The Abrahamic God exists
Debate Rounds (5)
First round is for stating your position and any terms you want to define.
My position is that there is no proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god (hereafter referred to as God with a capital G), and in some respects God is also logically impossible.
Definition of God: He is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he created the universe, and he judges, punishes and rewards people.
All claims must be backed up by logic (please state your premises and conclusion) and/or evidence (please use sources to provide evidence).
It is a generally accepted fact that the universe as we know it was created. The specifics of its creation have been heavily scrutinized but Newton provides insight on the a few of the functions that had to have happened
1. The law states that matter (and energy) can not be created or destroyed. Yet we as a people see the problem that birds are flying, children are swimming, and Joe Biden is attempting to work the muscles in his mouth to formulate words. All three display the traits of having mass and energy while the laws of physics dictate that neither the substance of the bird nor the expenditure of the wings flapping should be occurring. So, since physics can't provide a complete answer what helps complete the puzzle? What the universe would need is a force capable of creating every particle in the universe and enough energy so those particles can transfer all the energy of the universe among themselves.
If this higher power (hereafter referred to as God) is capable of creating matter it stands to reason he is capable of omnipotence. An all powerful God would be all powerful quickly after he created all the power. Also, instead of separating God from the matter he created a plausible theory under the circumstances is that God is APART of the matter he created. He lives in every tree, fish and man by every tree, fish and man being made from God's original construct. He is able to do anything by being a creator and apart of the forces that do everything.
Omnibenevolent: Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". with benevolence meaning "good will or disposition to do good"
Omnibenevolent merely speaks to disposition to do good, not that all results from the actions end in perfection. God had the disposition to create matter, give that matter energy and bring that matter and energy to life (another miracle hard to settle without God in the diagram). From all evidence, if one could guess at his motives, he meant well.
To address your first point, that being your point about the creation of the universe.
"It is a generally accepted fact that the universe as we know it was created."
I do not know of a single credible scientist that claims this. As far as modern science has discovered, we have no way of knowing what lies beyond the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, so we are not really at liberty to make claims about what or who made the universe, if it was 'made' at all.
At one point, you say "The law states that matter (and energy) can not be created or destroyed". Later, you also say "What the universe would need is a force capable of creating every particle in the universe and enough energy so those particles can transfer all the energy of the universe among themselves". Isn't that self-contradictory? And how do we know that only the God of Abraham could have created this? Who is to say it isn't a Spaghetti Monster?
"If this higher power (hereafter referred to as God) is capable of creating matter it stands to reason he is capable of omnipotence." Like I said before, this contradicts your own point about the law of matter/energy conservation. But for the sake of argument, let's imagine that the law wasn't really completely insurpassable, and a being of sufficient power could overturn it. In this case, would it not be true that the being capable of breaking the laws of physics need not be omnipotent, but merely highly potent (powerful)?
Finally, addressing your point about omnibenevolence, I'm rather confused by this point: "From all evidence, if one could guess at his motives, he meant well." I'm not sure how it makes sense that God creating the universe necessarily makes him omnibenevolent. Even if his action was considered merely benevolent (and even then, I don't see why), that is nonetheless a far cry from true omnibenevolence!
Now, to my points:
1. The argument of evil.
P1: There exists evil in the world.
P2: If God were omnipotent, he would be able to stop all evil.
P3: If God were omnibenevolent, he would want to stop all evil.
C1: There is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.
P4: The Abrahamic God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
C2: The Abrahamic God does not exist.
2. The argument from poor cosmoengineering.
P1: Suffering exists.
P2: If God exists, he created the universe. (According to our definition of Abrahamic God)
P3: God is all-knowing.
P4: Following from P3, God must have known what would happen before he created the universe.
P5: An omnibenevolent God would never willingly create a universe that he knew would contain suffering.
C1: An omnibenevolent, all-knowing God could not have created the universe.
C2: The Abrahamic God does not exist.
1. Accept P1
P2, P3. A woman gets drunk and hits her husband. By our definition an evil act. The only way for God to remain perhaps Omnipotent and definitely omnibenevolent is to stop the act. A welcoming notion for the husband and now the wife has entered into the product of omnibenevolent behavior. The next evil comes and the next evil is stopped according to Gods' wishes. Now not only is God omnibenevolent but people have to be too. The problem is people don't want to be omnibenevolent (or at the very least want the choice to not be omnibenevolent). If God attempted to curb human behavior to such a degree there would be war against God. The only two results would be the somehow destruction of God or an eternal feeling of helplessness against a divine unbeatable spectre. So, any omnibenevolent God would have to allow evil to occur.
2. Poor Cosmoengineering
The problem with no suffering is that there is only pleasure. Man would no longer strive to accomplish goals. There are no more Michael Jordans, Caesars or Alexander the Greats. No one tries for happiness since God has orchestrated a hyper-heroin suffer proof bubble. A God who has the power to create a script for man would have the same power to not create a script for man. Suffering isn't purely negative it is a necessary evil for the gratification of success.
Your right the term created has too much of a direct intentional conotation. I mean that it is generally accepted that the universe as we have come to understand it actually exists, and all you or I see isn't some ongoing hallucination completely separating perception and reality. It's just a premise I set for the argument which would otherwise make the debate very short.
And I did not say that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed, Newton did. The paradox that no known force can create or destroy matter/energy in a universe made and run by matter and energy leads to SOMETHING BEYOND WHAT SCIENCE CURRENTLY ACCEPTS. And my apologies all caps doesn't mean aggression just importance something I find, well, important.
The problem with atheism is that it holds the same arrogance that it claims against those of faith. Athiests claim it KNOWS that there is no God. The arrogance of us Christians is that we claim that we KNOW there is a God. Logically "I think therefore I am" is the only factual statement man is capable of making. And that statement is only true to the person thinking it. (Myself as a person is thinking something, so clearly something is going on in the universe). When it comes down to brass tax nobody knows anything, we can only speculate and put intelligence and faith into the things we believe in.
I believe in the Abrahamic God. Not because it is the foremost leader in logical thought (that would be agnosticism) but because I choose to channel my belief into the personification of the creator that the Abrahamic God provides. I'm arguing for religion so I'm gonna try to clarify my position with a metaphor. Lets say..
We are buyers in a stock market. There are thousands of options on whom to buy. We are told Coke Sprite and Pepsi are solid stocks. Others bought them and they have payed off. We understand we could, if we wanted, not buy a stock. However, It's established that the stock market is there (religion is legitimized by the huge impossibilities of the universe's existence and the following life that was created in it). So as someone who acknowledges the stock market it is better to buy a stock and try a hand at life than sit on the sidelines and claim "I buy nothing because I don't know which stock will pay off." Personally, I want to buy a stock. I respect the inconsistencies in my own understandings in the universe and channel the Abrahamic God as my faction as the explanation.
Know my choice doesn't affect what stock you buy. I worship my creation through my Mother, Jesus and God. I don't know I'm right but its the stock I've picked/the path I've chosen. Logically, a flying noodles and tomato entree can provide similar fulfillment and return but its just not stock I can believe in.
2. "Suffering isn't purely negative it is a necessary evil for the gratification of success." What you are claiming is: 'pure happiness with no ambition' is worse than 'lots of suffering and more ambition'. I'm not sure if I can agree with this moral claim. If I were given the chance to replace every situation where I suffered towards a goal with a situation of pure, undeserved bliss, I would do so without a second thought.
3. We do not know, nor claim to know, what happened at the beginning of the universe. How the matter and energy got there is a question we have yet to answer. But the law of matter/energy conservation is a law we have observed as working consistently in the universe. What I'm trying to say is: why assume, of all things, that the creator of the universe is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and an intelligent, personal being?
4. "The problem with atheism is that it holds the same arrogance that it claims against those of faith. Athiests claim it KNOWS that there is no God." False. Atheism is very, very specifically the LACK of belief in a god. It makes no claims of certainty, by default. Gnostic and Agnostic Atheism are two different positions: the former being "I know there is no God" and the latter being "I do not believe in a God, but I am not prepared to say I'm certain." I am an Agnostic Atheist when it comes to the belief in ANY god, but Gnostic Atheist on the subject of the Abrahamic God because there are certain logical impossibilities in the Abrahamic God (this is what I'm arguing about).
5. Your analogy of stocks is interesting, but ultimately flawed due to your forgetting of one very important fact. It isn't just "I don't want to buy a stock because I'm afraid to lose money." It's more like, "I'm not willing to believe that this claim is true, because there is no proof for it." To refuse to believe in a claim because it lacks proof is a very reasonable position to have! This is why I refuse to believe in Spaghetti Monsters, unicorns, leprechauns, and the efficacy of naturopathic medicine. Why, then, believe in the God of Abraham?
Stades forfeited this round.
Stades forfeited this round.
Stades forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.