The Instigator
Tylerbrown13
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

The Christian God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,452 times Debate No: 27667
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (57)
Votes (7)

 

Tylerbrown13

Pro

I understand that the burden of proof is upon me to prove that a Christian God cannot logically exist.

That being said, the opponent must accept logical reasoning over faith. I understand that the belief in the Christian God could lie completely in faith, but for this debate, logical reasoning will be the valid course of action, not faithful reasoning.

Definitions:
  • Logical Reasoning - Reasoning that abides by logical laws, the following of evidence over hope in search for the truth, and the most objectively correct reasoning possible.
  • God - The God (LORD) we will be discussing will hold the characteristics exemplified in the Bible, but will also be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. He is also a personal immaterial being.

The first round is for acceptance only.

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting the debate.

DakotaKrafick

Con

I accept and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Tylerbrown13

Pro

I understand that these arguments might be generic in their nature, but they are some of the simply base arguments to denying the existence of a Christian God. If my opponent rebuttals these successfully, then that's when the uniqueness of this debate will start.


I. The Problem of Evil

1. The Christian God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (has an infinite disposition to do good).

2. Evil exists (Objectively so in the bible (Satin, for example), and subjectively so to the morale of an everyday person)

3. The Christian God is completely aware of all evil, and has the power to stop it.

4. The Christian God has to do good where-ever possible.

5. The Christian God must eliminate evil.

6. There is still objective evil according to the bible, and subjective evil to an everyday person.

7. The Christian God cannot exist as he is claimed.

II. Omniscience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive

1. The Christian God is omniscient and omnipotent.

2. As is such, the Christian God knows of everything that he is going to do.

3. As is such, the Christian God has the power to do something he doesn't know he's going to do.

4. If the Christian God knew he was going to do X, since he's omniscient, he's going to do X.

5. But, the Christian God has the power not to do X, even though he knows that he's going to do X.

6. So does the Christian God have to do X? Yes and No if the given is true.

7. Therefore, the given cannot be true, as it's contradictory.

8. Therefore, the Christian God cannot exist as he's claimed.



III. Omnipotence and Logic are mutually exclusive

1. The Christian God is omnipotent.

2. Logic Exists

3. The Christian God has the power to do something logically impossible.

4. To assert a being can do something logically impossible, is illogical.

5. As is such, the claim of the Christian God is illogical.

6. The Christian God cannot exist as he's claimed.



These are just some of the self contradictions of Christianity, but these are the one's I am most familiar with. If my opponent rebuttals these successfully, I will move on to more self-contradictions. Only a single one of these arguments needs to be valid for my assertion that "The Christian God does not exist" to be valid as a whole.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and look forward to his rebuttals to my arguments.

DakotaKrafick

Con

Thank you, Tyler, for your arguments. If it's all the same to you, I'd like to tackle them in reverse order.

1. Omnipotence and logic are mutually exclusive.


1. The Christian God is omnipotent.
2. Logic Exists
3. The Christian God has the power to do something logically impossible.
4. To assert a being can do something logically impossible, is illogical.
5. As is such, the claim of the Christian God is illogical.
6. The Christian God cannot exist as he's claimed.

I must say, I love the flow from premise 3 to 4. Your fourth premise "To assert a being can do something logically impossible is illogical" is surely spot-on, and I agree with it whole-heartedly. The only person here who's claiming such a thing, though, is you (in premise 3). Therefore, your argument is based on illogical premises.

One example of the kind of thing premise 3 is talking about (that I'm sure we're all familiar with) is "Can God create a round square?" Well, what is a "round square"? The term itself is contradictory. It's meaningless babble. You might as well ask "Can God create a hurmoflurben?" It makes no sense.

Another popular example is "Can God create a stone so heavy He can't lift it?" But the term "a stone so heavy [an omnipotent being] can't lift it" is just as nonsensical as a round square. These questions really aim to ask "Can God do something that God cannot do?" Well, no, obviously God can't do something He can't do.

So when I refer to God as being "omnipotent" I do not mean omnipotent in the sophomoric sense my opponent does, which is maximal or absolute omnipotence: "able to do anything at all, even the logically absurd". I refer to common omnipotence: "able to do anything that is meaningful to talk about", or in other words, anything which we can logically conceive.

2. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

I consider this argument as just an extension of the previous argument's flaws. Ultimately, it raises the question "Can God do something He knows He wasn't going to do?" Most obviously not, because that question doesn't even make coherent sense. It's self-contradictory and therefore as meaningless to talk about as a round square or a hurmoflurben.

3. The problem of evil.


1. The Christian God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnibenevolent (has an infinite disposition to do good).
2. Evil exists (Objectively so in the bible (Satin, for example), and subjectively so to the morale of an everyday person)
3. The Christian God is completely aware of all evil, and has the power to stop it.
4. The Christian God has to do good where-ever possible.
5. The Christian God must eliminate evil.
6. There is still objective evil according to the bible, and subjective evil to an everyday person.
7. The Christian God cannot exist as he is claimed.


What my opponent is trying to say (as highlighted by premise 5) is that he believes God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil (or what we perceive as evil) to exist. I'd like to ask you, Tyler, how could you possibly know this?

Perhaps there is a higher purpose for "evil" to exist that we don't know of but God does, like when a toddler kicks and screams and cries when it gets its shots. Why oh why doesn't someone stop the evil doctors causing this poor toddler to suffer? Because, even though the toddler doesn't realize it, the "evil" that is causing him pain is ultimately helping him.

To claim that the world's "evils" cannot possibly have a greater purpose is to claim omniscience yourself. Seeing as how the burden of proof is entirely on you in this debate, Tyler, you must prove to us how you could know God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing "evil" to exist.

Debate Round No. 2
Tylerbrown13

Pro

Thank you for your argument, I'll tackle them in the originally ordered form to keep consistent with my own post. I will still label the arguments.

I. The problem of evil

I like where you went with this, but you misinterpreted what I was saying.


" he believes God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil (or what we perceive as evil) to exist. I'd like to ask you, Tyler, how could you possibly know this?"


I did not mean God does not have a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil. A lot of people might mean that when proposing the problem of evil. I'll start by defining omnibenevolence (As is the basis for this argument) to show you what I mean when proposing the problem of evil.

The common definition for omnibenevolence is "all good". That's extremely subjective, and under that definition, you're completely right, but after looking further into the definition...

1. Omnibenevolence is better defined as "infinitely benevolent".
2. Benevolence is the "disposition to do good"
3. Disposition is a habit, a preparation, a state of readiness, or a tendency to act in a specified way.
4. Good is morally right, or "morally positive". Evil is morally wrong, or "morally negative".

5. This sets Good as a complete moral objective opposite to evil.
6. So, Omnibenevolence is the infinite tendency to do the exact opposite of evil.

With this in mind, it's worthy to note that I don't need to justify God's moral reason for not allowing evil, I merely need to accept the given that God is Omnibenevolent, and we did such that in the round of acceptance.

As is such, God must eliminate all evil, not due to moral reasoning, but his omnibenevolence. I agree, that without that trait, God might have some reasoning to keep evil, to teach us a lesson, or something of the sort, but the fact of the matter is, the God we are discussing is Omnibenevolent, and that makes him have to eliminate all evil, morally just or not.

II Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive
&&
III Omnipotence and Logic are mutually exclusive

I'm going to respond to both of your rebuttals in one as the second was, "just an extension of the previous argument's flaws".

Your whole rebuttal was based upon the fact that my third premise,

3. The Christian God has the power to do something logically impossible.

didn't derive from the actual definition of omnipotence. However, omnipotence means many things, such as
"A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, "
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The interesting thing is, you debunk the claim of premise 3 by stating that the notion that God can do something illogical is completely absurd, and ironically, that's the claim that I make as well in premise 4 and 5!

That fact that, according to the definition of Omnipotence, God can do something logically impossible, is illogical. It's "meaningless babble" as you put it.

This becomes apparently clear if we take premise 3-4 and instead of saying "logically impossible", put in your example of something that's logically impossible, "Can God create a round square?"

3. The Christian God has the power to do create a round square
4. To assert a being can create a round square, is illogical.


The differentiating differences of definitions you used, between absolute omnipotence, and common omnipotence, is significant. But I cannot find an official place where the use of "common omnipotence" is the true way of defining God. When getting right down to it, people do believe that God is all absolutely powerful. At least the people I ask. If you have an official source that talks of common omnipotence, then we can settle this as a draw of definitions. But I do believe that only the absolute omnipotence is what people mean when they describe God, not common omnipotence.


Although I feel that I have made sufficient justifications to my claims now, you surprised me. No one has ever written such a logical argument to deny that God does not exist. I am looking forward to your future arguments.

Lastly, the following still holds true,

"Only a single one of these arguments needs to be valid for my assertion that 'The Christian God does not exist' to be valid as a whole."
DakotaKrafick

Con

1. The Problem of Evil

The point I was trying to make here is that "evil" may not truly exist as you and I know it. Much like a toddler being pricked with shots, we may not be able to perceive that certain state of affairs we find in the world are not "evil" but are a means to a greater end. An omnibenevolent being would have the disposition to allow such "evils" to exist so that their greater ends may be met.

To claim an omnibenevolent must eliminate this perceived evil would be to implicitly claim there is no greater end, but this would be impossible knowledge to have.

2. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive /
3. Omnipotence and logic are mutually exclusive

Basically, all my opponent has done is say he's never heard of this different definition of "omnipotence" and asks for an official source to support it. Apologies for not doing so in my previous round. Here you go, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu....

Here, they refer to the two types of omnipotence as "Essentially omnipotent" (what I refered to as "maximally" or "absolutly") and "Accidently omnipotent" (what I referred to as "commonly"). An essentially omnipotent being, such as the Christian God, can bring about any state of affairs except those which render it non-omnipotent. Therefore, an essentially omnipotent being and a rock so heavy it cannot be lifted are mutually exclusive things and cannot exist in the same state of affairs.

Note that my opponent's source for his definition of "omniscience", wikipedia, also lists this definition: "A deity able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature". Well, being omnipotent is part of God's nature. Therefore, He cannot do something that would make Himself no longer omnipotent, such as create a rock too heavy to lift.
Debate Round No. 3
Tylerbrown13

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

I. The Problem of Evil

I understand that evil may not exist as we know it, but in the bible, there is an objective evil. That's all. I understand your point that all of God's punishments to us in our small lives might be for our own good, but the existence of Satin is one of objective evil, in the bible.


"To claim an omnibenevolent must eliminate this perceived evil would be to implicitly claim there is no greater end, but this would be impossible knowledge to have."

That's not the case. An omnibenevolent being won't allow any evil for what's within his power. And everything is within God's power. Meaning evil can't exist. He can still do the objective good without the objective evil. That's definite. He can figure out a way, he's all knowing, and all powerful.

I understand your point. Let's put it in numbers.
Event X occurs
It produces 3 evil,
It produces 10 good.

You're saying that since the net worth of Event X is 7 good, he will allow it, but that doesn't fit the definition of an omnibenevolent being. He can't allow evil. If he wants to create 7 good, he'll create another event
Event Y occurs

It produces 0 evil,
It produces 7 good.
The same net good is produced, but there is no evil to be seen. That's what God MUST do as is his omnibenevolent nature. You can argue that God isn't omnibenevolent, but in the definitions we did define him as a being who's omnibenevolent.

II. Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive/
III. Omnipotence and logic are mutually exclusive

"But Jesus looked at them and said, With men this is impossible, but all things are possible with God. – Matt. 19:26"

"For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment. – Luke 1:37"

Since we are speaking of the God of Christianity, the Bible Verses are directly correlated to his characteristics. In both of these quotes, it's stressed that although something might be impossible for man (creating a round square), it's not impossible for God. "no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment"

This means if God says "Let there be a round circle!" There is a round circle.

As is such, the following holds true.

3. The Christian God has the power to create a round square
4. To assert a being can create a round square, is illogical.

Meaning that my proof in whole, is true.



I thank my opponent in advance for his arguments.
DakotaKrafick

Con

1. The Problem of Evil.

My opponent brings up the point that God could, instead of allowing event x to occur (which would produce relatively 3 evil and 10 good), create event y (which would produce no evil at all and 7 good).

This might sound like the obvious solution, but everything is not so black-and-white as my opponent implies. Not all issues of morality can be reduced to a simple numbers game, like the classic train-track problem (do you pull the lever to redirect the train's route to a different track where it will run over one man, or leave it as is where it will run over five?).

And, more importantly, not all results can be achieved without some kind of sacrifice. This is, after all, the nature of Christianity itself. Even God Himself made a sacrifice on the cross for mankind.

For example, you need to sacrifice your time and energy to respond to this debate in the hopes that people will read it and vote for you. The administrators of the site could just have you skip all that nonsense and make everyone vote for you anyway, but would you really get that same feeling of accomplishment?

I can't argue for what end result evil has (nor do I have to in this debate), but I can suggest the possibility it is much like this debate is necessary for your feeling of accomplishment. And so long as this possibility remains unrefutted so does the resolution remain unaffirmed.

2. Omnipotence/Omniscience/Logic.

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." [Paul 1:2]

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" [James 1:13]

The Christian God is not capable of maximal omnipotence, for He cannot do anything that would go against His nature as the greatest conceivable being (like lie, sin, or make Himself impotent), as supported by these Biblical verses.

God cannot just say "Let there be a round circle" because (for starters) you don't even know what a "round circle" is. The term holds absolutely no meaning.


Debate Round No. 4
Tylerbrown13

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

I. The Problem of Evil

The occurrence of event x is objective in it's nature. I understand your argument that not all events are objective, and I wholeheartedly agree with that assertion. But the mere fact that some events are purely objectively evil in their nature, is enough to denote the fallacy of God.

So although some events may still occur, as there might not be an absolute moral right thing to do, the existence of Satan for example, is that of pure evil.

"We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one."

"1Jn 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

"Colossians 3:5-6 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Don’t be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world. Because of these sins, the anger of God is coming.
"

These quotes in their whole, talk of the objective evil of Satan, the objective good of God, and the objective evil is verified as such, as the wrath of the objective good is coming.

Again, I accept the notion that not all events or beings are objectively evil, actually, I would agree that most events and beings aren't objectively evil! But the existence of the few objective evil, or even a single objective evil, is enough to cause The Problem of Evil.


II. Omnipotence/Omniscience/Logic (Contradiction of describing God's power)

You are completely correct in your assertion, with the given Bible verses. Although, that notion of his limits only exists in select verses. The fact that you conjured verses that denotes this notion of God's ultimate power, and I conjured verses that did just the opposite, is contradictory.

"But Jesus looked at them and said, With men this is impossible, but all things are possible with God. – Matt. 19:26"

"For with God nothing is ever impossible and no word from God shall be without power or impossible of fulfillment. – Luke 1:37"

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." [Paul 1:2]

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"[James 1:13]"

Note how the notion in the first two verses, the notion that God is without limit, and "no word from God shall be without power" contradicts the next notion. The notion that "god cannot lie" and "God cannot be tempted with evil", is limiting his power, but as such was previously defined as limitless.

This contradiction invalidates the notion of God, as God's characteristics are defined first and foremost in the Bible.


Final Premise
I accept that my original premise that "Omnipotence and Omniscience are mutually exclusive" is invalid in it's nature, as the term "Omnipotence" wasn't specifically deemed "Absolute Omnipotence", as previously, I had not known that such a diversity lied in the term itself.
However, two other notions still hold true.

The Problem of Evil,
&&
The contradiction in describing God's power

and as the following still holds true,

"Only a single one of these arguments needs to be valid for my assertion that 'The Christian God does not exist' to be valid as a whole."

I hold to my stance that "The Christian God does not exist".

I encourage a vote for the pro, if that holds any significance. As I know my opponent will most likely encourage a vote for the con.

I finally thank my opponent for the debate as a whole.

DakotaKrafick

Con

I will save this round for little more than some closing remarks as it is the final round (and I tend to get pretty lazy near the end of a five-round debate).

1. The problem of evil.

I saw little attempt to rebut my suggestion that there is some higher purpose for the existence of evil other than the assertion that there is an objective evil: Satan. The problem of evil not only requires the premise that evil exists, but that unnecessary evil exists. And I see no reason why Satan is so special to my opponent's case. It's an objective evil, fine. But is it necessary or unecessary to some greater good? Tyler has not proven Satan (or anything else) is an unecessary evil so his warrant for the problem of evil falls short.

2. Omniscience/Omnipotence/Logic.

It seems Tyler has conceded these points in light of my kickass rebuttals.

3. Contradictions.

I feel hurt and betrayed having been given a new argument in the final round of a five-round debate, but that's okay I suppose. He claims that because certain biblical accounts of God's characteristics contradict one another, God therefore does not exist. Of course, this doesn't even logically follow, but again, that's okay I suppose.

Suppose we hear a rumor that every night at midnight, someone approaches the fountain in Central Park and throws a half-dollar coin in it. Invesitgating this rumor, we ask the local residents for details. One says he's a five-foot tall black man who wears a hulu skirt and another says he's a woman with a peg leg. Clearly very different testimonials.

Perhaps it can be said these testimonials ought not be taken seriously. Perhaps it can even be said there is no reason at all to believe this midnight coin-thrower exists. But that doesn't mean he/she truly does not exist. And that is my opponent's position in this debate: a positive assertion that the Christian God does not exist.


Thanks for the debate, Tyler. It's been fun.
Debate Round No. 5
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by music24.7 3 years ago
music24.7
"Its fun to destroy something so divisive and inherently entitled to a shield from criticism and questioning like religion." This is why christianity not only is true, but helps. don't you think the kind of attitude you have towards religion, or maybe other things as well, is so negative, harsh, dark, and sad? how can that ever help? your attitude is definitely where it starts. how do you expect someone to want to listen to your opinion if all your ever going to do is tear them down? if everyone on this earth was so negative towards everything, they wouldn't ever feel a need to get anything done. and God is concerned with everything. look, we all sin. everyday. all the time. hate the sin, not the sinner. because i'm a sinner as well. and hating homosexuals is not ok if i don't hate every other person, because all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord. do i think that guys marrying guys and girls to marrying girls may be wrong? yes! but i also think that lying, cheating, and gossiping are wrong. and i do those things every day. it would be wrong to hate someone else for something they did when i sin all the time too! and delusion? you just said that you believe that there was a god who existed originally! and how can you explain your conscience? your ability of knowing right from wrong. and the sense that you should probably do what's right?
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
"dude, wow. you're harsh!", thats what makes it all worth it. You made my day. Now lets say that I am directing my "harsh" at religious leaders and evangelists and/or promoter of the idea that life is only possible because the reason for everything knew how to keep slaves, but nothing about cumulative evolution by natural selection.

Breath in adams caulk after his nostrils if you want to, the reason for the magnificence we discover everyday, literally everyday, is Not there by a divine power that is also specially concerned with human sexuality :)

The entire religious belief system cannot survive another 500 yrs, humans are waking up to the delusion faster than ever.

I'm not religious at all, but I believe that there is a god (super-powered being) who existed originally. This cannot be explained, but there are a lot of puzzles about dark matter too..."

TRANSLATION: I dont know everything, nobody knows everything, therefore since we dont understand something, god did it :)

Infections 8:1--Deism is the result of exposure to theistic writings, much like stinking is the result of exposure to second hand smoke :)

Its fun to destroy something so divisive and inherently entitled to a shield from criticism and questioning like religion.

At the core are good intentions. At the core is petty involvement from the reason for DNA dictating the rules of obedkeys to his fairy tale kingdom
Posted by music24.7 3 years ago
music24.7
dude, wow. you're harsh! listen, i am in no way saying that i am perfect. a lot of what you said was right. christians ARE self-righteous. we ARE hippocratic! in the core, that's exactly what christianity is about! that we, the sinful and imperfect humans that we are, need redemption. nothing that we do can get us into heaven except for one choice, to love and believe everything Jesus originally said. the only reason we try so hard to do what's right is because of the fact that we want to appreciate what God has done for us! and christianity shouldn't be described as religion. its just love. all it is is love. there can be no love without God and no God without love! that's all there is too it! your saying Christians are such bad people.. and we are! but we don't try to be! are you saying that your good? that your better than christians? everyone is the exact same. no one is better than anyone else. but everyone has a choice, just make sure your making the right one!
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
music24, Im going to look for evidence of your age, after I post this message carrying the assumption that I have been talking teenager.

Understand that after my research, the older are, your xistence becomes more of an embarrassment to mankind.

If everyone chose to drink jesus sperm with such a ned flanders attitude who would find cures and actually get things done?

Science sure has a lot of wars. Biologists always doing suicide bombings on paleontologists, its getting bad.

I know that a few terrorist scientists doesnt define science but even the botanists have been starting fights with embryologists, things are rough.

The religious are doing nothing wrong, never abuse our ldren, never restrict theri learning or free thought and always treating people with love, kindness and equal rights, unless they were born with a physiologic difference that disagrees with 2,000 yr old doctrine, then you can forget about equal rights, the reason for the billions of galaxies wont let you into his fairy tale kingdom if youre a girl who kisses girls :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Why are you trying so hard to make something work that's so...normal? When all of this is anything but normal? This should make it clear to everyone, that its painfully obvious that the reason for wind is going to frown on divorce :)

Thinking, it happens in the religious mind like vegan happens in a snakes mind :)

If that offends you, stop supporting the single most divisive, and intellectually crippling invention in the history of mankind :)

Free thought led to scientific understandings of the universe and life. Restricting scientific free thought in school and government is only possible when the arrogance of religion sticks its nose where it doesn't belong.

Therefore, supporting religion is supporting its inherent weaknesses, and thus, draining Mankind with a ball and chain we drag on our way to a higher standard :)

The religious elite have used their filthy beliefs from thousands of years ago to promote slavery, racism and a homophobic attitude. This is all done while the religious loud mouth champions are hiding behind a shield of humility that protects them from criticism :)

Kicking that shield aside and exposing the soft intellect behind it, is just the splashing glass of ice water needed to wake up the world to the childish, disgusting, destructive, divisive, immoral, and unnecessary nature of religion, especially in the 21st Century :)

Lets get back to this Higgs Boson and let kissing girls get married in a court of law, and go night night with your holy binky America :)
Posted by music24.7 3 years ago
music24.7
"First, to address the one option that God doesn't exist, I would I say that the acknowledgment of evil is the acknowledgement of something NOT good. In order to know what good is, there has to be some objective of good beyond yourself. There has to be some moral standard. I realize this is only an argument for the existence of something greater than yourself, so I will go to my second point.
You say, why does God not stop evil things from happening? If you want him to stop all evil from happening, do you want him to stop you? Or me? Sure, you may not call us evil, but have you ever lied or hurt someone with something you said? If you want him to stop evil, do you want him to stop all evil? You have to be consistent. And what is the source of evil in the world? According to the Bible, it's free choice that brought everything foul into the world. But if He ended our free choice, we would no longer have the ability to love or do good, and this would no longer be a moral world. Also, God's whole desire in His creation of man is to have a relationship with us. If we do not have free will, then we would be unable to participate in such a relationship.
We (as Christians) believe that God is all powerful, and that he could stop all diseases and all natural disasters from happening. In fact, we believe God WILL end all pain and suffering one day, when Christ returns to earth; but no one knows when that will be. Until then, our entire purpose on this earth (apart from having a relationship with God) is to help those who are hurting, and to introduce others to Jesus Christ.
I hope this helps in presenting a more logical approach to your questions."
"Tell ya what next time your sick pray yourself better :)"
I believe that everything happens for a reason. Sure, I can pray to God to ask him if he will heal me, but ultimately God knows what's best for me. Sickness vs. God's will? I'd chose God's will any day!
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
"Science lets you down. Science won't have your back when you really need it"

Guess you have never heard of cures, or advances in medicine.

Tell ya what next time your sick pray yourself better :)

CryBabies 11:25--Waaa waaa boo boo cry cry, if gays get married, pout yell stomp my wedding is somehow threatened, boo hoo waaa waa stab, stone, burn, kill those who question lifes origins and stand up for equal rights :)

LOVE 9:48--Dont worry kids, god never gives you more than you can handle, if all you can handle is eating once a week, than he will make sure you are born in Ethiopia :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
music, C. S. Lewis once said, "I used to be an atheist but..." Him and francis collins are some of the kids who use this rhetoric to gain street cred from new sheep who are listening to them speak

How about this dandy chunk:
Why are you trying to explain this whole thing so logically? Its obvious the reason for everything is going to show up in the middle east, zeus is a myth.

The Earth, the Solar System, the Universe, is so crazy and complex, I feel like us as the human race don't have a right to define something as logical or natural, therefore I conclude that the reason for everything is a dietician mandating which birds and animals we should and should Not eat.

I almost feel like nothing is natural. Why should we set the standard for what is logical and normal when we weren't here at the start of it all? So it makes sense that the reason for the sub atomic world is going to resurrect 3 days after death, Not 4 thats too long.

Why shouldn't there be a crazy explanation for a crazy existence? Why is it so easy to believe in the creation, but hard to understand the creator when he left his mark on everything he created? Therefore it makes perfect sense that the reason for everything is concerned with how women cover their head when they pray.

Why are you trying so hard to believe in science? Science lets you down. Science won't have your back when you really need it. There's no end to the Universe, just like there's no end to god's love, just ask the amalekites ;)

Everything is so complex and my brain is too small to comprehend this complexity so that means the reason for the 99.9% of empty space in each atom, is most likely concerned with humans lwhile they are naked :)

Makes perfect sense :)
Posted by DakotaKrafick 3 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Just because we may not have the answer to one or all of your questions, music, (not that that's even the case) doesn't mean the answer is therefore God.
Posted by music24.7 3 years ago
music24.7
yes but think about it. how do you expect for the universe to have just been here in the beginning? the space for it to have been? without someone behind it all? where did the materials come from to somehow create and multiply and turn into an entire solar system, the tinniest details? how did floating properties become our conscience? or that everything was just...here in the beginning? it encourages your belief in something greater because its so hard to believe in the beginning of it all without someone behind it!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by t-man 3 years ago
t-man
Tylerbrown13DakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro was unable to conclusively demonstrate that God does not exist
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Tylerbrown13DakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Pro was never able to rule out the possibility that there could be a morally justifiable reason for allowing evil. He simply denies it on the basis of God's omnipotence, which I found unpersuasive, especially in light of Pro conceding that God's omnipotence need not include the ability to engage in logical absurdity. His new argument was unpersuasive because the phrase "all things are possible" can be reconciled with an inability to engage in logical absurdity, but "cannot lie" cannot be reconciled with an ability to engage in logical absurdity. A square circle is not a "thing" at all, but an incoherent combination of words, so when it says God can do "all things," it doesn't have to mean he can create anything like a square circle. Over all, I found Con's arguments more persuasive.
Vote Placed by Jordeef 3 years ago
Jordeef
Tylerbrown13DakotaKrafickTied
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: Pro modified the debate in the last round.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Tylerbrown13DakotaKrafickTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Tylerbrown13DakotaKrafickTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Con actually resolved the arguement presented by Pro for the problem of evil, Pro points out that the Christian God must be infintely good, to justify omnibenevolence. Con rebutts by saying that that what we deem as evil might just be our own thawted perception, like a child who is getting his shots, who rejects the short sharp pain in favour of a better thing to come, But pro points out that even the Bible confirms objective evil exists. Con fails to answer why an omnibenevolent God would allow evil to exist.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
Tylerbrown13DakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments, well done both PRO and CON. added 3 net points to PRO to counter muted's vote. (i.e., negated S&G and Sources to CON)
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
Tylerbrown13DakotaKrafickTied
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: Good debate this is. However, as Con showed and as Pro conceded, one of Pro's premise was invalid. Having one invalid premise in a syllogism invalidates the conclusion.