The Instigator
SandmanTF131
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Atheist73
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Questions for Christians

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 422 times Debate No: 57054
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

SandmanTF131

Con

After seeing the first two debates that user Atheist 73 has had regarding this topic, I was disgusted. Both users who debated her offered little to no real answers to her questions, and one was only a Christian because he figured it was "better than Buddhism". I issue this challenge so that I may provide real answers, from a person who has truly accepted Christ as his lord and savior and has done extensive research on Christian Apologetics and tough theology questions.

Round 1 is for my challenge, and my opponents questions.

Round 2 is for my answers to said questions, and my opponents rebuttals to the answers.

Round 3 is for rebuttals.

Round 4 is for conclusions.
Atheist73

Pro

Hello,
Please confirm these terms: (So far all 3 opponents contradicted them)
-I believe in God
-I am a Christian
-I think everything the bible says is true
-I believe in heaven and hell
-I believe heaven is reached through salvation (meaning only believing Christians go to heaven and all believing Christians go to heaven)
-I believe Christianity is moral.

Now to the questions:

1) Is Anne Frank in hell?

2) How about other kids? If a Muslim boy dies at age 3, does he go to hell?

3) According to Christianity, hell is for non-Christians, and is supposed to be a very evil place, to make people suffer. It doesn't matter what they did. It doesn't matter what they believed, it doesn't matter who they really were. It's just like Hitler's death and concentration camps. Do you think it's moral to believe in a Nazi God ?

4) Do you have non-Christian friends or loved ones? If no, why? If yes, how can you believe in a religion that tells you these are evil people who will be going to hell?

5) Are earthquakes, tornadoes, accidents etc. are caused by God? And if yes, why are there earthquakes, tornadoes and accidents?

6) If God has a master plan, why bother praying?

7) If god told you to kill your son/daughter/mother, would you do it?

8) If god told you to kill me, would you do it?

9) If someone would have hurt you, would you hurt him or his newborn child? Because God, according to the bible, punished David's newborn son, because David slept with his mother while married to another man. (some claim he even raped her).

10) What is your #1 reason you believe in the Christian God?

Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1
SandmanTF131

Con

I confirm the terms my opponent has laid out for me.

Now, on to the questions.

1) Is Anne Frank in hell?
It is not the place or job of Christians (or anybody for that matter) to judge if a person deserves to go to Heaven or Hell. I am not Anne Frank, I do not know where her heart was or what the Lord had in store for her life. I will say, though, that in the Bible it says "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23) John 14 verse 6 also says "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

2) How about other kids? If a Muslim boy dies at age 3, does he go to hell?
Does the Bible teach that babies go to hell when they die? In order to answer this question, we must find a biblical example in which an infant died, and in which his or her eternal destination is recorded. To do such is not difficult. In 2 Samuel 12, King David"s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: "While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, "Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?" But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." It is clear that David"s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be "in the house of the Lord" (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that "the house of the Lord" would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son"s soul would go to hell. Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 18:3-5: "Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me."

And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it." Based on this biblical evidence, we can conclude that infants and small children that die are in a safe state, and will live eternally in heaven.

3) According to Christianity, hell is for non-Christians, and is supposed to be a very evil place, to make people suffer. It doesn't matter what they did. It doesn't matter what they believed, it doesn't matter who they really were. It's just like Hitler's death and concentration camps. Do you think it's moral to believe in a Nazi God ?
First off, the analogy in this question equating hell to Nazi death camps is ridiculous, and then asking if it is moral to believe in a Nazi God is equating him to Adolf Hitler. There are many verses in the bible that discuss Hell, and they all show that it DOES matter what they did, it DOES matter what they believed, and it DOES matter who they really were. Hitler forced the Jews into death camps without consideration of these questions, it really did not matter to him. Hitler did not love the Jews, in fact, he hated them. This is where you find a difference. If you accept and realize the Christ died for YOU on the cross and loves you more than the human mind can possibly fathom, then you will receive his gift of eternal salvation. But you can not force a gift upon someone. God gave humans free will to choose, so those who hear the gospel and reject it, made the choice to reject that gift. It is their own individual choices that made them deserving of separation from God, nothing like the Nazis who forced innocent people into torture.

4) Do you have non-Christian friends or loved ones? If no, why? If yes, how can you believe in a religion that tells you these are evil people who will be going to hell?
Yes, I do have non-Christian friends and loved ones. And I can believe in a religion that tells me those who do not accept Christ are going to hell because it is MY job as an evangelist for Christ to speak into the lives of those friends and loved ones. It becomes my responsibility to minister into their lives with love. And, as said in the above question, if they hear this gospel and still do not accept Christ, then they made the decision to disown him, and he will therefore disown them.

5) Are earthquakes, tornadoes, accidents etc. are caused by God? And if yes, why are there earthquakes, tornadoes and accidents?
Yes, God does cause these natural disasters. And I am going to assume that by the question of why he allows them, you mean why does he allow the suffering that follows. Since God is wholly good, he would not allow suffering, right? Well, this is not necessarily true. Suffering now in the short term may lead to happiness in the long term, and happiness now in the short term may lead to suffering later on. As humans, we are not omnipotent and omniscient, we cannot know what the outcome of every single little thing that happens will be. Much like the butterfly effect, we cannot predict that. Perhaps through the tragic death of someone who died slowly trapped under rubble in an earthquake, God knew that authorities would be shocked into requiring new construction standards for earthquake-proof buildings, thereby saving many future lives. Maybe he permitted it so that some other person, facing death or illness in a hospital and seeing the reports on television, would be inspired by the persons courage to face their own challenge with faith and bravery. In summary, the problem of suffering just cannot be put through successfully. It requires probability judgements way beyond our ability, it fails to take into account the full scope of the evidence, and it is diminished in force when it comes to the Christian God. The intellectual problem of suffering fails to disprove God.

6) If God has a master plan, why bother praying?
Why have a conversation with someone you have a relationship with? God created us out of love and a desire to have a relationship with us and wants to hear from us. Prayer isn't so we can change Gods plan. There are many instances in the Bible where praying to God will change someone spiritually. It may not change Gods plan, but it will change the person, which may have been part of Gods plan.

7) If god told you to kill your son/daughter/mother, would you do it?
This is a popular argument used to try and disprove that God is wholly good or wholly powerful. Another popular version is "Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?" Its a paradoxical situation. Surely this means God cannot be all powerful or all good, right? Wrong. In order for someone to conclude that there is some state of affairs God can or cannot bring about, the objector must establish that the state of affairs is a genuine, bona fide possibility. It is no imperfection of anyone to be unable to make the concept of happiness square dance with the color red. The concept of happiness and the color red are not the sorts of things that can dance. Does this mean "logic" is greater than God? No, "Logic" is not the name of some concrete or abstract thing that can carry out tasks. When you cannot do something contradictory, it is not as though there is some invisible force called logic restraining you. Logic is not a law, however, like the laws of nature. Rather, it is a set of necessary conditions of there being anything at all and for there being thought/language about anything at all.

8) If god told you to kill me, would you do it?
Same as above.

9) If someone would have hurt you, would you hurt him or his newborn child? Because God, according to the bible, punished David's newborn son, because David slept with his mother while married to another man. (some claim he even raped her).
I used this story as an example for an above question. God did not punish Davids newborn son, God took David's child of adultery to Heaven to punish David. The child was spared the trouble that came on David's household as the result of his sin. David said that he would go to the child, meaning after he died.

2 Samuel 12:22 He answered, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.' 23 But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me."

10) What is your #1 reason you believe in the Christian God?
Evidence, really. If you look into all the arguments for God's existence, it really is amazing. The evidence for design in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a favorite of mine, proving that it would be impossible for us to be here without a God (something cannot come from nothing.) There is also the evidence of the Absolute Moral Law, because since there are Absolute Morals there must be a giver of those morals. Also, do some research into how fine tuned this universe is for us. The number of seconds in the entire history of the universe is around 10^17, (ten followed by 17 zeroes.) 100,000,000,000,000,000. The number of subatomic particles in the entire known universe is around 10^80. The so-called weak force, which operates inside the nucleus of an atom, is so finely tuned that an alteration in its value by even one part out of 10^100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe! This is only one of hundreds of finely tuned aspects of the universe, many of which are much worse odds. And that is not considering the odds of all those odds falling in place.

Thank you for your questions.
Atheist73

Pro

1)
'It is not the place or job of Christians (or anybody for that matter) to judge if a person deserves to go to Heaven or Hell.' -
Actually, it is very clear in your religion who does and who doesn't go to hell:

'According to the Scriptures, a person's eternal destiny is based on whether or not they receive the gift of salvation offered by the Lord Jesus Christ. All men are sinners and are in need of salvation, else they will be under judgment in Hell for all eternity. However, Christ has purchased our salvation through His death and resurrection. He now offers this free gift of salvation and the promise of an eternity in Heaven to all men. We receive salvation by believing wholly on Him and trusting in His finished work and the veracity of His offer. There is nothing we can do to merit salvation nor any other means of entrance into Heaven except through accepting Christ's offer. '

(source: http://www.baptistbasics.org...)

Let me highlight it for you: 'All men are sinners and are in need of salvation, else they will be under judgment in Hell for all eternity' and 'We receive salvation by believing wholly on Him (Jesus) and trusting in His finished work and the veracity of His offer.' These are all fancy words for: 'If you are not a Christian, you are going to hell'.

I am quite sure Anne Frank wasn't a Christian, therefore according to your religion she is supposed to be in hell.
I want to point out your answer was hard to read and understand, and it was lacking explanations and details.
It looks like you are trying to avoid the question, because I can't understand if your answer is YES or NO.

2)
a) Your example is not valid. David's son was Jewish (and because Christianity didn't exist back then), as a child or a grown man - according to your religion he would go to heaven. I would love to see an example from the bible of a non-Jewish baby who dies and goes to heaven.

b) Let's say infants, babies and little kids DO go to heaven. 1) Do they stay in that age in heaven? 2) What about their families? Could they be happy in heaven when their family suffers in hell?

*** Comment: 'I will go to him' is not translated very well - in Hebrew it is 'I am going to him', which in Hebrew can mean either what you said, or just as much can mean: 'I am going towards death'

3)
YOUR analogy is ridiculous.
a) If Hitler said to the Jews: 'If you choose to burn a synagogue, deny your Judaism, and become a Christian I will not put you in a death camp', would it still be fair for him to put the ones who did not take that 'deal' in the camps??
A gift is a true gift only if it has no conditions. It's like saying: If you'll agree with me, I will give you 2,000$.
b) Like I showed you in (1), if someone is not Christian he goes to hell according to your religion, which means the only thing that matters is the religion of the individual, and not anything else, just like Hitler and his camps.

4)
a) Will you be happy in heaven if your loved one was suffering in hell?
b) Does a real father deny his children? If your children will hate you, will you hate them?

5) Your argument's examples are extremely weak.

'Perhaps through the tragic death of someone who died slowly trapped under rubble in an earthquake, God knew that authorities would be shocked into requiring new construction standards for earthquake-proof buildings, thereby saving many future lives. '

If there were no natural disasters, there would be no need of earthquake-proof buildings, and furthermore, the whole mighty intelligence god can't find a better way to do that? If a parent kills his child, and as a result some people get inspiration from it and go volunteer in a children's hospital, can you say it's a GOOD thing that parent killed his child??

'Maybe he permitted it so that some other person, facing death or illness in a hospital and seeing the reports on television, would be inspired by the persons courage to face their own challenge with faith and bravery' -
Well if god causes natural disasters, he probably causes illness and other deaths too, right? Same as before.

6)
a) You admit that prayer doesn't work and doesn't effect anything. 'Prayer isn't so we can change Gods plan'- that means if a kid has cancer and you have your whole church pray for him - it's not going to do anything.
b) So I guess God picks and chooses some people for conversation, because he didn't talk to me AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE (including Christians).

7)
I actually don't see it as a paradox. It's a very simple question. Just like in the bible, when God talked to Abraham and told him to kill his only son, if God told you to kill your son/daughter/mother, would you do it?
(because 'we cannot know what the outcome of every single little thing that happens will be'- maybe if you kill your mother it will make someone reunite with his mother after hearing this story)

8)
Same as above

9) You're saying that it doesn't matter at what age we die, and it does matter.

10)
a) ' it would be impossible for us to be here without a God' - It actually is possible (the big bang theory, which is scientifically proven), and even if you don't accept the big bang theory, how is it possible for God to exist from nothing?

b) Moral law - This is of course, untrue. There is no absolute moral law. Just a few examples:
-Slavery: used to be the norm but is no longer
-Sati: an Indian tradition in which widows are burned with their dead husbands.
-Eating Animals

There are of course more, but I'm running out of time. The morality in the bible is not the morality today, and the morality of Asia is not like in Europe. Today, most countries share most of their morals, because of communication, law, and development.

c) The number of seconds:
I didn't understand your writing, it would help if you rewrite it. If you mean the odds that a planet like Earth would contain life - may I point out that the number of stars in the universe is BIGGER than the number of grains of sand in our planet, so it makes sense that at least one planet will have life on it. It's like the lottery - you have to be extremely lucky to win, but it's logical that SOMEONE wins. Imagine a lottery of ALL the people in the world (about 7 billion). Each has to pick 100 numbers, and the one that chooses the exact numbers in the right order wins. I didn't calculate it, but it's reasonable that at least one will win, right?

I am waiting for your rebuttals in the next round! Good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
SandmanTF131

Con

1.)The fact that it may be very clear in our religion who does and does not spend eternity with our savior does not give us as humans the right to judge that. I may know it is illegal in the U.S. to murder someone, but if I hear that there is a murderer in my apartment building, does that give me the right to go and kill him? I mean, he will get the death penalty anyways, right? No. It is not our place to judge that, regardless of if we know the law. (Matthew 7:1-5) Then, you also make several statements that imply you knew the answer to the question before you asked it. It is illogical and frankly just arbitrary to ask such a question.

2.) Davids son was an infant. He had no capacity, mentally or spiritually, to accept Christ or understand what he was doing if his parents baptized him at birth like so many Catholics nowadays like to. If you took a two week old infant that came from the womb of a Christian woman, and one from the womb of a Muslim, Until those children reach an age where they can decide for themselves, they are in that "safe place" regardless of what home they were raised in.
b.) Heaven is a transcendent, infinite place. It is not a part of this universe, same as Hell. Therefore, it does not abide by the laws of time and age. Also, Heaven is described as "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him." (1 Corinthians 2:9). The souls of the people who accept Christ and enter Heaven bask in eternal joy beyond what our minds can fathom. This means no sadness. This means they will be happy if other family members are in hell, but not BECAUSE other family members are in hell. This draws back to how it was their job to evangelize.

3.) When Adam and Eve were created, they chose to eat the forbidden fruit by their own free will. As a result, we all have an inborn sinful nature. To put it in a picture, we are all hanging off a cliff. Christ holds out his hand to help us up; THAT is the gift. He did not throw us over the edge like Hitler would have if you did not "burn a synagogue", you were already doomed to Hell. Christs hand is a gift because it holds no conditions, just love him and accept him.

4.) Question A was addressed above. As for B, No father here is denying his Children, his children are denying him. Gods children on this Earth are denying and hating him, not the other way around. He is always there for those who choose to turn around.

5.) In dealing with this emotionally loaded topic, it is important we make a few distinctions to keep our thinking clear. there are two parts to the "Problem of Suffering". The Intellectual problem concerns whether its plausible to think that God and suffering can coexist. The emotional problem concerns peoples dislike of a God who would permit suffering. If we are discussing the Intellectual problem, it is important we keep in mind who has the burden of proof here. "Give me some good explanation for why God permits suffering," the atheist will demand, then will sit back and play skeptic about all the attempted explanations. This may be clever strategy, but its philosophically illegitimate and intellectually dishonest. The atheist is the one who claims that the coexistence of God and suffering is impossible, it is up to him/her to give us an argument and support the premises. It is the Christians turn to play skeptic and question whether the atheist has shown that God cannot or does not have a good reason for permitting suffering in the world, which is the point I made. Just because you may be able to think of ways that seem better to you, does not refute the fact that we CAN NOT understand an infinite mind. It is just impossible for us. We can not know those details. After centuries of discussion, the books on this argument have been closed. It is widely admitted by both atheist and Christian philosophers alike that the logical version of the problem of suffering has failed, mainly due to this burden of proof. If it is the emotional problem of suffering, then this changes to a counseling session, which I would be more than happy to provide for my opponent, but not in this format.

6.) Here, my opponent misquotes me and twists my words a bit to fit his/her own needs, saying "You admit that prayer doesn't work and doesn't effect anything. 'Prayer isn't so we can change Gods plan'" Not only is this a misquotation, it is half of a quotation used to twist my words. I said "God created us out of love and a desire to have a relationship with us and wants to hear from us." and then "It may not change Gods plan, but it will change the person, which may have been part of Gods plan." My opponent did not address these claims. Also, he/she then says "So I guess God picks and chooses some people for conversation, because he didn't talk to me AND MANY OTHER PEOPLE (including Christians)." I never indicated God would talk back. If God did talk back, maybe he would seem like a normal person, like your Dad or something " not what he should be, God. He should be praised. He will communicate with you in very different ways, perhaps through the heart. This quote also indicates my opponent has some very serious emotional ties with this question, which, again, I would be happy to provide counseling for at a different time.

7.) Regardless of whether you "see it as a paradox", it does not make it more or less a paradox. And besides, the aspect of being a paradox is not what pertains to the question. As I said, in order for that question to be valid, it has to be a possibility for God to actually ask you to kill someone, which he has never done. Again, my opponent misquotes an entire bible story, uneducated in how the stories really go. This time, it is the story of Abraham. In order for God to determine Abraham"s ability to trust, Genesis 22 tells us that God instructs Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac. Recall that this ancient story (literally thousands of years old) comes from a time when human sacrifice (and polytheism " belief in many gods) was common. What strikes us as so utterly cruel was not at all unheard of in Abraham"s time. The story, however, reveals to us a developing relationship between God and Abraham " a relationship that is tested at times. Abraham has come to trust in God. Thus, even though this request seems so strange and cruel, Abraham finds no reason to distrust that God has his best interests at heart. Abraham is willing to present Isaac as an offering to God. This is precisely the kind of trust and faith that God wanted to see (a God who will eventually not withhold his own Son from being sacrificed). As a result, God tells Abraham to untie his son and Abraham sacrifices an animal instead.

9.) Your rebuttal to this question makes no sense to me, please rephrase. The question was "If someone would have hurt you, would you hurt him or his newborn child? Because God, according to the bible, punished David's newborn son, because David slept with his mother while married to another man. (some claim he even raped her)." Again, the bible story in the question is misquoted, therefore the entire question is really rendered null and void. If it helps for some reason, no, I would not hurt someones newborn child to get to their father or mother. Neither did God.

10.)
a) My opponent here substantiates that the big bang theory is the reason we are here, yet conveniently fails to explain what caused the Big Bang. I only said it would be impossible for there to BE a beginning other than God. While yes, the Big Bang Theory is scientifically tested, it also lines up with the biblical account of creation in Genesis. I could go much farther into this topic, but that is not the object of this debate, I would not have space. Also, my opponent does what many atheists do, and try and say "well then what was Gods cause?" He does not need one. He exists by the necessity of his own nature. In other words, God is eternal. He always has been and always will be. It is the difference between "Everything that exists has a cause" and "Everything that BEGAN to exist has a cause."

b.) The Moral Law. "This is, of course, untrue" my opponent says. I could, again, go into a deeper argument concerning this, but there is no space and this is a separate issue. Allow me to point out, though, that all my opponents examples are examples of society law, which would have no effect on disproving a transcendent, absolute law.

c.) I am talking about the universes trait of being life permitting, not a particular solar system. I will rephrase my statement. Sometimes people will appeal to the example of a lottery in order to justify the chance alternative. Surely someone has to win, right? Contrary to popular impression, the argument is not trying to explain why THIS particular universe exists, rather why a life-permitting universe exists. The correct analogy would be a lottery in which billions and billions and billions of white ping pong balls were mixed together, with just one black ball, and you were told that one ball will be randomly selected. If its black, you live. If it is white, you get shot. Now notice that any particular ball that is selected is equally improbable: no matter which ball rolls down the chute, the odds against that particular ball are fantastically improbable. But some ball must roll down the chute. This point is what my opponent illustrated. This, however, is irrelevant, because we're not trying to explain why that particular ball was picked. The crucial point is that whichever ball rolls down the chute, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will be white rather than black. Getting the black ball is no more improbable than getting any particular white ball. But it is incomprehensibly more probable for you to get white rather than black. So if the black ball rolls down the chute, you certainly should suspect that the lottery was rigged to let you live.

Thank you.
Atheist73

Pro

Atheist73 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SandmanTF131

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round. If this is a forfeiture of the entire debate, I ask that he/she please state so in the next round.
Atheist73

Pro

Hello!
Again, I'm sorry for forfeiting the last round. As I stated in the comments, my computer stopped working yesterday.
To the rebuttals:

1) 'I may know it is illegal in the U.S. to murder someone, but if I hear that there is a murderer in my apartment building, does that give me the right to go and kill him? I mean, he will get the death penalty anyways, right? No. It is not our place to judge that, regardless of if we know the law.'

You are avoiding the answer! My question wasn't if it's right to kill people who are not Christians. To use your example, it's like knowing it is illegal in the U.S. to murder someone, and then hearing about a person who killed a person, and saying: He will go to jail and he deserves to be in jail.

Yes, you are right. I knew the answer before I asked the question, but the question wasn't a request for information. I asked 'Is Anne Frank in hell?' because I knew your religion tells you the answer is yes. If you would have answered YES in the beginning instead of avoiding the question, I would have criticized it, and give you a few followup questions.

2) It's very nice to say that in heaven there is no time and age, but a newborn baby can't talk, can't understand, and even more - he wants his mother. So... when that baby is in heaven, there are three options:
a) The baby stays in that age, and he cannot talk nor understand.
b) The baby can talk and understand.
Non of them are reasonable options. You said option (a) is wrong, but if option (b) is right, then that baby is not really himself anymore, because our personality is very much affected from our life experience, our location, etc.
Additionally, as I understand it, in heaven you get to meet your loved ones that died. Let's say a 6 year old dies and goes to heaven, and his parents die too, 10 years later. If he stays 6 years old, then he doesn't get to live such a perfect eternal life, and as you said, if he is 'ageless' and he meets his parents - he is not the child that left them.
If you can be happy in heaven, when for example, your children are in hell, that means you are either a horrible horrible person or your being is changed in heaven.

3) First of all - loving someone and accepting him IS A CONDITION! Second, you said 'we all have an inborn sinful nature' and ' you were already doomed to Hell' meaning: because we were born with a sinful nature we are doomed to hell. This is immoral for many reasons:

-God punishes us for our NATURE! THE NATURE WE WERE BORN WITH!
-we are punished because of somebody else's 'crime'! And because we are all the sons of Adam according to the bible, it's like a person being accused of say, Murder, and as a result all his children get punished as well, and their children, and theirs and theirs... for eternity!
-God creates our nature, and then punishes us for it. It's like punishing someone for being black, nobody chooses to be born black.
-Our sinful nature is supposed to be some kind of punishment. Who does it punish and why?
-If God creates sinful natures and gives them to babies, he is actually PUNISHING BABIES.
-if our nature is created, and nature=personality, then not accepting Christianity is also a part of that nature, isn't it?

4) 'No father here is denying his Children, his children are denying him. Gods children on this Earth are denying and hating him, not the other way around. He is always there for those who choose to turn around.'

You are missing the whole point!!
No real father accepts and loves his children only if they accept and love him!! A father loves his children NO MATTER WHAT! If you are angry at your father, leave the house and deny him as his father, should he hate you for that and hate you too?

5) I asked you to give a good explanation for why god permits suffering, because I think there is not one.
You said: 'we cannot know what the outcome of every single little thing that happens will be.'- meaning: these things turn out to be good.
Yet, your examples were weak and didn't support your point. You can't expect me to not ask for a GOOD example. If you fail to provide one, that means your argument is incorrect and I win in this specific question.
Voters, my opponent is the one who is being intellectually dishonest and philosophically illegitimate. Please read carefully.
When I claim there is no good reason for god to permit suffering, it is YOUR job to show just a single example of when there is a good reason for god to permit suffering. You can't claim something, but not provide any good arguments to support it.
I would like my opponent to explain, in the comments perhaps, 'this sentence: 'the logical version of the problem of suffering has failed, mainly due to this burden of proof.' What proof?

6) I did not misquote you. In fact, here is a bigger part of what you wrote: ' God created us out of love and a desire to have a relationship with us and wants to hear from us. -----Prayer isn't so we can change Gods plan. -------There are many instances in the Bible where praying to God will change someone spiritually.'

The definition of the word 'prayer' is: 'a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.' - If it is a request for help, it's purpose IS to change god's plan.

If God wants to have a relationship with me, he should communicate with me.
Saying god can communicate through the heart, is like saying 'God can communicate through an apple'. It is not understandable, and it is meaningless and extremely abstract.

'This quote also indicates my opponent has some very serious emotional ties with this question, which, again, I would be happy to provide counseling for at a different time.'
You are implying that I am somewhat 'mad' at god, which I don't appreciate. I also want to add it is very arrogant of you to offer me counseling. I highlighted that part of the sentence, not because of anger, but because I spoke to many Christians. Many of them said God did not communicate with them. You are trying to make me look emotional and unprofessional, and I don't respect that.

7) I was born and raised in Israel. I promise you I know this story well, and your explanation of the story doesn't contradict what I said, but actually supports the reason for why this question isn't a paradox:
'because 'we cannot know what the outcome of every single little thing that happens will be'- maybe if you kill your mother it will make someone reunite with his mother after hearing this story' - which is based on your arguments!
If you would ask me a question of; If God spoke to you, would you believe in him? is it intellectually honest for me to say it is a paradox because I don't believe in God? Of course not. You said so yourself, that god has an infinite mind, and he is so complex he created this whole universe... he actually didn't stop World War 2 from happening, so would it be that odd for him to ask you to kill your mother? I don't think so.

8) same as above

9) I'll just say that according to your argument God also doesn't punish people who die from cancer, for example. It is just wrong.

10) a) Nonsense. The fact that we don't have a clear understanding of the universe doesn't mean there are no natural explanations other than God. It is just so easy to say: God did it. But God? The amazingly complex creature who is invisible, figure less, has mind reading abilities and future knowing abilities... he just exists, with not explanation.
If a police finds a murdered man, they shouldn't make up an explanation. They should look around for answers, test, look for evidence, and if there are non - say it honestly: We don't know.
I could also say that the universe just exists, and that it is infinite and eternal, but it would not be based on evidence, and will contradict science. If you can say this theory is incorrect, than your god theory is incorrect too.

b) If you mean for example: our morality tells us not to kill, then your argument is very weak, because it can all be explained by evolution and nature.

c) Look, I am not a physicist. It would also be better if you would have provided a source. I read about the weak force, and from what I understand now, without that weak force energy couldn't turn into mass, meaning the big bang couldn't have happened without it. The fact that it also permits life (and I guess other things too) doesn't matter.

Voters
Due to Technical problems I didn't post my Round 3 entry. I ask you to take into your consideration that there are no conclusions, and to pay attention mainly to the first two rounds.

Thank you!

And to my opponent - I enjoyed this debate very much and learned a lot, thank you and good luck in your future debates.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SandmanTF131 2 years ago
SandmanTF131
To my opponent, they should also look at round 3 as well. Do not try to skip over the fact that you missed an entire round of this debate. Round 4 is the only argument section that should be completely excluded, due to your absence in 3.
Posted by Atheist73 2 years ago
Atheist73
Your proposal is fair and good, but I am almost done writing the entry (last argument left). I will post it, but I will ask the voters to pay attention mainly to the first two rounds.
Thank you.
Posted by SandmanTF131 2 years ago
SandmanTF131
I recognize my opponents technical difficulties, but also I stress that her argument is the final argument in the debate, which was supposed to be for conclusions. I myself had to address my opponents forfeiture, so I could not do so in this round. to keep things fair, I ask that my opponent forfeit this round as well, and that voters judge only on rounds 1-3.
Posted by Atheist73 2 years ago
Atheist73
I'm truly sorry.
My computer stopped working yesterday, so I couldn't post my round.
I will post my entry today or tomorrow.
Posted by SandmanTF131 2 years ago
SandmanTF131
Sorry, my post for Round 4 was unclear. For some reason I had a mind that I was arguing second in the round. I apologize.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
The Russian Orthodox Pope not the Roman Catholic Pope, cannot disprove God.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Why are people so desparate to disprove God? It can't be done, but some people will never quit trying.

Even the Pope can't disprove God.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
I would think that almost every Christian would "contradict" your statements for the simple fact that those views are not held by all Christians. Had you narrowed your scope to "Questions for Fundamental Christians" you would have been somewhat more accuraowte, but still not 100%. As it is most of the views you mentioned are held by only a small minority of Christians. Fundamentalists, while they are the largest Christian group of faiths in the US with 24% of the general population, world-wide represent only 10% of all Christians. So how are views of 10% meant to represent Christianity?

The Pope with his statement "Who am I to judge?" acknowledged that there was the possibility for even atheists to go to heaven. Catholicism is by far the largest single Christian faith with 51% of all Christians. How then could you set the absurd restriction that Christians believe that only Christians will go to heaven.
No votes have been placed for this debate.