The Instigator
ToastOfDestiny
Con (against)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,400 times Debate No: 8772
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (15)

 

ToastOfDestiny

Con

Alright, I'll open this up to Pro to make the first argument. If you'd like me to argue first, just post in the comments, and I can put up my side. Please, let's not get semantical.

Definitions:
Omniscient (www.dictionary.com): having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Omnibenevolence (my own): always making the ethical, or morally correct, decision.

To clarify 'morally correct', a decision will be considered immoral if it causes harm.

If you have a better definition of omnibenevolence (I couldn't find it in a dictionary. It's also coming up on spellcheck), please post it.
rougeagent21

Pro

I will accept the definition of omniscient, but reject the one of omnibenevolence. As cleared by my opponent, I will bring my own definition. (You did not look under "reference" on dictionary.com)
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Omni-

a combining form meaning "all," used in the formation of compound words: omnifarious; omnipotence; omniscient.

Benevolence
–noun
1.desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures.

I will allow my opponent to open. He must prove that God is not all-knowing and is not with unlimited desire to do good. If he fails to do so, then I have won the debate. Good luck.

==SOURCES==
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...-
Debate Round No. 1
ToastOfDestiny

Con


This is untrue. Even if I fail to prove that God is not omniscient and omnibenevolent, that does not mean he is. To use an analogy: we are debating whether or not I can fly without aid. I say I can fly. You say I can't. You don't disprove my ability to fly. I don't win just because of that - I only win if I prove I can fly.

By the same token, I only win if I disprove God's omnipotence and benevolence. If we both fail our tasks, the voters should vote 'tied'.

Under the standards my opponent has set up, omnibenevolence should be defined as the complete or infinite desire to do good to others; unlimited goodwill or charitableness.

CON CASE
I shall show that it is impossible for the Christian God to be omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time.

First, numerous Bible verses point to his immorality. In these lines, God authorizes and commits slaughter.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

1 Sam 15:2a, 3 - "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a**(donkey)."

1 Sam 6:19 - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

Even if we don't look to the above passages, it is impossible for God to be omniscient and omnibenevolent given his past actions.

Let us assume that God is omnisicient. If God has unlimited knowledge, he knows exactly what humans are going to do before they do it. He knew Eve would eat the Fruit before she did. He knew he would have to flood the earth before humans grew wicked. He knows that every murderer would kill someone before they even act. Because he is omniscient, he knew all this before he even created Creation itself. Here we have a problem.

If God knew of every single sin that humans would commit even before he created humans, why create us in the first place? By creating humans, knowing exactly who would be damned, God effectively damned those people. Hell is described as the ultimate torture and punishment. God knew who would have to suffer hell, but created those people anyway - sending them to eternal damnation.

With that, I'll open the floor out for Pro.
rougeagent21

Pro

I will not be able to make an argument this round. I thank you for your patience.
Debate Round No. 2
ToastOfDestiny

Con

Alright, I'll briefly reiterate.

First, God is shown sanctioning many violent acts in the Bible, especially slaughter.

Second, being omniscient, God knew exactly who would go to hell before creating humanity. So, by creating these people, he is damning them to hell. When God created Adam and Eve, he knew they would sin, but created the forbidden fruit anyway. When somebody murders someone else, God knew it would happen from the start of time. God knew of every harm humanity would endure, yet created us anyway.
rougeagent21

Pro

Alright, here we go. I will first address omnibenevolence, followed by omniscience.

The fact that God sanctions violent events does not mar His omnibenevolence. Simply because He has a desire to benefit all people does not mean that He always will. In addition to being omnibenevolent, He is also a just God. If punishment is due, then punishment is given. God created all men with a choice. If man chooses poorly, the consequences are spelled out.

Yes, God did know who would and will go to Hell. He is omniscient, and knows all. Once again, He gave man the choice. He offered them eternal paradise, or eternal torment. He left the choice to them. Think about it this way. If you want to be loved, who do you go to for love? Do you go to a robot which is programmed to "love" people? Or, would you go to a good friend who sincerely cares for you? A robot would give you no satisfaction. Likewise, God gave us the choice to love Him or not. Consequently, as punishment for their wrongdoings, people damn themselves to Hell.

In conclusion, God is both omniscient, and omnibenevolent. He has an infinite desire to do good. Does He always do that? No, for He is also a just God. He is all-knowing, my opponent concedes that himself: "Second, being omniscient, God knew exactly who would go to hell before creating humanity" This is a very hard topic to think about, and I do not encourage that voters take this issue lightly. Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
ToastOfDestiny

Con

Omnibenevolence: the complete or infinite desire to do good to others; unlimited goodwill or charitableness.

Please pay close attention to the whole definition while voting.

I'll examine Pro's arguments, and move on to voting issues.

PRO CASE

A being with unlimited charitableness or goodwill, or omnibenevolence, cannot sanction malevolence without losing omnibenevolence.


But if he desires people to hurt each other, then he doesn't always desire good. Therefore he is not omnibenevolent.


Pro never shows proof that God is omnibenevolent.


Again, Pro never gives evidence that God is omniscient.


The idea of choice is irrelevant. If God id omniscient, he knew every sin everybody would commit before they did. He then created people, knowing how they would sin and send themselves to hell. By not changing these people before they were born, he is sending thousands of people to the ultimate punishment.

If you knew that someone was going to snap, take a gun, and murder hundreds of people, do you attempt to stop them, or do you let them make a free choice?


Then did God create humans to satisfy his own needs? He created humans who don't love him so that those who do would be special? If God created humans merely for his own satisfaction, accepting the fact that some would suffer the ultimate punishment, he is not omnibenevolent. In this case, humans are merely a means to an end.


I never concede God's omniscience. I show in my argument that if God is omniscient he cannot also be omnibenevolent.

Voting Issues
1) Pro never gives reason that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent. He fails to meet his burden, so at the very least votes should go to 'tied'.
2) God sanctions slaughter in the Bible. A good with infinite goodwill should not hold ill will against some people. By ordering the slaughter of innocents. He is showing these people ill will, not goodwill. This is not omnibenevolence.
3) Creating humans was definitely not benevolent. Again, let us assume that God is omniscient. Let's pretend that he creates a man by the name of Joe Smith. Joe Smith will eventually become a serial killer, go to jail, and end up in Hell. Before he even created Adam and Eve, God knew what Joe would do. Even though he had this foreknowledge, God allowed Joe to kill many people and go to Hell. An omnibenevolent God wouldn't create people who would go to Hell - a truly omnibenevolent God would prevent this from happening.

Please don't allow Pro to make any new arguments in round 4. He's had 3 full rounds to provide proof of God's omnibenevolence and omniscience. He has failed to do so, making the assumption that both are true. I can't rebut any new arguments he brings up. Thank you, and vote Con!


The Bible
rougeagent21

Pro

Obviously, my opponent is very certain that God is neither omnibenevolent nor omniscient. (If he believes in a God at all) Although it is hard to understand completely, God is both of these things.

The debate mainly comes down to God's will, and human free will.

God desires to be with us, He said that in His Word. He created us so that He could be with us. Being with Him is the greatest sense of comfort that one can know. He was being benevolent by creating us, and allowing us to be with Him. My opponent challenges God's benevolence: "But if he desires people to hurt each other, then he doesn't always desire good. Therefore he is not omnibenevolent." He certainly does not desire for us to hurt each other. He does desire justice, and sometimes the means are less than ideal. We messed things up, which then required God's intervention. Had God forced us to do His will, everything would have been perfect, with no need for bloodshed. As has been stated though, God does not need robots to love Him. His DESIRE to do good, or omnibenevolence, is still unshaken. Therefore, I still urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Hmm, didn't think I did. Just changed it.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
I can't be accountable for others, but I can be accountable for myself. Why did you give yourself spelling though?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Looks like you had quite a few +7s.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
And you gave yourself a +6 ;)
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
And you gave yourself a +7 ;).
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
As I look through the voting tab, I find that several of the RFDs do not agree with the actual points awarded. *points at charlie danger*
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
no offence rouge agent, but you could have done better. Your arguments, (not counting forfeited ones) were daft, and simple, and somewhat short.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Conduct: CON - Pro forfeited rounds, which normally wouldn't warrant the loss of a point since he clarified as such, but his lack of clash makes up for that.
Grammar: TIED
Arguments: CON - Con addressed arguments and showed the lack of logic in Pro's arguments. Also, Pro did something that irritates me to no end: "You have to prove that it is NOT true!" which is bullsh*t, as Con explained.
Sources: TIED - Though it leaned on Pro, I wouldn't feel right voting for him just because he provided an additional definition

Good, quick read though, and I AM dissappointed that so many people vote bombed this debate.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
I was challenging Lifeisgood.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I am in a tournament right now, but maybe later. Do you think different people are going to look at the debate next time?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 6 years ago
rougeagent21
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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:04 
Vote Placed by trivea 7 years ago
trivea
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by mbferrance 7 years ago
mbferrance
ToastOfDestinyrougeagent21Tied
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