The Instigator
snelld7
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points

It is impossible for the Catholic God to want anything

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 8728
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

snelld7

Pro

It is impossible for the Catholic God to want anything. I'll expand as a result of an attack by my oppponent.
mongeese

Con

God said, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3).
http://bible.cc...

Want - to wish or demand the presence of (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

God demanded the presence of light.

God wanted light.

The resolution is negated.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
snelld7

Pro

Want- lack: the state of needing something that is absent or unavailable
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Catholic God qualities-omnibenevolent, omniscent, omnipresent, omnipotent (PERFECT)

Cont. 1- If you know everything, and you are everything [...] Then there is nothing you can lack or want.

Defense 1- "God wanted light."

The "Catholic God" couldn't have wanted light. He is light. To Catholics, God is everything.
God can't want anything because of the simple reason that if he does want something, then he can be satisfied. And if he can be satisfied then he isn't perfect. Something who has all-power, all-love, all-knowledge, and all-presence, can't want because he is everything.
mongeese

Con

My opponent thinks that his definition is better than mine.

He gives no reason why my definition is unacceptable. He only tries to replace it.

"The 'Catholic God' couldn't have wanted light. He is light. To Catholics, God is everything."
He obviously wanted light. He said, "Let there be light." This means that there wasn't light before, and he wanted light. So, he made light appear.

Even if we went by my opponent's definition, God was in the state of needing light, and light was absent. This led him to create light.

"God can't want anything because of the simple reason that if he does want something, then he can be satisfied."
I want a potato chip. I don't have a potato chip. Therefore, I shall roast a slice of potato in oil.
God wanted light. God didn't have light. Therefore, God created light.

"Something who has all-power, all-love, all-knowledge, and all-presence, can't want because he is everything."
He isn't everything. He just has all power. Thus, he has the power to have whatever he WANTS.

Therefore...

Going by my definition, God demanded the presence of, and thus, wanted, light, affirming the resolution.

Going by my opponent's definition, God needed (wanted) light, which was absent until its creation, affirming the resolution.

My definition is the one to be used, because it was the first definition to be established, and there are no problems with it.

Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 2
snelld7

Pro

snelld7 forfeited this round.
mongeese

Con

Extend all arguments.

It is possible for the Catholic God to want things, because he wanted light. Just because he was able to satisfy himself, doesn't mean that he didn't want light in the first place.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
There is no justification for this being a tie. CON definitely won.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Yes. I have been very bombed lately.
Posted by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
wow, bombed much?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Why did PRO have points?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Ugh...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
B: TIED
A: CON (with R1 definition) PRO (with instigator definition)
COND: CON (PRO forfeit)
S/G: CON ("Something who has" is ewww... should be "Someone who..." or "Something that...")
ARG: CON (going off of definition, the resolution was obviously negated.)
SRC: CON (2-0)
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
My RFD is the same as below. Although in fairness, Con doesn't really deserve that S&G point. I'm giving it to him anyway, though, because he deserves the point.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
B/A - CON
Conduct - CON
(PRO forfeited a round.)
S/G - CON
"oppponent"
Arguments - CON
PRO forfeited, and didn't refute.
Sources - CON
CON used two. PRO used one.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
friggin grammar. put an extra "is" in my sentence.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Well of course it's impossible. Things that don't exist obviously can't want/prefer, as that is an action/thought, which is only a sentient being can express.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
snelld7mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
snelld7mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
snelld7mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
snelld7mongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
snelld7mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
snelld7mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07