The Instigator
Atheism_Debater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
moss
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Existence of God (Christian)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 70627
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Atheism_Debater

Con


In this debate, intend to discuss the God of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing that God does not exist. Thus my opponent will be arguing that God does exist.


Definitions:


God: A divine, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, supreme being that is thought to have created life, moral values, and the universe.


Theist: Having the belief in a god/gods.


Atheist: Lacking the belief in god/gods.


Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.


Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.


Omniscient: All-knowing, knows past, present, future.


Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.


Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.



Rules:


First round is acceptance only. Second round will be for arguments only. Third round and on is for arguments and rebuttals.


A forfeit is an automatic loss.


My accepting the debate, you accept all the definitions and rules. If you would like to question a rule or definition, please specify in the first round.


Do not limit your duties. Many religious debaters limit their task to proving that there is a possibility that God exists. This is obviously unfair, for I am arguing God does not exist, my opponent is arguing that God does exist.





Merriam Webster


moss

Pro

I accept this argument, and I would like to request that you try with everything in you to keep this from becoming a shouting match. They get nothing done, and deteriorate both side's credibility.

your ever faithful mortal enemy,
Moss
Debate Round No. 1
Atheism_Debater

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate Pro, and I look forward to its outcome.

Arguments:

“As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 18:30

“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Matthew 5:48

“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “

Psalm 19:7

From this evidence we can conclude without a doubt that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection.

Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists.

  • God is a perfect being that created the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe.

  • God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe.

  • If God exists, then the world is perfect.

  • The world is imperfect.

  • Therefore, God does not exist.

Now onto my second point.

People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible.

A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist.

  • If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy therefore not intruding on his moral existence.

  • If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more.

  • If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy.

  • If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy.

  • God does not exist.

Now onto my last point.

The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.

In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will.

A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist.

Conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I look forward to the next round and wish my opponent the best of luck.

Citations:

The Holy Bible

https://www.biblegateway.com...

moss

Pro

If you have an inherently bad child (which all are) does that make you at fault? God made us with a choice, follow My ways or don't. It wasn't His fault that Adam and Eve sinned, it was our poor use of free will, It wasn't His fault. Genesis 1:18 b says that "God saw that it was good" Clearly we were the ones at wrong when we ate the forbidden fruit. He didn't make the world worse in virtue of His moral perfection, we did. You said that the world is supposedly perfect before the universe's creation. Say again? The world is obviously part of the universe, therefore the world wasn't existent before the universe's creation.

God knows how we feel when we sin without experiencing it (as in any sin you can dream up) without doing it. We've done it plenty of times for Him to observe how we feel in those situations.

Your last argument was a tough one for me to process, I am not familiar with the Christian definition of personal being. (I'm a relatively new Christian.) I finally came to the conclusion that you are making assumptions that God is somewhat human-like. If you know what the future holds, you can decide what you will do later, just like if you are in a fast food line, you can look at the menu before your turn to order is up.

The planet earth is an extreme anomaly. The latest science clearly states that the chance for a earth like planet is actually negative. There goes the multiverse. Instead of explaining this myself, I will let you see this explained by noted writer, Eric Metaxas.

http://prageruniversity.com...

Best of luck to you, my mortal enemy!
Debate Round No. 2
Atheism_Debater

Con


Thank you very much for that response Moss, I look forward to the rest of the debate.


Rebuttal:


“If you have an inherently bad child (which all are) does that make you at fault?”


This is a good argument, but does not hold up upon examination. You attempt to use the human reproduction ideal to compare to a God. Humans don’t have the ability to know what their child would be like, or have the power to make a good child, God does. God is omnipotent, an omniscient. An omnipotent being can do anything, and an omniscient being knows past, present, and future. Since God is omnipotent, he could construct a good child. Even if He did have a bad child, since he is omniscient, he would know he would have a bad child and since he is omnipotent, he could easily change it. So obviously, for God, it is his fault that he had a bad child.


“God made us with a choice, follow My ways or don't.”


Yet the very idea that God gave us free-will is a fallacy. Since God is omniscient, He knows the future. If he knows the future, the future is already fixed, we have to make a choice. Since the future has to follow this path, we have no other choice, no choice, no free-will. If God is too exist at all, choice/free-will is impossible.


“It wasn't His fault that Adam and Eve sinned, it was our poor use of free will, It wasn't His fault.”


Yes it was his fault. God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, he had the overwhelming power to make Adam and Eve not sin, yet didn’t. It was his fault that Adam and Eve sinned.


“Genesis 1:18 b says that "God saw that it was good" Clearly we were the ones at wrong when we ate the forbidden fruit.”


I don’t see how your biblical citation proves that we were the ones at wrong, or why we were the ones at wrong, please explain.


You said that the world is supposedly perfect before the universe's creation.



“God knows how we feel when we sin without experiencing it (as in any sin you can dream up) without doing it. We've done it plenty of times for Him to observe how we feel in those situations.”


This is another fallacy. You cannot know what a feeling is without experiencing it. Just because you’ve seen someone get angry, or someone has told you about it, does not mean you know what it is. If I told you that bungee jumping was scary, and thrilling, I was only describing it. You cannot fully grasp what bungee jumping is until you do it. You cannot know what jealousy is, or sin, fully without experiencing it. Since it is God can never actually know what sinning is like, or jealousy, or envy, without breaking his moral perfection, he cannot do everything. If he cannot do everything, he is not omnipotent, if he isn’t omnipotent, he isn’t a god.


“I finally came to the conclusion that you are making assumptions that God is somewhat human-like.”


I do believe that God is somewhat human-like, but they are not assumptions,


“Then God said, ‘Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us.’ “ Genesis 1:26


I not sure what he means by “us” since there should only be one of him, but that is evidence that God is somewhat human like.


“If you know what the future holds, you can decide what you will do later, just like if you are in a fast food line, you can look at the menu before your turn to order is up.”


If it was a fast-food line, you would know what you would choose on the menu before you saw the menu.


“The planet earth is an extreme anomaly. The latest science clearly states that the chance for a earth like planet is actually negative.”


This is completely, completely incorrect. The latest science clearly states that there are 100 billion earth like planets in our GALAXY alone, besides the billions of other planets in the universe.


http://www.extremetech.com...


http://scienceblogs.com...


http://www.forbes.com...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


http://www.space.com...


“There goes the multiverse.”


I’m not sure if Moss understands what the multiverse is. But I know for sure that saying that earthlike planets are not likely, definitely does not disprove the multiverse.


Please read this website if you don’t understand the multiverse please:


http://www.space.com...


If you actually do understand the multiverse, then please explain how this proves God.


Instead of explaining this myself, I will let you see this explained by noted writer, Eric Metaxas.


I will not see this website because I am not debating Eric Metaxas, I am debating Moss.


Moss then ends their response by claiming that he/she is my mortal enemy.


Conclusion:


I look forward to the rest of the debate, it seems like an interesting one! I wish my opponent the best of luck and a great day!


Best of luck to you, my eternal friend!


Holy Bible


moss

Pro

I think that when it says "image" it means looks. my example was meant to be a exemplary situation which is similar, not completely the same. Should he construct a good child? If he made humans equal to him in that way, what would the point of creating us be? He creates us for us to worship him, if we were inherently good we wouldn't have a good reason to worship him.

Well, you will not beleive how many times this same argument is used. knowing it will happen isn't the same as us having no choice. wWe had the coice to eat the burrito, we ate the burrito, He knew it, he did not fix it, we did.

See paragraph one.

I was trying to say that we were the ones who chose the fruit, to put it simply.

All I can really say is that God can understand anything, which is probably beyond what you are willing to understand.

God maybe looks like a human, and also has free-will, but those are the main similarities, which is what I think the bible was reffering to in Genesis 1:26

Not necessarily. What if you never had known the menu before? (Same with life.)

You see, the latest scientists in the video's quotations are quit clear. Honestly, I'm just gonna let it lie with our voters to decide which source is correct, the one that seemingly is oblivious to their own colleuges (or are lying) about this supposed multiverse,
or the one that says that it is increasigly likely that God exists beacause it is so unlikely for us to be an accident. You are debating me because I agree fully with Eric.

Best of luck!

P.S. I don't actually think that a lot of people who are already on one side are gonna change their minds based on our arguments.
Studies show that most people, when exposed to such debates like this, are not likely to change sides. I'm mainly doing this for me to learn about the athiest viewpoint on things like this. By the way, I am a he. (Male)

Debate Round No. 3
Atheism_Debater

Con

Thank you for that response Pro, it is now time for me to wrap up my side.

Rebuttal:

“Should he construct a good child? If he made humans equal to him in that way, what would the point of creating us be? He creates us for us to worship him, if we were inherently good we wouldn't have a good reason to worship him.”

Constructing a child to be good does not make it equal to a god. I don’t understand why being a good person makes there no reason to worship God, this argument is very confusing.

“Well, you will not beleive how many times this same argument is used. knowing it will happen isn't the same as us having no choice. wWe had the coice to eat the burrito, we ate the burrito, He knew it, he did not fix it, we did.”

I’m not sure which argument you are referring to. This argument is also extremely confusing, I assume Moss is referring to the free-will argument. You say, “he did not fix it” assuming that choosing the burrito is a mistake. If it was, God could have fixed it with infinite easiness, but chose not to fix it, it is his fault.

“All I can really say is that God can understand anything, which is probably beyond what you are willing to understand.”

I am very willing to understand it, I have read the entire Bible, gone to Catholic churches, Episcopalian Churches, Mormon churches, Baptist churches, and Roman Catholic Churches to study religion. I have visited countless websites and read countless books on religion. I am entirely willing to understand religion. I know a lot about religion, and that is why I want no part of it.

“Not necessarily. What if you never had known the menu before? (Same with life.)”

You can never know with complete certainty that something will happen unless you are God.

“You see, the latest scientists in the video's quotations are quit clear. Honestly, I'm just gonna let it lie with our voters to decide which source is correct, the one that seemingly is oblivious to their own colleuges (or are lying) about this supposed multiverse,
or the one that says that it is increasigly likely that God exists beacause it is so unlikely for us to be an accident. You are debating me because I agree fully with Eric.”

Moss gives up his point and leaves it to his voters to decide. It is also unfair to just post a link and say that is my argument. If you want to use an argument in a debate, you cannot just post links, you actually have to right it out.

Conclusion:

This debate is in the voter’s hands now. I have obviously won the spelling part of the vote, but the rest is up to interpretation. This is the end of my debate now, good luck Moss!!!

moss

Pro

I should have said that there would be less of a reason for us to worship Him and we might try to rise against him. (Which some people are actually doing.)

Bad burrito anologies, eh my opponent? I think that preventing us from eating a burrito would be like destroying free will, and without free will, we cannot pursue happiness, therefore it is moally correct to let us eat that stinkin' burrito. If your parents prevented you from eating a habenero, you ate it anyways, you would be better off because you learned a lesson and are not bitter with your parents.
Bad habenero anologies.

I am not giving up my point, I'm just ending my point. That was all my point was, so I didn't needlessly continue. Sorry, I apologize for not writing it out, I thought about it, but I guess in your eyes I choose poorly, huh?

Good luck to you, and I will not say God bless because I know you won't appreciate it. The rest is up to the voters!
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Casey3040 1 year ago
Casey3040
Dr. Werner (author of LIving Fossils: Evolution: The Grand Experiment vol. 2.) :

"We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms).

"The vertebrates"animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals"show this same pattern."

Modern fish, amphibians and reptiles

"Cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays), boney fish (such as sturgeon, paddlefish, salmon, herring, flounder and bowfin) and jawless fish (hagfish and lamprey) have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same as modern forms.

"Modern-looking frogs and salamanders have been found in dinosaur dig sites.

"All of today"s reptile groups have been found in the dinosaur layers and they look the same or similar to modern forms: Snakes (boa constrictor), lizards (ground lizards and gliding lizards), turtles (box turtles, soft-shelled turtles), and crocodilians (alligators, crocodiles and gavials)."

Modern birds

"Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc. When scientists who support evolution disclosed this information during our TV interviews it appears that they could hardly believe what they were saying on camera."
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
====================================================================
>Reported vote: Juris // Moderator action taken: removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). RFD = "Reasons for voting decision: Con has hiven solid arguments and he presented them clearly and orderly. On the otherhand, Pro has committed a lot of fallacies and are not clear with his Point."

*Reason for removal.* This RFD does not explain *why* Con had better arguments; it merely states *that* Con had better arguments. It is not specific enough. This RFD is so generic that it could be copy-pasted into any debate, and it would still make sense. RFDs must refer to something that is unique to the debate.
====================================================================
Posted by Casey3040 1 year ago
Casey3040
Moss, your arguments are not very solid and I think Atheism_Debater has solid points. You should probably make new points rather than sticking on one subtopic of the debate that you obviously know little of. Alas, it's almost too late as you're in the last round! I still agree with you moss, but your debating skills need work! Good job Atheism_Debater on the structure of your debate and your strong points (even though I disagree).
Posted by Casey3040 1 year ago
Casey3040
Remember that when we say God was angry etc, we cannot truly know how God felt. When writing down the Torah, we had to use the closest words to describe God but it would never fully describe the Creator. That's because humans are limited in their thinking and there are no true words that describe how God felt during certain times, but only words that we humans can think off.
Posted by Casey3040 1 year ago
Casey3040
I'm interested in seeing the outcome of this debate and the arguments presented (I'm supporting Pro, however).
No votes have been placed for this debate.