The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should/can God be provoked out of inactive deism?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,800 times Debate No: 29391
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




There is no guarantee that he'll respond to provocation in general. Do not test the Lord your God, Jesus says to Satan in the forty days of wandering. However, in Malachi, God insists on it.

Malachi 3:10
Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the Lord Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.

Great, great evil has also been known to lure God out of shyness and deal with it temporarily in the Old Testament as well as New. Since, the real showdown has yet to even be initiated.

Jesus is the personal God. The Father seems more apathetic, effortless and bored. Jesus is submissive to the Father even under that moment at the crucifixion where he was abandoned; that was the whole point of the dwelling of three decades. That's a tangent. Jesus wants to intervene, but like the pattern goes, great evil needs to threaten humanity in a way that humans couldn't handle it themselves.

America changed WWII's course, didn't it? But it had to be provoked. "Neutrality" has its limits. When one's own interests are threatened, then that is the sign of vulnerabliity where provocation is most tactical. Determining Jesus' interests is the key. As for God not handling the Holocaust, too bad the CIA had not been instituted yet, right? America could have, should have preemptively, based on today's standards, intervened as a superpower pummeling a threatening wannabe superpower, which would have predictably run contrary to America's peaceful ambitions.


Since the challenger didn't state any definitions, here are some:

-God: Great-outdoors' Dessert (mud pie)

-Inactive Deism: a deity not acting as to display his power/existence

So, when you can tell me why on earth you devote your life to a dessert and then try and defend your claim with the Bible, I say that GOD cannot/should not come out of inactive deism because that means that it is a deity to begin with.
Debate Round No. 1


So I obviously run the risk of being smitten just for the audacity of successfully luring God out of hiding.

That is not a complete certainty; high, but not a hundred percent. Improbable as it may be, God might respond peacefully to a novel approach: comedic mischief on an ecumenical scale. A schizophrenic comedian who is lucid enough to manipulate Chaos Theory in such a way that it confuses even the experts long enough to intimidate the Pope has to be interesting enough to a deity to intervene. It's almost Joker vs. Batman, considering the human gremlin successfully demonizing the church would give a vindicated church something fitting to accomplish. Combining the Joker with Satan, this would also fuse comedic evil with scary evil, or so the church would perceive it to be, since the church would be taking it personally. Twisting the Christian reality by controlling which aspects of the tenets are ringing true, switching them off/on like a gremlin would mess with electronics; that's my Chaos Theory, or a part of it.

Chaos Theory: Does God Play Dice with the Universe? Knowing that God is omnisciently aware of the dice-tossing outcome anyways, emulating that can only either gain his approval as a human made in one of his endless images, or disdain for satanically attempting to steal the ultimate power and use it for personal gain.


Is your chaos theory about the Christian God or the established God mentioned in the first round. If it fails to be the latter, you have gone off topic. Stick to the topic, as you were the instigator.
Debate Round No. 2


Whichever God ends up being provoked. Why can't it be both, if that's how I perceive it to be?

That was my explanation of how one would be original in provoking God out of inactive deism. One scenario where the God that ultimately needs only one label: Chaos Theory. I'm not being disingenuous; just confusing. As that exemplifies the tactics needed to outsmart those who would stand in the way of provoking said God.

I would appreciate feedback despite whether you disagree it's on topic or not. The voters would appreciate all angles attacked and explored as much as feasible.


First of all, I understand how the voters/viewers feel, I'm usually one of them. Second, I am only making inquiries about the point you are trying to make by understanding which God you are talking about so my arguments aren't pointless. Third, I suggest you repost this debate after if you want to get feedback without the troll stamped on it(you never specified what the feedback looked like). Ultimately I agree that the best way to figure out if a God exists is the Chaos Theorem, a way to provoke any certain God into action.

The Chaos Theorem: Develop space travel and at the same time create a virus injected into a dead corpse to start the zombie plague. When only a few humans from each religion are left we flee to Mars. A year later, we return, assigning a God to each continent. Whoever survives (aka their God exterminated the plague) has rule over the planet. Meanwhile, atheists build an observatory on Mars and watch laughing as everyone else is eaten by zombies. Obviously if people are followers of their God then they should have enough faith to stand on their God's continent as they are devoured.
Debate Round No. 3


As definitive as your Chaos Theorem would be, I get the feeling you're only providing it because it is satirically countering my scenario. If we're going to dispute as to which is more realistic, that might be a tangent. I don't know.

I would like to know the flaws within my scenario because I don't really have a problem with yours. Well, other than the bias that a God was never going to help out its fanbase from being consumed by zombies, implied by the atheists' laughter.

If we're going after a specific God, go ahead and attack the Judeo-Christian one.


I said what I said based on my being an atheist, and honestly don't believe your system would work because there will be no God to act. If you want you can believe in a God, but I don't based on lack of evidence. If all the other debates on this site about God v. Big Bang don't send a message (nor I mention the work of many of today's geniuses) I don't know what will.
Debate Round No. 4


What now? Prove God on the internet? Provoking God was/is going to be my proof. Miracles are for prophets. I do...spectacles. I say them as well.

I will say this: God does not exis...whoa! I almost lost it there. Had you going there...

I will settle for a slight reality check, no more than my disgruntled faith can handle.

Any Christian who's a Christian knows that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a big no-no. Is that Jesus' idea of a joke, because I can't think of a punchline about the Holy Spirit. They say blasphemy is a victimless crime; that's because it's not a crime. It's sin and the victim is the blasphemer, self-inflicted foolishness of the lowest blow as it is deliberate and because it is deliberate, knowing what the unforgiveable penalty is, and does it anyway, is umimpressive audacity. I am saying this in beating around the bush of talking about holy ghostbusting and still managing to lack a provoked reaction from God. So that's a happy failure.

1) God the Father has its questionability in realistic practicality
2) Holy Ghost is untouchable despite my best indirect efforts
3) Jesus...wait.

Provoking Jesus' anger as the temple vendors did might be my best bet. Treating the Church like a Supermarket; would that be new? Does Jesus get apathetic immunity to getting sick of one human blasphemy at a time? Jesus seems to be stuck in heaven, counting converts and building their mansions for when the rapture happens. Maybe that is the venue of attack I should be considering. Nah. How? Maybe I should combine all three tactics, separate but equal, into focusing on one persona of the trinity. Use Chaos Theory as blasphemy...wait. I already tried that? Plus the anger by defiling the Church, which has to be already; maybe do what Jesus can't: fix what he sees as perfect anyway. Perform plastic surgery on a superficial Church that really is quite ugly; fake doctor analogy requires appropriate comedic metaphor.


You only used the Chaos Theory on the internet, remember? So try your theory, plunge the world into darkness and hope your God (who may or may not exist) has a son that wants to leave heaven, return to earth, and die... again. Good luck, but I will watch from Mars, eating popcorn, laughing my head off.

Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost this one early by trying to suggest a nonsensical definition for "God". Beyond that point, I couldn't care less what happened; it was intellectually dishonest, and he loses the conduct vote for that.