The Christian God's "morality"
Debate Rounds (5)
The Bomb made a comment that the debate should have less rounds. I agree with him that five round debates can get very repetitive and that is often unfair to the voters. I affirm that I will not repeat any arguments unless I must do so in order to form a response to my opponent if he repeats an argument. But if my opponent does not repeat any arguments either, then the debate should go smoothly and be free of repetitions. I propose that by the end of the third or perhaps the fourth round, if my opponent and I feel that continuing the debate would only result in the repetition of arguments, then we can agree to end the debate there and each of us would simply write "We agree that there are no more rounds" ( or something like that) as our posts for the remaining excess rounds. In other words, I think that both of us should do our best to make this a non-tedious debate.
I would like to point out that I disagree with my opponent that there are no morally neutral actions. I believe that most of our daily actions are morally neutral (neither moral nor immoral). When I walk down the street, is my action of walking moral? It does not seem so. Is it immoral? It does not seem so either. This seems to be a non-moral action.
But this is a minor point so I won't make a big issue out of it. I don't see how this could practically be discussed about God, so I will defend the morality of God instead of the non-morality.
I'd like to slightly modify my opponent's definition of what is morally good. He defines it very negatively, as that which eliminates suffering or harm. I agree with this but would also define it more positively as well, saying that something is morally good which creates happiness, peace, love, etc. I don't think this should change how the debate will go, so it seems like a minor point too.
With this, I turn things over to catharsis and I hope this is a good debate.
Thank you to catharsis for starting this debate. In his posting for round two, Con has presented a few arguments attempting to show the immoral nature of God. In my post for round two, I will address his arguments and put forth my own. Con’s arguments are all direct quotes and appear in red ink.
Negative Arguments (My Rebuttals to Con)
1- The basis on which we judge a human's "moral goodness" is by his actions, ergo we must judge God by his.
1A- confusing motivation with action
I take issue with this statement. We judge a person rather by the motivations and intentions behind his actions rather than his actions themselves. For example, if someone intends to do something nice for someone else but accidentally harms the person, would it be fair to say that the person acted
immorally? Probably not. This does not mean that one’s actions are irrelevant. They are highly relevant. But we must always look at the relation of the one’s actions to the motivations behind them, not simply the action by itself.
2- To start I would like to reference the Torah quite a bit.
2A- unreliable source
The torah is a document which may not be completely reliable. We have no way of knowing if the supernatural events that are described actually took place.
3- Several generations later, God observes that David had committed adultery with Bathsheba. As punishment God killed the child; it took 7 days for the child to die.
3A- unreliable source
Again, while we may have historical records that individuals named David and Bathsheba lived and that they had a child, we have no historical records of God acting upon them or intervening into their lives, or killing their child.
3B- contradictory source
If we were to rely on the Bible to ascertain God’s moral nature, then we would come to a deadlock since God is attributed as doing both very moral and immoral things. These cancel each other out and are more indicative of the moral nature of the ones who wrote the Bible rather than the moral nature of the subject of the Bible.
4- Hell is also a problem for the argument of God's goodness, as we have defined it. If God is omnipotent, He could save everyone in Hell by simply thinking them into Heaven. Since He does not do this, He is content to allow them to suffer for an eternity.
4A- can does not entail should
Assuming that God can, as Con said, save everyone in Hell by thinking them into Heaven, does that sound fair? Does the FilmAcademy give awards to actors simply because it can, or does it also do that
because it believes that the actors have earned them? Similarly, it would be unfair for God to simply think someone into Heaven simply because He can.
5- While on the topic of Hell, what ,exactly, is the purpose of Hell?
5A- non-applicable point
Con makes an excellent point about the purposelessness of Hell. But he also realizes that this point only hurts someone’s concept of God if they accept that concept of one that includes God punishing all of mankind for original sin. Since I do not, and since it contradicts the Christian concept of fairness, the point does not apply in this debate.
5B- exist does not entail purpose
Supposing that Hell exist, something does not have to have a purpose in order to exist. It could be that Hell was not created (by God) with any purpose but only exists as the natural consequence of doing evil.
Positive Arguments (My Case For the Morality of God)
First let me say that this is not a debate about God’s existence. It is a debate about
God’s nature. All of Con’s points already presuppose the existence of God, as do all of mine, so I am not obligated to argue for God’s existence.
1- our existence
The very fact that we exist is a sign of that God loves us, for why else would He create us and allow us to continue existing? As God is all-powerful and under no obligation to do anything, the fact that He would choose to bring beings into existence points to the conclusion that He wants to share existence with us, a very non-selfish act.
There are two reasons why human beings bring other human beings into existence. One-they intended to. Two- they did so by accident (i.e. unplanned pregnancies) As accidents do not happen to God as He has no force overriding Him, His bringing of human beings into existence was because of His intention to, and why would God intend to bring human beings unless He had some kind of moral nature. It is hardly indicative of an immoral or amoral nature.
2- other things in existence
If God brought us into existence, it makes sense that He would fill our existence with gifts that display His moral nature. This gifts range from the intellectual to the physical and everything in between. They include both creation and the ability to comprehend creation. Science itself is a gift from God. I’ll use some examples of abilities from the arts that God has given us to make the world existence better and more enjoyable: the ability to make music, to tell stories, to create meaning and function in things which previously had none, to create visually arresting images, to create architecture etc. Surely like would be missing something special without the abilities to bring about the aforementioned features. To give humans the abilities to do great things is not a sign of an apathetic God or a God who hates, but a sign of a God who loves, and therefore has a moral nature.
Again, I do not have to argue that God is responsible for these things. That is already implied by the fact that we are debating the Christian concept of God. I only have to argue that they point to a moral God.
I have no objection to Con’s conduct.
Pro’s writing seems like a run-on paragraph. He does not separate any of his points, and he had some grammatical errors.
Con presented a wall of text, rather than a well-laid out format. I ask that in the next round, he separate all of his points and number them. It makes it easier for me and voters to read and understand what he is saying.
Con used the Bible as a source for some of his arguments. He did not give any direct quotes or provide any links to Bible passages.
Con has not met his burden of showing that the Christian God has an immoral nature. I have met my burden of showing that the Christian God does have a moral nature. I look forward to a response from my esteemed opponent.
Catharsis forfeited this round.
I'm sorry to see that my opponent has forfeited the last round. I extend my arguments to this round. Vote Pro.
I would like to thank Catharsis for a very interesting debate, and on a personal note I would like to say that I am very sorry to hear about the death of your friend. You have my deepest regrets and sympathy.
Catharsis forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
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.