The Instigator
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Marianjose
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Christian God Does not Exist (3)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,230 times Debate No: 18071
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

Resolution: The Christian God does not exist because he is a logical impossibility.

Definitions: The Christian God, as described in the Bible and possessing the qualities of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

Omniscience: Having total knowledge, knowing everything.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful

http://www.thefreedictionary.com......

Omnibenevolence: Literally all good. Unlimited or infinite benevolence.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com......

As Pro it is my role to affirm that the Christian God as described above does not exist and can not exist because he is a logical impossibility. It is the role of Con to affirm that the God described above is a logical possibility.

In taking this debate my opponent recognises that the truth or falsity of God's existence is a matter that can be decided using logic, he recognises the Bible as a valid source for the nature of God irrespective of whether or not the stories are intended to be literal or allegorical and he accepts the definitions above. Any deviation from these rules will be regarded as an automatic forfeit.

This is my third attempt at this debate, the first time my opponent automatically forfeited by rejecting the notion of an omnibenevolent God, the second time my opponent pretty much ignored the resolution and then forfeited. Please read the resolution carefully before accepting.

Argument 1: The Problem of Evil (Suffering)

Though much maligned by the activities of a recent troll, the problem of evil is still worthy of consideration. Evil however is very much a vague concept, suffering though also subjective is universally understood and experienced, and seems to cut right to the centre of what the Problem of Evil questions.

P1: If the Christian God exists he is aware of all suffering (omniscient), Capable of ending all suffering (omnipotent) and would desire to end all suffering (omnibenevolent).

P2: Suffering exists.

P3: Therefore the Christian God does not exist.

As I see my opponent has only two ways to refute the Problem of Suffering.

Refutation One: God Lacks one or more of the Omni-Characteristics

My opponent may argue that God lacks one of the Omni-Characteristics, perhaps he is Omniscient, Omnipotent but not omnibenevolent? However as the argument is predicated on the existence of a being with all three attributes such an argument causes them to concede their position.

Refutation Two

My opponent may argue that suffering is necessary to allow happiness. However this argument seeks to impose limitations on the power of God. An omnipotent being is able to create happiness without any restrictions and indeed would want to.

My opponent may seek to counter that his definition of Omnipotence is Logical Omnipotence, not Maximal Omnipotence, and that logically suffering and happiness must exist alongside each other. To justify such an argument he will have to demonstrate that creation is possessed of the greatest possible amount of Happiness and the least possible amount of suffering that is logically possible to create. He will also have to justify how God could keep suffering absent from the Garden of Eden and how he will keep suffering absent from heaven, but can not or will not do that on earth.

Argument 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist.

P1: An omnibenevolent being will always perform the most benevolent act, is unable not to do so.

P2: An omnibenevolent being therefore lacks free will.

P3: A being without free will can not be described as omnipotent.

P4: A being can not posses the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence.

P5: Therefore God does not exist.

Argument 3: The Great Flood

Genesis 6:5 to 6:7 states,

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

http://www.biblegateway.com......

How does an omniscient being regret his actions? God would have had full knowledge of the consequences of his actions.

How does an omnibenevolent God deem genocide to be justified? My opponent must show how flooding the earth and killing countless men, women and children was the most benevolent solution to a world of sin that God had intentionally created.

Argument 4: The Tower of Babel

In Genesis 11:4 to 11:7 it is recorded that,

"4And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

http://www.biblegateway.com......

Reading the text God is not omniscient on two counts, not omnipotent on one count, and not omnibenevolent on one count.

1: God is not omniscient, he learns of the tower being built and reacts to this. If he was omniscient he would have had prior knowledge of the intention to build the tower of Babel.

2: God is not omniscient, the building of the tower attracts his attention and he 'came down' to see it. If he was omniscient he would have known every detail of the event throughout all of time.

3: God is not omnipotent, he fears the ambition of mankind, he regards it as a threat that he has to nullify.

4: God is not omnibenevolent. He does not want what is best for mankind, he wants us to be divided and unable to co-operate.
Marianjose

Con

Although you may have used text from the bible to support your statement that" it is not logicaly possible for God to exist" , i would like to tell you that God need not be logical, people tend say that God does not exist because we do not have the intellect to understand his ways and thoughts. Just because God does not give everthing we ask for that doesn't mean God does exist. We christians belive in someone whom we have not seen, yet we belive i him, praise him, and thank him for everything he has given us because we have FAITH and it is written in the bible blessed are those who belive in me without seeing me. Just because we are HARDHEARTED , UNFORGIVING AND REFUSE to accept our SINS , the easiest way to escape all these titles it is easy to say GOD does not exist , just because we cannot comprehened his works, WE CAN'T SAY THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. As a matter of fact just before signing to the website i made a prayer request, and after writing this i even confidence that GOD(JESUS CHRIST) will answer my prayer.
Debate Round No. 1
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

Regretfully my opponent has not read my opening challenge,

To repeat,
"In taking this debate my opponent recognises that the truth or falsity of God's existence is a matter that can be decided using logic...Any deviation from these rules will be regarded as an automatic forfeit."

He has also ignored every single argument I have posted.

Arguments extended.
Marianjose

Con

Marianjose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

Arguments extended, vote PRO.

Thank you.
Marianjose

Con

Marianjose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by thethickgreyline 5 years ago
thethickgreyline
I suggest you debate someone who has the ability to rebut your arguements rather than someone who clearly has not studied theology or apologetics. You should include that in your next challenge.
Posted by unitedandy 5 years ago
unitedandy
C_N, if you want a challenge on this topic, popculturepooka, contradiction or Inquiretruth would be 3 that I would suggest.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Marianjose quite amazingly ignored Cerebral's rules for the debate. His impassioned argument for the existence of god, while impressive in faith, falls short under contemplation.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Cerebral_NarcissistMarianjoseTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Cerebral_NarcissistMarianjoseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Cerebral_NarcissistMarianjoseTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Sketchy 5 years ago
Sketchy
Cerebral_NarcissistMarianjoseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited two rounds, simply stated his argument as fact without evidence, sources, etc. Con blatantly ignored Pro's rules, which he agreed to in accepting the challenge would result in a forfeit. Pretty obvious Pro should win in all categories.