-powerful being

My own arguments may be found in the counters provided to Pro's arguments.

Argument 1: God has a divine purpose for everything

This argument is practically impossible to refute because it holds the adamant position that everything in existence is part of God's divine Will. That being said, all the evil in the world could be attributed as "good" to God in Pro's book. Obviously, this is an evasive argument. I will base my refutation on Rowe's inductive formulation. It is noteworthy, however, that Pro's argument centres solely on a Christian God, making no mention of other deities such as the Islamic God, the Hindu gods and goddesses, or the Hellenic gods such as Thor or Zeus.

There (probably) exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

Therefore, There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. (Quod erat demonstrandum)

Argument 2: Humanity is sinful, so God is justified in putting humanity through adversity as a "test"

I will attempt to refute this using the formulation below.

Premise 1: God has created humans in their entirety, including the physical, cognitive and psychological tendencies of humans.
Premise 2: Among these psychological tendencies, is the propensity to "sin". (Sin = a misdemeanour in God's view)
Conclusion: God has created evil.

If God has created evil and the propensity to commit evil acts in humans, it would naturally follow that testing and punishing humans for the same thing is a sadistic thing to do. Naturally, this is not in line with the concept of a "good" God.

In addition, the idea that God created sin (synonymous with evil), accorded humans with the propensity to sin, punishes them for the same propensity to sin, and then tortured His only Son so as to forgive human sinfulness (which He created in the first place), is incomprehensible (it is either irrational or capricious, and as we have established that God is perfect, it has to be the latter, which contradicts, once again, Pro's claim of an all "good" God), and I hope that this is obvious to Pro.

Pro also makes contentious value judgments about what we "have to" do. I will not be addressing these because they belong to an entirely different debate. What Pro has acknowledged, however, is that his line of thought is based on faith, which he defines to be his perception of reality (presumably as based on a religious source), but in the absence of logical proof or available evidence. This argument is similarly unconvincing.

The argument from faith includes that God provides humans with the opportunity and strength to overcome even the most extreme adversity (this being the subject of the debate). Firstly, this is an idealistic representation of adversity faced by much of humanity. There are obvious examples of death by starvation or malnutrition leading to disease in millions of people across the world, which clearly indicates that such people did not have the "strength" or means to overcome this adversity.

Conclusion:
With this I conclude that God is indeed "bad" for failing to eradicate evil or maintain the welfare of everyone on Earth.

References:
[1] Rowe, William L. 1979. "The Problem of and Some Varieties of Atheism," American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41.
Debate Round No. 2
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

So assume there is anther god(or god) insted of the christian god.
Allah and Elohim -- the gods of Islam and Judaism have pretty much the exact same belief as christians. It is compared here:
http://www.answering-islam.org...

Now lets look at the greeko-roman belief -- they made them in thier own image so pretty much they litterally made them up.

The only diffferance between judaism, islam, and christianity is belief in jesus, and what happened in the biblical, tanakh, and quran times. God did not create sin lucifer did in christianity and judaism, but what about islam? Allah created sin. And his creation but cannot enter into the world. Allah is a kind god according to the quran though. I will argue the islam P.O.V. with if he could he would.

And on the subject of strength, oppertunity, and courage are granted to only those who see it or are willing.
republicofdhar

Pro

Thank you for your arguments Con.

Con begins on a positive note by considering the Islamic and Judeo-Christian God, but fails yet again to make points that apply also to the Hellenic, Norse, Hindu or Taoist God(s), for example. An argument based on the general concept of God would have been more favourable to his points.

Con casts unsubstantiated aspersions on the existence of the Greco-Roman gods (eg. Zeus, Apollo, Athena). In essence, he claims that they are most obviously untrue because they were a product of the Romans' and Greeks' creations. I would like to remind Con that this is firstly a digression; we have entered this debate assuming the existence of the concept of God, and not to debate the truth of any religion. There are people that place their faith in this religion and it cannot be simply dismissed the way Con has done. I would also like to remind Con that the same argument can be made of Christianity.

1. The creation of sin

I offer the following argument, which acts as a strong refutation to Con's point.

Premise 1: God created Lucifer.
Premise 2: Lucifer created sin.
Conclusion: Therefore, directly or indirectly, God created sin.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, because it flows logically from the premises. Con has already accepted that the Islamic faith holds that God created sin. Therefore, my original argument stands.

Argument 2:

Con argues that strength, opportunity and courage are only granted to those who see it or are willing. I would argue that this is highly discriminatory and not at all in line with the concept of a "good" God.

Premise 1: God can destroy evil or grant strength, opportunity and courage to whomsoever He wants, because He is all-powerful.
Premise 2: If God is a good God, he would destroy evil and/or grant strength, opportunity and courage to people who are suffering, so as to minimise their suffering.
Premise 3: God does not do that unconditionally, thereby choosing instead to allow people to suffer.
Conclusion: Therefore God is not a good God.

Argument 3:
I would like to remind Con of Rowe's formulation, with some minor adjustments to make it clearer, as I am not convinced by his response.

Premise 1: There (probably) exists instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.

Therefore, this being is either not omnipotent, omniscient, or wholly good. Since we have assumed at the outset that God is omnipotent, and omniscient, He is therefore not wholly good. (Quod erat demonstrandum)

Based on the counter-arguments above, my original arguments all remain intact. Therefore, I maintain my position that God is not a good God for not helping certain areas of the world.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

I congradulate you because i am simply out-witted. You win. I wish the best of luck to you in future debates.
republicofdhar

Pro

Thank you very much Con, for your sporting attitude and spirited debate. Given your concession, I extend my arguments to the final round and urge voters to vote Pro. I wish you all the very best in future debates as well. It has been a pleasure debating with yoh.
Debate Round No. 4
The-Holy-Macrel

Con

The-Holy-Macrel forfeited this round.
republicofdhar

Pro

I thank Con again for his spirited debate, and eventual concession. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
Thank you for your response Bible, I might have to reconsider in that case because my knowledge of specific scripture is lacking hahah. I appreciate your response nonetheless.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
Sure, republic, I would be interested in debating this subject with you. However, I will only debate for my God Jehovah, which I wouldn't exactly define with any "omni" words considering these words are not in the Bible. They simply aren't the best description of God. Part of God's absolute perfection is the perfect balance between his qualities. For example, he is not ALL knowledge just like he is not ALL power. He may be the most knowledgeable being in the universe, however, he is also the most powerful being in existence which is why he can have selective knowledge when appropriate to, for example, not violate our free will .
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Holy marcel..... Is God bad for not helping people is a slam against God.And that is from a person who does not give God the time of day till bad things happen.
Posted by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
@Bible2000 if you are interested in another debate on this, I am as well. The arguments on that site are stronger, but still very fallible.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
@The-Holy-Macrel

Here is some information that might help you give much better, and actually biblical, arguments: http://www.jw.org...

Before you can debate about this, you must understand what causes our suffering, why God temporarily allows it, and what he will do in the future.

Also, I would like you to watch this brief three minute video when you have time, and tell me what you think about it: https://www.jw.org...
Posted by The-Holy-Macrel 2 years ago
The-Holy-Macrel
I belive every word you just typed but this is only a debate nobody is speaking against god.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
God gave us principles and laws to live by to be prosperous.It is up to man to either accept his wisdom or reject it. God declared in Deuteronomy that he has set before us life, and death, blessing and cursing, therefore YOU CHOOSE life that you and your seed may live.

God gave us the tolls to prosper and he also warned us not to do certain things that will bring sickness and poverty.What he will not do is force us to decide what laws and principles that will bring either one of those results in our lives.If God said that walking north will bring life and the blessing, and we decide to walk south,which is death and the curse, we will be going the wrong way from his will. But one thing, no matter how long or intense you walk south, the very moment you turn around( repent) you are walking north.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
The-Holy-MacrelrepublicofdharTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
The-Holy-MacrelrepublicofdharTied
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 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: Concession