The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ScottyDouglas
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Resolved: The Christian god most likely doesn't exist.

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 5 votes the winner is...
ScottyDouglas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,688 times Debate No: 24322
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (5)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Here is the challange.

I (pro) will be affirming the resolution that the Christian god most likely is false. I will be giving tons of logical reasoning and scientific evidence to prove my case. Con will have to provide proof and logical reasoning that suggests otherwise.

~~Definitions~~

god- god as layed out by the bible.


~~Rules~~
8,000 characters
No samantics
No plagerizing

First round for acceptance only.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I am interested in his arguments.

I agree to my opponents preparations though I think we should give some more clarification.

Lets define more than likely.
More than Likely: something of greater importance seeming like truth, fact, or certainty. http://dictionary.reference.com...

I think we should keep normal round rules- round 1 for acceptance and final round for conclusion(no new arguments).

If my opponent agrees then it is settled and let it begin.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his acceptance.

Who is the god of the Bible?

The god that the christian bible speaks of is an All-powerful, All-Knowing, and All-Loving god (I doubt my opponnet will object to this). However, in my next few contentions I will state how this being can not possibly exist.


Contention1: Problem of Evil

P1: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
P2:There is evil in the world we live in.
C: Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

P1: It says many times in the Bible that god is all-loving and all powerful [1]. So, then if he were to be all powerful and all loving then evil could not exist. A god that is all loving and good would use his power to end suffering in the world he created. However, we instead see horrible things like war, famine, and diseases.

P2: This is an undeniable fact.

C: Since so much suffering in the world exists and god hasn't done anything yet, then this all-loving god can not exist.


Contention 2: Biblical Contadictions

P1:
If the god of the Bible is to exist, then the Bible can't contain errors.
P2: The Bible contains errors.
C: Therefore, the god of the bible can't exist.

P1: The root of all things that describe the biblical god is the Bible itself. If the book is flawed then this means the god it speaks of more then likely doesn't exist. I will now show a few examples of the errors that are found in the Bible.

E1: Matthew 19:26 states:“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. “ while Judges 1:19 says: “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” <--- It is clear that the god of the Bible can either be all powerful all the time or never to begin with. The Bible has stated one thing about this god while saying the exact opposite at another.

E2: 2 Samuel 6:23 says:“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death” While later on in this very same book at 2 Samuel 21:8 it says: “But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul” <--- Another error in the Bible. It can't get it's facts straight.

E3: James 1:13 says: “..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” while Genesis 22:1 says: “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” <--- Another contradiction in the Bible's describtion of its god.

These should suffice for now. I will state more in the later rounds since this is going to be a somewhat long debate anyway.

Contention 3: Science proves Bible wrong

In the major advances of science their have been descoveries that have proven that there is no real need for a god in the cause of the world. And furthermore the Bible directly contradicts science in areas such as "Noah's Flood", and as I stated earlier if the Bible is proven wrong then the god it describes is also more then likely to be false too.

Noah's Flood has been proven to never have happened.

The father of modern geology Charles Lylle stated in his book "The Geological Evidences for the Antiquity of Man":

“Had the waters once risen, even for a day, so high as to reach the level of the base of one of these cones-had there been a single flood fifty or sixty feet in height since the last eruption occurred- a great part of the volcanoes must have inevitably been swept away”


He noted that the extinct volcanoes of France were as a result of being extinct for a long time (longer then the flood), the volcanoes were made up of loose ashes. So if a global flood would have occurred. Then the volcanoes wouldn't have existed at the time the famed geologist was absurving them.

Another piece of evidence from a little bit more modern geologist who is a Professor of Geology at the University of Melbourne, Ian Plimer. He stated severial points in his book, "Telling Lies for God: Reason versus Creationism". I will state only one. It concerns the sequence of the development of sedimentary rock. The two kinds of sediments are high energy and low energy sediment. Based on simple laboratory tests and field observations of actual floods, it can be shown that high energy sediments, such as gravel, are deposited during the height of floods. Low energy sediments, such as siltstone, mudstone and claystone, are deposited during the waning of the floods. Thus if there is a worldwide flood we would expect that there would be a uniform worldwide sedimentary formation with the high energy sediments (ancient gravel, sands) at the bottom and the low energy sediments at the top. Yet this is not seen on anything close to a global scale. As Professor Plimer pointed out, if this is to be seen on a global scale, oilfield geologists would have an easy job since all sedimentary formation would invariably have sandstone at the bottom and siltstones, mudstones and claystones at the top.

(I will add more scientific evidence against the Bible and its god later on in the debate)


I will await my opponnet's response. Thank You for reading.


~~Sources~~

1. Holy Bible (KJV)

2.Howell-Smith, In Search of the Real Bible: p47

3.Plimer, Telling Lies for God: p75







ScottyDouglas

Con

I thank my opponent for his generation of this debate.

My opponent ask's who is the God of the Bible?

Can we really define the Biblical God? The is no way to anyone can make a statement which will totally define all that God is. If we could make such a statement then we have confined God and He would no longer be God. We must leave it at God is undefinable.

Lets just bear in mind that we are human and we have limitations. Though we can give God some characteristics from within the Bible. God is spirit, He is living wisdom and active power. He is eternal, unchangeable, in His being, is wisdom, holiness, justice, perfectness, and pure love.

My opponent proposed alot of claims against God here and lets look at them.

Contention1: Problem of Evil
My opponent:
P1: If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
P2:There is evil in the world we live in.
C: Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.

Myself: Freewill
P1: There are possible worlds that even an all-powerful and perfectly good God can not actualize.
P2: A world with morally free creatures producing only moral good is such a world.
C: Such a world that contains creatures who are completely free is more valuable than a world containing no free creatures at all. God has create free creatures because we live in such a world, but He can't determine with force or cause the creations to do what is right. If He does so then the creatures would not be free; nor did they choose to either do good or evil. Ultimately God can not prevent these creatures from having freewill therefore God must allow evil and exist. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Contention 2: Suspected Biblical Contadictions Myopponent:
P1: If the god of the Bible is to exist, then the Bible can't contain errors.
P2: The Bible contains errors.
C: Therefore, the god of the bible can't exist.

Myself:
P1: If the God of the Bible is to exist, then the Bible does not contain errors.
P2: The Bible does not contain errors.
P3: Therefore, the God of the Bible exist.

E1: Matthew 19:26 states:"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. " while Judges 1:19 says: "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

The explanation for this comes from Joshua 17:14-18:

The people of Joseph replied, "The hill country is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites who live in the plain have iron chariots, both those in Beth Shan and its settlements and those in the Valley of Jezreel."

But Joshua said to the house of Joseph - to Ephraim and Manasseh - "You are numerous and very powerful. You will have not only one allotment but the forested hill country as well. Clear it, and its farthest limits will be yours; though the Canaanites have iron chariots and though they are strong, you can drive them out."

It appears the plain country was not part of the original inheritance given to Israel, thus it may not have been God's intention to give it to the tribe of Joseph.

E2: 2 Samuel 6:23 says:"Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" While later on in this very same book at 2 Samuel 21:8 it says: "But the king took…the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

Before being returned to David (2 Samuel 3:14), Michal gave birth to five sons to Adriel, the son of Brazillai (2 Samuel 21:8). However, on account of her conduct, it appears that the Lord shut up her womb, and she bore no children to David. The writer's comment in 2 Samuel 6:23 would seem specific to her barren nature before David, as the same writer shortly thereafter mentions the five sons bore to Adriel.

E3: James 1:13 says: "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." while Genesis 22:1 says: "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…"

The Greek word "peirazo" and its Hebrew equivalent, "nasah" carry the meaning of "to try, prove",1 as well as to "tempt". The R.S.V. translators preserve the distinction between "test" and "tempt", thereby removing the confusion: "After these things God tested Abraham . . ."

Contention 3: Science proves Bible wrong!

Noah's Flood has not been proven to never have happened.

The earth's layered rocks yield many evidences that natural processes once acted with much greater intensity than at the present time. Fossils generally testify of rapid, catastrophic burial. Several types of stratification require a catastrophic mechanism of sedimentation. Simplicity would suggest that the various evidences of Catastrophism be explained by a single flood catastrophe. Thus, the Stratigraphic record with its contained fossils instead of showing the evolutionary development of life and the gradual deposition of sediments over millions of years, actually bears testimony of the Flood.

We have many of ways to explain the layers of fossils which exist on this planet. Alot of the conclusions are reached and supported by non-creationist. What I want to make clear is that fossils must have been laid diwn quickly and not over millions of years.

The rapid event such as Mount Helen can be used to show how rapidly large and depp layers can be laid in canyons cut by water. What this suggest is that much of the sedimentary rock layers found are vast and covering thousands of miles, and indeed was laid during a flood. Thus, the assumption, which is nothing but a straw-man about creationism is incorrect.

Conclusion:
("I will add more scientific evidence against the Bible and its god later on in the debate")

These should suffice period! This is your challenge and you should have came all the way from the start. With five rounds and 8,000 charactors i doubt it will explain every conseviable contradiction of God. What does my opponent think we have all the space in the world to cover everything? My opponent had plenty of room to state his full case I think it would be bad conduct to pile on more later when it could have been brought to light before hand. Though if it contains to the arguement at hand it is valid.

I will await my opponent's response. Thank You.
http://www.wrestedscriptures.com... http://www.lookinguntojesus.net... http://www.rationalchristianity.net... http://www.bible.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.


Defense


D1: Problem of Evil

There are two problems with my opponnet's rebuttel.

1) If god is all-powerful and he can't do something, then he is not all-powerful. And by definition the Biblical god is impossible.

2) He puts a lot of importance on free will. Now, I will use sleep as an example of why free will can't refute my first conention. The average person sleeps for five hours each day (doctors agree that 7 and 8 hours is the healthier way to go but 5 is the average.). Now I know what your probably thinking right now:" What does sleep have to do with Gods existence". Well...it doesn't however, it does contradict this whole notion that "God treasures free will so much even though costs trillions of people their lives". Now the point is that the average human will sleep 90,000 hours in his/hers life time. Now, if the biblical god really existed and actually treasured our free will the he would have designed us without the need for sleep because that's 90,000 hours that people can't exercise their free will.

D2: Contradictions within the Bible

E1: My opponent states that the reason that Israel couldn't get the land was because it may (key word) not have been part of the land that God told them they could have. However, the Jezreel Valley was part of The Land of Canaan (Numbers 34:1-12) [1]. So, if this god really could do anything, and didn't then this means he didn't pay up the whole of the land that he promised and is a lier. So it's either he couldn't do anything or he's not all-good.

E2: The verse before 2 Sam. 6:23 do not say anything about her not having babies with David. It merely has what I stated in context. The woman had no children, while later on it says that she had children. It contradicts itself.

E3: I will concede this part.

Additional errors in the Bible

E4: In Leviticus 11:6 it says: "The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof...", Now this is kind of crazy because, Rabbits don't chew their cud [2].

E5: In Genesis 3:14 it reads: " So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust...", this is also crazty because snakes don't eat dirt [3].

E6: Also there is conflict between both of the testaments on the case of the death penalty. Now I do realize that most Christians (and most likely my opponent) will state that they are two seperate laws. However, the problem with this is if God were two set moral rights and wrongs, then how would something that is totally moral become immoral? It can't. So with this being said I will state my last error. The Bible states in Exodus 21:12: " Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." While in Mathew as well as romans it states: " Do not repay any one evil for evil." (Romans 12:17, Matthew 5:39). <--- This is a clear contradiction within the only real text that speaks of th biblical god.


D3: Science proves Bible wrong!

I would like to point out that not one of my opponent's sources is actually scientific and they are all biased. Also, I don't even see a source for the reuttel of my third contention. Something with no proof can't be taken seriously.

My opponent states that the fossil record shows signs of rapid burial. However, this little speck of evidence can't even come close to touching on this. The problem with the "Flood Geology" that my opponent is trying to put forth is that this doesn't really prove that it was caused by a flood. If a flood did happen, then the animals would have been buried in assorted strata and mixed everywhere. However, they are in the right order for evolution [4].

There are additional proofs against the flood. I will point them out through questions my opponent must answer.

Q1: Why do small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata?

Q2: Why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

Q3: Why are different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants? [5]


Additional Contention: Argument from Imperfection.

P1: If a perfect god is to exist, then his creation must also be perfect.
P2: His 'creation' is not perfect.
C: Therefore, a perfect god can't exist.

If the biblical god is to be a all-loving god then he can't make us imperfect. If he does then he is not being all-loving. Also, if a perfect god were perfect everything it does would have to be perfect (including designing us and other things such as the universe). However, there are imperfection in humans, animals, and even the universe itself. We are prone to exhaustion, we are prone to diseases that our imperfect immune system can't fight off, and there are problems with our own solar system [6].


In response to my opponents claims of bad conduct:

The problem with my opponent calling me in for bad conduct for stating an extra contention is rather stupid (I did not call him stupid but rather his actions). We only had had one rule pertaining to extra arguments and that is, " no arguments in the last round". I haven't broken that rule or any of the other rules or disrespected my opponent or the voters. I have not done anything that shows bad conduct.

I will only state my conclusion in the last round.

I will wait for my opponents response.

Thank You.

[1]http://www.israel-a-history-of.com...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4]http://www.agiweb.org...

[5]http://www.talkorigins.org...

[6]http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
ScottyDouglas

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

Clarafication: My opponent is attempting to pile on arguements before we have properly delt with the ones at hand.

Defense
D1: Problem of Evil

My opponent seemed to have a problem with my last round so let's clear this up.

[/]1) If god is all-powerful and he can't do something, then he is not all-powerful. And by definition the Biblical god is impossible.[/]
My opponent is right and God can do anything but he is trying to confuse 'can do' with 'will do'. God simply does not have to do something if he so chooses not to.

[/]2) He puts a lot of importance on free will. "God treasures free will so much even though costs trillions of people their lives". Now, if the biblical god really existed and actually treasured our free will the he would have designed us without the need for sleep because that's 90,000 hours that people can't exercise their free will.[/]
My opponent is confused here. My opponents is asserting that God has to make creatures perfect or he should have made with them with the capabilities of not sleeping. Why?

God intentially created us from the dust of the ground and that is physical. Physical bodies grow old and tire therefore they must rest. This is common sense really. My opponent is reaching into 'what if's' instead of sticking to the topic at hand. Since we see that all creatures on the planet must rest then it is safe to say that it was designed for us to sleep. He ignores the real question and gives us a bad explanation.

D2: Contradictions within the Bible

E1:[/]However, the Jezreel Valley was part of The Land of Canaan (Numbers 34:1-12)[/]
Readers should really look up those passges my opponent posted and see if the Jezreel valley was mentioned, heck, there was not any valley mentioned. This still stands that God only gave the inheretance that was promised to Israel.

God at that time was forsaking them, because they were afraid of chariots. They had chariots of iron; but this was no reason why they could not drive them out, if God was with them, who could as easily have delivered these into their hands, as the inhabitants of the mountains; but is the reason why they were afraid to fight with them, and to attempt to drive them out, and which they themselves gave why they did not.

Go back to Joshuah 17:18, where Joshuah says they will get the hill country- which in Judges 1:19 they do get- even though the Canaanites have chariots of iron.

Now go forward to Judges 4:13 where Sisera has gathered 900 iron chariots and is defeated). The hill country was all that YHWH meant to be taken that day in Judges 1:19 and that it a vagary in the translation that makes it appear YHWH was unable to do anything. He says repeatedly in the OT that the lands will be taken gradually, not all of a piece. the explanations often come in the prophets or sometimes in additional scripture that was also read and studied (such as Jasher, to which bot OT and NT scriptures refer).

E2: Lets read the passges and see what they really say here:
KJV-R (Webster) 2 Samuel 21:8 and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
We see nothing of her bearing any children but raising them as a serogate mother. It literally says, that she brought up 5 sons for Adriel. Brought means to raise and this verse hardly says she bore them herself.

E3: Conceded
Additional errors in the Bible

E4: Hares chew cud. Answer: rabbit is an animal that does ‘maketh' the previously digested material to ‘come up' out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does—thereafter does chew ‘predigested material'! http://creation.com......

E5: Snakes do consume dirt. In my view, it is enough to point out that snakes do take particles into their mouths on their tongues to "taste" the air. That's their sense of smell, and if this isn't "eating dirt" literally, it certainly is figuratively!

E6: My opponent should be taught in Biblical matters. Jesus Christ is the OT God and he came and sacrificed Himself for men. When he done this the Old Law for repenting and cleasing sin was abolished because Jesus fulfilled it. Meaning that no one has to be killed for thier sins anymore, Jesus is forgiveness enough and because of that all men can have forgiveness. Therefore no one can convict or judge another only Jesus can.

D3: Science proves Bible wrong!

My opponent states that the fossil record does not show signs of rapid burial. Well I ask my oppponent how can we have a fossil record to begin with? See something had to cause these fossils to be buried suddenly and that was the flood. My opponent has not provided us with any reason for the fossil record.

[/]Q1: Why do small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata?[/]
Ever think fluid mechanics mite not calculate that correctly? But anyway There could be many reasons why it would and I'll explain: Slow sinking means certain ‘non-fossilization' i.e. bloating and floating and decomposition. Fossilization requires rapid burial, special pH conditions and rapid lithification. All perfectly compatible with a global flood.

[/]Q2: Why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?[/]
I ask why should there be? If they were not fossilized would there be? If they sunk into the ocean would there be? Overpopulation? Where did the questioner read that? According to some scientists, even today we are not truly overpopulating the planet. As for humans being preserved in the upper layers only, humans would have seen the rising waters, known what was happening, and been able to take temporary refuge on high ground. Some would have been able to take to buoyant objects, perhaps hastily constructed rafts (or even boats built pre-Flood). But most would have drowned in the later stages of the Flood, and not buried by sediment. So consequently they did not fossilize. Consider this question, too: Why do we not find human and coelacanth fossils together? If that is taken to mean that they never lived on the earth at the same time, then that deduction is clearly in error, since humans and coelacanths are known to both live on the earth today.

[/]Q3: Why are different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants?[/]
Incorrect. Pollen was found in the Roraima formation (see above) without any other plant remains. Palynology as a branch of paleobotanics only studies pollen in rocks and very often without any other plant remains available.

Additional Contention: Argument from Imperfection.

My opponent is right God has made perfect creations, though the creations become imperfect from freewill which we have discussed is required. My opponent needs to show why God must make us perfect and why it is a requirement for his existance? Even though God is God and can do whatever He desires.

I will wait for my opponents response.
Thank You.

Resources:
KJV
http://creation.com... http://life.bio.sunysb.edu... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I thank my opponent.

Clarification: My opponent challenged me and FF last round.

Defense
D1: Problem of Evil

My opponent seemed to have a problem with my last round by FF. I would like to go over and examine my remarks from the last round.

I said last round, "My opponent is right and God can do anything but he is trying to confuse 'can do' with 'will do'. God simply does not have to do something if he so chooses not to."

We study know that God is God and if there is a God he would know beat and regardless how we feel about it, HE is God. There is nothing you can do about it. Though by real study all moral action is used inside the Bible by God. Men that are described in the Bible do many horrible acts. We have acts in Egypt and their plagues that God sent upon them. Well they held the Hebrews captive for hundreds of years (possibly built their pyramids). Though we do not see that. They were given warning after warning from Moses about Gods wrath if they did not let them go. They didn't. God sent plague after plague on Egypt until they allowed the Hebrews to go free. Note* Egypt was warned and did not believe as my opponent did not believe and Egypt was cursed. Further there was many in Egypt who knew the Hebrews and knew their God was real and believed that. Though because they nation of Egypt did not believe the whole nation was cursed. We are responsible for our nation and health of it. Non-believers today not only curse themselves but those who believe also.

Egypt let the Hebrews go many times but took it back and was cursed further. Why? Because Egypt was hard-hearted. We have the Canaanites. They were filled with children of the 'Sons of God' by women. There were killers, theifs, and kidnappers. They were international slave traders. Cannibals. They had to be killed or they would cause much death upon the Hebrews. The reasons they deserved to die was because of the death as people they had brought upon the world in their time. People refuse to see these tings and are quick to judge God. They judge God because they will not do as God says. They blame God for that. HA.

D2: Contradictions within the Bible

There is not any contradictions inside the Bible and that is the sad truth for my opponent. There are many things that are unexplainable for people today because we are mentally confined inside the physical world. Those who know God, I mean Know God, can obtain the knowledge that is sought. To these people it is not faith or belief anymore, it is knowing God exist. The reason they know this is because God works through their lives on a consistent basis to recognize they are in contact with God. You ask how do you know it is God of the Bible? I know it is the God of the Bible because that is were I experience Him the most, when I study the Bible. And that is the God I want in my life.

D3: Science proves Bible wrong!

True science has never. Shame on you.

I will wait for my opponents response. Must ask points for FF.
Thank You.
Debate Round No. 4
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Deathbeforedishonour forfeited this round.
ScottyDouglas

Con

I thank all readers and my opponent.

Negated: The Christian God most likely exist!

My arguments and rebuttals are left unanswered.

Thanks!VOTE PRO!
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
I did not say that the person caused the suffering(they could have) because they are not doing God's will(maybe they don't), I said that me or you not to include billions not following God's will causes suffering for all good or bad people. That's the truth. We reject God and go against his Law and Moral fortitude and in case punishes the masses. This is more casual then our debate. Though my assertions are already the knowing that God exist and gives moral ethics.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
I will post my response tommorrow sometime. I've spent most of the day at the gym getting ready for a fight in two weeks.
Posted by Philosobot 5 years ago
Philosobot
@Scotty

Scotty commits the Bare Assertion Fallacy when he says suffering exists because of the absence of God in our lives. (Also, I'll be sure to tell cancer patients that their suffering isn't being caused by tumors, but rather is being caused by the fact that they need God in their life! /sarcasm off.) I also never said evil didn't exist (I'm a moral realist.) You haven't <i>shown</i> that evil or suffering cannot exist given atheism, you've merely <i>asserted</i> it.

In fact, aren't you supposed to be writing a response to our debate? No offense, but if it's anything like the discussion we're having in the comments, I'm going to be a little disappointed.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
@Bot, no sir, suffering exist because the absence of God in our lives. This returns causes others to suffer in your stead because it is inflicted upon all not just the person who committs the acts for suffering.(Basically one person can cause the whole nation to suffer). This is why people were stoned and oput to death in the OT because that person would cause suffering for all.
Then your arguement already fails because all know that unlimited sex is immoral and wrong(mite not seem that way but the majority would agree) but it doesnt cause suffering directly. Or that unknown theft. All knows it is wrong to steal but stealing from a person who has alot would not know or suffer the loss but it is steal immoral without suffering. and we could go on. Theory invalid.
In the end atheist can not use evil because they undefine suffering and do not believe in evil themselves. This is using the belief of theists for a arguement against theist. I is incorrect to use evil as a arguement then also say evil doesnt exist yourself.
Posted by Philosobot 5 years ago
Philosobot
@Scotty

Suffering is ontologically rooted in the functions of biological structures, and exists independently of whether or not God exists, which is why an atheist who isn't a moral realist can make an argument against God based around the concept of suffering.

Anyways, God doesn't seem to be necessary for objective morality, either, so the atheist can still use the problem of evil, if they want.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Suffering comes from evil. People choose to suffer. People who choose not God cause suffering on others. Besides there is plenty of evil without physical suffering so that doesnt apply. Interest is self alliance and is not good unless it is of God's will.
Posted by Philosobot 5 years ago
Philosobot
@AnalyticArizonan

We have Prema facie warrant for belief in its existence. If the theist wants to say evil cannot exist given atheism, then the burden of proof is on them to show it's impossible.

Besides, even of the atheists that don't believe in OM, they can still use the EPoE by changing it to the problem of suffering. (Just insert suffering wherever evil is discussed, and appeal to God's sense of kindness and interest instead of goodness, and you essentially have an argument from evil that doesn't reference evil.)
Posted by AnalyticArizonan 5 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
@Death "Have you ever seen God?" No, what does that have to do with His modality?

@Philosobot If the atheist says that God does not exist because of evil, then the burden of proof of proving evil exists objectively is in the atheist's court.
Posted by Philosobot 5 years ago
Philosobot
@AnalyticArizonian

You know, lots of theists claim that God is necessary for good and evil to objectively exist. But usually that boils down to a Bare Assertion Fallacy. I've never actually seen a theist demonstrate that good and evil cannot exist in an atheistic world. It simply doesn't follow from the premise "If naturalism is true, and the things in the universe can be ontologically reduced to collections of particles and atoms" that "there can be no objective good/bad."
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
"one cannot even find anything logically impossible in the concept of God"

Really? Have you ever seen God? I haven't, neither have I seen anything logically and scientifically pointing to a god. So, Yes I probably could prove 66 books with contradictions and scientific errors wrong.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
DeathbeforedishonourScottyDouglasTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Fore!
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
DeathbeforedishonourScottyDouglasTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
DeathbeforedishonourScottyDouglasTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
DeathbeforedishonourScottyDouglasTied
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: The conduct and arguments point go to Con for Pro's forfeiture of the debate. It was a good debate until then.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
DeathbeforedishonourScottyDouglasTied
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: 4 rounds of debate, 1 acceptance. Pro FF's 2, concedes arguments in another. Con wins.