The Instigator
Sotiras
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
SonicNinja
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points

The Existence, "Mercy," and "Perfection" of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/23/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,124 times Debate No: 14356
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

Sotiras

Con

*FAIR WARNING* Attached Videos may contain expletives.

All throughout the Bible, the authors, who are of course not directly speaking for God, talk of his "mercy" and "perfection," when in fact he seems to be tyrannical and self-serving, if he even exists, which he, of course, doesn't.
From a logical standpoint, it's easy to see that Christianity is just a patchwork version of earlier religions, especially desert cults, and organized Egyptian religion. religion itself was used to explain the world BEFORE science, and has no logical place in a society that now realizes only science brings real, demonstrable improvements to human life. No evidence at all supports continued belief in any deities of any sort.
Suppose, however, that we could entertain the idea that he DOES exist. we move on now to his supposed mercy and perfection. If God is all-knowing, all-merciful, and the creator of everything, explain:
1) Suffering
2) Hell
3) Sin (and the criteria for the definition of sin)
4) Suffering
5) Human Faults (Humans are supposedly made in his image)
6) Other Religions, or lack thereof
7) SUFFERING

These videos also raise some interesting points

I could go on for hours with all the reasons God doesn't exist. What I ask is simple: give me one SHRED of demonstrable evidence that proves God exists, the Bible is truth, yours is the only religion that is 100% true, etc.

No hurt feelings intended, and have a wonderful, Godless day!
~Sotiras~
SonicNinja

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I expect to learn a lot from you.

First things first: in relation to the points that supposedly refute God's existence, there is one answer for ALL excluding Hell: The Fall

we all know the story of Adam and Eve, who ate the forbidden fruit (not necessarily an apple, but it was something). PRIOR to this, Adam and Eve were perfect, they had constant communication with God, and there was NO SUFFERING. There was also no Sin (which is defined as going against the commands of God, or for whatever deity you worship). So chronologically, it would be:

Paradise --> The Fall --> Suffering, Sin, ect.

Hell was created for the people who reject the OFFER (not reward, but offer) of salvation granted to us by Jesus Christ, who is the supposed Son of God. We'll look into that in a little bit. Hell is designed as a place of eternal torment, because of Satan (or Lucifer, or the devil) decided he was better than his creator and wanted to become God Himself. Thats kind of like a watch you built from scratch (including welding the metal to form gears) decided that it was better than you.
That will be my opening, as I'm running out of time (I have places to go), but I will address the other points you have mentioned when time permits.

again: i would like to thank you for what should be an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Sotiras

Con

Both the attached videos and my typed arguments will address certain points made or not yet recognized by my opponent.

My opponent claims that before, "The Fall," Adam and Eve were perfect, but that is inherently false, for if they were perfect, in the true sense of the word, why were they even able to be tricked by Satan (In the form of a talking snake-so believable) into eating the tree that God, in his supposed perfection, taunted them with by placing it smack dab in the middle of the Garden of Eden. If God is truly perfect and omniscient, why couldn't he just forsee these things happening and prevent them?

Also, if he is so merciful, why is his "Eternal Penal System" so incredibly flawed? Just for not being touched by his magic water as a baby, you are sentenced to purgatory, and if you commit inhuman atrocities, and then get baptized right before you die, you're theoretically saved and forgiven. Vice-versa, if you were incredibly selfless, kind-hearted, and generally good, but never accepted his existence, you're sentenced to eternal suffering by default, and all your acts of good are disregarded in light of your ATROCIOUS inability to believe in something without any evidence.

If I might cite the story of one man that, in my opinion, spent his life on testing the flaws of God's (in)justice system. A man had several vats of acid with body parts from at least 11 different individuals dissolving in his house, and was of course immediately put on death row, but had made a strange request, in light of what happened: he wanted to be baptized. In the end, after much protest from the public, he was given his wish. Of course, after he was put to death (I believe by lethal injection) He would, in theory, have gone straight to heaven for being washed and forgiven of ALL his sins through baptism.

God himself also isn't exactly a model of morality, endorsing genocide, infanticide, sexism, rape, incest, slavery, beating, stonings, etc.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that both God and the Bible are biased and imperfect because they were born in the imaginations of 2,000 year old MEN.

So one simple question: If God is perfect and all-merciful, why does he let us suffer?
SonicNinja

Pro

I will now begin to answer my opponents questions:

--the fall--
When I say they were perfect (adam and eve), I'm referring to the ability to follow God's commands (sorry if this wasnt clear). Before they were tempted, all they knew was this: Gods way. When Satan introduced a new way (going against God), thats when everything went to crap. Now, you are correct: God has the ability to foresee and thus, stop this attack. however, that would defeat the purpose of making the garden in the first place, as God created Adam and Eve not to punish them, but rather, because he wanted people to love him BY CHOICE. Love is a CHOICE. As such: if he forced Adam and Eve to not eat the apple, then there was no point in making earth at all.

side note: the apple in this story isn't really an apple, or it could be. It was always refereed to as a "fruit"

--Judgement--
My opponent referenced Baptism. Baptism is a choice, but in most forms of Christianity, is often made by your parents. which is why it is often done at infancy. however, you could choose to do so as an adult, and it is actually not a requirement for salvation. It's done as a form to express dying to the old, flesh nature and into a new, spiritual one. Which negates my opponents belief that baptism right before death. And even if you are sent to paradise, IE you commit atrocities and somehow are saved, there's still an accountability towards God, and you LOSE some paradise in the end.
As far as being "good", by whose standards? Even if I spent my life tending to infant, feeding the poor, ect., I'm not right with God. Why? Because at some point, I would've broken the 10 commandments. Those are God's rules, and breaking them is what sends you to Hell. Techniqually, we DON'T need Jesus. However, it is difficult to not break any of the 10 commandments to the T. And since each one is like the other, breaking one of them is breaking all of them. So to God, telling a white lie is the same as killing a prime minister. It is humans that add a scale of "acceptable" to "unacceptable".

--The Bible--
Seeing as the Bible has over 22,000 historical documentation with 99.9% accuracy (the .01% belonging to punctuational differences), I'm quite sure the Bible is fine historically. And since it was written by people such as physicians and tax-collectors, people who need to know how to document stuff and acquire accurate information, I'm sure that the Bible is quite reliable (it would be hypocritical to believe every Shakespeare play is the same one William Shakespeare wrote, and believe the Bible is complete folly)

--Suffering--
God allows us to suffer because quite frankly, we choose it over Him. You cannot blame Adam and Eve, because at some point, even BEFORE you knew it was sin, you sinned. That's the innate nature of humans (again, after the fall). I'm a Christian, and I'VE Sinned (shocking, I know [yes, this is sarcastic]). No one, not even the Pope, is without sin. that is why we have Jesus. Even with Jesus, you will suffer. Jesus HIMSELF said we're gonna suffer. That is nothing new.

--Stuff not answered earlier--
Humanly faults - Humans had no faults until the Fall. Now, assuming we never fell, would humans have "faults?" yes, because all humans are different. However, faults as we see them today are actually the differences we have to the extreme. Example: one fault i might be perceived to have is that I'm usually really quiet. That's an extreme of my natural tendency to let other's speak. Before the fall, I might've been more vocal, but as it is, i usually just let other's talk. I'll admit, thats a horrible example, but I believe that proves my point.

Religion - If, to win the debate, I had to present evedence for the following:
"give me one SHRED of demonstrable evidence that proves God exists, the Bible is truth, yours is the only religion that is 100% true, etc."
Then the debate is yours. Because the only way to be 100% sure if God is real or not is to die. However, there are a few things I can say:
1) as mentioned above: the Bible is the most historically accurate book in existance today, second to none.
2) I'll get flamed for this one, but Darwinian Evolution has little to no true evidence in its favor, and EVERY theory that went against the Bible has been changed, and if it hasn't, it will be changed.
3) The thing inside our bodies, laminin, is shaped like a cross. As this is in the human body, and roman cursifixion was not invented untill hundreds of thousands of years after man, i believe that's a strong indication.

That's all for now, and i thank my opponent for an interesting debate thus far :)
Debate Round No. 2
Sotiras

Con

http://www.theistic-evolution.com...

This is what annoys me. People are still debating evolution. Let me make this perfectly clear: Evolution is a PROVEN FACT! The THEORY of evolution is our understanding of the mechanisms by which evolution works. Stop saying evolution has "little to no true evidence" We ALREADY HAVE THE EVIDENCE. EVOLUTION. IS. PROVEN! Don't believe me? Refer to the link for all those transitional fossils that "don't exist." Or you could just look up, "Tiktaalik." Seriously. Creationism is a load of propaganda mixed with religious dogma and a political agenda.

Let me make another thing perfectly clear: humans didn't come from apes, we still ARE apes. Adam and Eve never existed because that would make all humans a product of incest. The Great Flood didn't happen because that would make us products of incest TWICE OVER. The Bible is one of the most historically INACCURATE books to date, referencing the "corners" of the Earth, demon-possessed pigs, talking snakes and donkeys, and an invisible, omnipotent, genocidal, megalomaniacal SKY DADDY! None of these things have ANY proof running for them, and therefore cannot be represented as accurate in any way.

Also, concerning your "cross-shaped laminin" argument, laminin is a GROUP of proteins that share their similar function and shape, and are only shaped thusly for purposes of efficient bonds with cells and other laminin proteins. They are NOT God's little cellular "I love you," especially since considering a cross a sign of love is equivalent to considering a guillotine or noose thusly.

In closing, I must say that I'm disappointed that you never stumped me with something not answerable by an atheistic and scientific world view. I realize you'll be getting the last word in, so I'll say in closing that you shouldn't pose anything in your final argument as a question, and I look forward to the conclusion of this debate.
SonicNinja

Pro

I would like to thank you for such an interesting debate.

And glad to know something with 5,585 pieces of "evidence", yet when put together, CANNOT agree with the supposed timeline of evolution, is considered proven. Yep. Ok. By the way, EVOLUTION, is clearly shown, but i said Darwinian Evolution, which is different. Considering people used to believe that the universe was static until a certian someone (Albert Einstien) showed them the Universe was actually constantly expanding, implying a starting point, also means nothing as well i suppose. Even if it did, then its ok if the Universe breaks the first law of motion (object in motion stays in motion/object in rest stays in res UNLESS acted upon by and OUTSIDE force) and just EXPLODES out of nowhere.

People have mentioned the corners of the earth before. What does it mean? it means the WHOLE WORLD. Let me break it down. If the world is a SPHERE (thus meaning NO CORNERS), then clearly mentioning corners of the world would mean the entire world. Makes perfect logical sense.

And if having (again) over 22,000 pieces of historical records that agree 99.9% with our current Bible (not even mentioning the other books that support the Bible), written by Physicians, Kings, Peasants, in the span of over 400 years ALL ON THE EXACT SAME SUBJECT is CLEARLY inaccurate, yet every time you pickup a Shakespeare poem, its CLEARLY the exact same thing he wrote back who knows when. Glad to know.

In closing: My job was not to stump you, but rather, to provide "proof", as you mentioned in round 1. And i provided that proof. Now, you have the final word as to what you believe, however, i stand by my facts and figures.

Though I will thank my opponent for what was an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by USRugbyfan 6 years ago
USRugbyfan
Wait a minute here, What does the Con mean by proven fact? With regard to Evolution this phrase seems to have been redefined. Microevolution is established and plants can be seen to evolve, sure and while there is evidence for a common ancestor, scientists are nowhere near to coming up with exactly how it happened.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Hey, RougeFox! Long time no speak(or debate)... Have you been away for awhile? You up for a debate on this, or anything else? We always have close matchups.
Posted by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
I picked up Pro because con was rude and goal post shifting a little bit. Also, it was a creative defense of religion
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
" I interpreted it the way it should've been."-ninja

Riiight... Can you say self righteous? how about delusional? Also, after looking it up, you are wrong. Also, laziness is one of the most despicable traits a human being can possess, in my opinion. All in all, utter FAIL.
Posted by SonicNinja 6 years ago
SonicNinja
I would post sources, but i was too lazy. and loose interpretation of scripture? riiiggghhhttt. I interpreted it the way it should've been.
and for the record: im not stubborn enough to say im right period. It's just rare that i am wrong.
No matter what, i tend to be right. Its up to you whether or not to agree with me. that's your choice.
And i provided evidence. Look it up. See if im wrong
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Well, Pro was obviously unable to provide that single shred of proof that would have won him the debate, per the instigator. All he does is presuppose that his stance is the correct one, and then provide a loose interpretation scripture. FAIL. Also, he used no sources. Conduct and language were close enough to warrant a tie.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
What an easy win *cries* but right now I have 5 debates to deal with *sigh*
Posted by SurvivingAMethodology 6 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
You are all over the map in your presentation, and you seem all too eager to use language which attempts to make your argument more personally charged instead of actually tenable.

But if the crux of the matter is that you demand evidence, you will first have to define the parameters of this evidence. Perhaps the forms of evidence you desire have poor a priori assumptions behind them.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by SurvivingAMethodology 6 years ago
SurvivingAMethodology
SotirasSonicNinjaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
SotirasSonicNinjaTied
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:24 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
SotirasSonicNinjaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by TheBoxTheorem 6 years ago
TheBoxTheorem
SotirasSonicNinjaTied
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 Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
SotirasSonicNinjaTied
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 ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
SotirasSonicNinjaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06