The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.
As I read many of the debates between Christians and atheists I see atheists challenging the character of God over and over again. What I am determined to do through logic and proper use of the Christian Bible is show the perfection of our Holy God. I understand He had nations and individuals kill people, I understand there is evil in the world and atheist accuse God for "not" doing anything in there eyes, I understand that Biblical characters and fathers of the faith were not perfect, but God is. So I am looking for someone to prove that the God of the Bible is not loving, not good, and most of all not perfect if you can. For God did not come to the world to condemn the world, but to set them free. But even those He has judged on the earth He is perfectly justified in His actions. Along with this any "inaction" by God or perceived inaction is no grounds for accusing the Creator of the Universe of immorality.
1. There is absolute truth
2. There is absolute morality based on God's Law so if we are going to be testing God's character we are basing it on God's law not man's opinions of what is good and right.
3. No swearing
I accept and I thank my opponent for setting up this debate. I'm always down to wrestle with God =)
Resolved: The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.
As con, I will be negating this resolution.
=======Burden of Proof=======
Although Pro should technically have the BOP here, I will accept it for this debate as it's far less time-consuming for me to point out one contradiction than it is for Pro to go over and reconcile the entirety of the bible. Therefore, for this debate, God is assumed to be perfect unless I show otherwise.
God: The Abrahamic God in the Christian bible.
Perfect: Flawless and completely consistent
God's Law: The ten commandments 
=====Wence Cometh Evil?=====
Given the incredibly short character count of this debate, I will keep my arguments short for this round. In fact, I will only be making one argument right now; the riddle of Epicurus.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
God did not create evil. Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of God.”
― Albert Einstein
Romans 3:21-26 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Evil according to Scripture is lawlessness. God's law is a demonstration of His character as we see in Romans 3:21-26. In verse 25 we see God sending His Son as a payment for sins past, present , and future to demonstrate His righteousness for not punishing all sin the instant it happened. God is outside of time as is the cross according to this section of Scripture. So as I see it judgement delayed is not justice denied for all things will be brought into account on the day of judgement. Sorry for the lack of characters this is my first online debate and I didn't realise how little we could write. If God were to punish all sin instantly we would all be in hell real quick. God is the Lawgiver which does not make Him outside the Law, but He is also the Judge who can and does execute judgement when He sees fit. So as we see God pronounce judgement which involves death we could accuse Him of breaking His own commandments. Now I am not a fan of semantics, but the word murder in the 6th commandment does not simply mean all killing, which I will address later.
I thank my opponent for his timely response.
Pro's rebuttal is largely unsatisfactory. Pro defines evil as lawlessness. While this is an interesting definition, it doesn't solve the problem of "whence cometh evil" that I laid out in R1. Pro quotes Einstein saying that God didn't create evil because evil is the absence of God, but God is said to be omni-present , which makes Einstein's claim nonsensical given the Christian worldview. Besides, this claim falls into the questions of whether God is unable, unwilling, or both to prevent evil as outlined in my R1 argument. Whatever the case, we run into a problem that Pro will have to solve to have a shot at winning this debate.
Pro claims that if God judged all of us now, we would all be in Hell very quickly. This is a non-sequitur. The problem I've presented is about the fact that evil exists and what this implies about God.
Pro was largely off-topic in this round. It seems as though he is preemptively defending points I've yet to contend rather than defending against the arguments I've actually made. As such, my argument from R1 still stands and the resolution is, therefore, negated.
I look forward to your response.
Thank you for your response!
What does the existence of evil say about God?
It establishes that there is a God as a moral law giver. 
The mere existence of evil is not enough evidence to conclude any error in the character of God.
The origin of evil comes from what some call freewill, I call it choice. The fact of the matter is when choice is given there has to be consequences. According to the Christian faith evil entered through man’s disobedience in the garden. 
Epicurus quote not only challenges God’s existence, it uses inaction as a frame for that argument. I have already clearly shown it is perceived inaction. In reality God is not only the moral law giver and Judge, He is also full of love and mercy towards man. Now if God were only the enforcer of some religious law the we could charge Him with some form of misconduct, but He is not as we see in Romans 3:21-26 He is the God who not only hates evil and has to punish it, He is a God who loves us and is willing to pay for our sins with His own blood. Furthermore, the law is a reflection of the character of God and what God is saying through the law this is who I am, I am perfect and holy and I cannot commune with evil. Without evil there would be no love because there would be no choice, only robots. So what some would say is inaction because of lack of knowledge, God's Word says it is mercy because He desires all humans to come to repentance.
In conclusion Con has not in any way shown proof of God being imperfect. The implication is not valid simply because evil exist. The purpose of evil in the world is ironically love. Without choice there is no such thing as love, and where choice is there is the option of evil otherwise it would not be a choice.
Once again, I thank pro for his timely response.
Pro claims that evil comes from our freewill. That is, God loves us so dearly that he gave us free will to choose good or evil and some of us choose evil. This brings up another problem. Is God not also omniscient? If we have free-will, then God cannot know everything because what is to come is still uncertain. If God knows everything that is to come, then all our actions are already pre-destined. Given what Pro has claimed, either God is not all-knowing (therefore imperfect) or God punishes us for actions that we had no choice in making (making him unfair, therefore imperfect).
No matter what option, we have to conclude that God is imperfect given pro's argument here. He could always backtrack out of it, but that only brings us back to the original problem of the Epicurus riddle.
Pro's new argument satisfies the original problem, but it brings with it a whole new problem, one that's just as bad as the original. At this point the resolution is negated.
I look forward to your response.
Thank for your response.
The problem with all of Con’s arguments thus far is the same as philosophers throughout history they isolate attributes of God and claim imperfection. Picture a building with 10 walls and each of these walls are held up by 10 poles that meet in the middle. These 10 poles are held together by a coupling in the middle. The way the designer designed the structure is everything is perfect and with one piece out of place the building would cease to be perfect. The walls and poles are the attributes of God and the coupling is the acts of
this God. If we continue to isolate attributes apart from others it is like looking at one wall of the building and saying it is imperfect or perfect. At best the argument is inconclusive, and as Con has so graciously accepted the burden of proof we have come to a point where we have an inadequate argument against God.
In regards omniscience and free will working together they actually show how huge our infinite God is.  The claim that you can’t have one without the other is refuted by looking at the other attributes of God, such as God being outside of time. 
In conclusion if we are charging God with imperfection we can no longer isolate attributes from each other and forget the acts of God as the Epicurus riddle does. The only way God can be omnipotent and hate sin and not prevent it is because He also has perfect meekness, and patience, but we cannot only look at His attributes we must bring in His acts as well.( i.e. the cross) If we are going to claim a God of perfection to be one who prevents all evil, controls everything so nothing bad happens, and so on we end up with a God far smaller than the God we see in Scripture and one who is far from the perfection of the God of the Bible.
Looking forward to your response!
Pro states that the main problem with my arguments is that they only focus on one attribute of God, rather than looking at the whole picture. Pro says this is akin to focusing on the imperfection of a wall and saying the whole building is imperfect. The problem with this is that if one of the building's walls is, say, rotting; then the building is imperfect. Yes, the imperfection is specifically in one wall, but because that wall is part of the building, the building as a single unit is, in fact, imperfect. This doesn't mean that the whole house should be condemned, but the house would undeniably be imperfect and as per the resolution of this debate, one imperfection is enough.
In response to my argument last round, Pro links a video that makes the argument that God acts as a perfect barometer. It is always right about the weather, but it doesn't dictate the weather. The problem with this Argument is that the weather doesn't have free will. Weather acts in a predestined way, so it's not an equivalent analogy. If weather had free will, then it could act against the barometer's predictions, making the barometer fallible. If the weather does not have free will and the barometer punishes the weather every time it rains (let's just say it can) then the barometer is unjust, therefore imperfect and so the problem remains.
Pro also argues that God is outside of time and sees the entire timeline simultaneously (according to his link). This argument presupposes that the entire timeline exists simultaneously on some plane of reality, which means that our actions are, in fact, predestined because they already exist and we can't escape them. Pro's own source outlines this problem .
Pro's attempts at side-stepping the problem I've presented are not logically sound. God is imperfect so long as he is not completely perfect. God cannot both offer freewill and be omniscient. The resolution is negated.
Most gracious response!
As this debate has clearly turned into Con twisting words and playing semantics I will once again use the few characters I have to show the error in his response. He stated the rotten wall argument when not once did I imply the wall itself was imperfect, but incomplete and we have God Himself on trial not one attribute out of the context of the entirety of God. Second, as he chose to twist the sources instead of using them properly I will clarify them by use of the final statement of the video." Your action is logically prior to what God foreknows, but His foreknowledge is chronologically prior to what you do" It is the same issue as the building argument he has isolated a small section of the video without the entirety of the video to show context and the whole picture.
So as each wall in the structure of God is perfect itself we must ask ourselves this question how can a God have so many contradicting attributes working in perfect harmony with one another? How can God be full of anger and hatred towards sin and evil, yet have perfect patience? The answer is found in the acts of God, the answer is found in the cross . The attributes of God working together in perfect harmony with the acts of God cause this God to continue to be perfect in all His ways as the cross is the perfect demonstration of God hating evil yet loving man so much that He would pay for them, the perfect love of God. Once again without choice there would be no love, without love God would be far from perfect.
In conclusion God has not been shown to be imperfect by Con simply twisting half truths to bring a charge against the perfect God. Not only did the God of the Christian Bible die for our sins, He died for us because of who He is: perfect, holy, and not able to commune with evil for He is perfectly good. The verdict is not guilty of imperfection for no real evidence has been presented.
Pro accuses me of semantics. I don't know what he's talking about, I haven't played anything. My arguments are clear and directly aimed at his arguments.
Pro claims he never implied the wall was imperfect. This is a non-sequitur. My point stands regardless of whether he implied such a thing or not, besides that he did in fact imply such a thing;
"If we continue to isolate attributes apart from others it is like looking at one wall of the building and saying it is imperfect or perfect."
Yes he said both perfect and imperfect, but given the resolution, imperfection was obviously the implication I would focus on. It doesn't matter whether you focus on one attribute or God in his entirety, an imperfection is an imperfection regardless. If anything, pro is the one trying to argue semantics here.
Pro claims that I twisted the sources. I did no such thing. Pro didn't specify what part of his source he was using, so I checked out his sources and assumed he was putting forth the strongest argument I saw. You can't leave your argument so ambiguous and then complain when you're misunderstood.
Pro says that our actions are logically prior to God's foreknowledge, but his foreknowledge is chronologically prior to what we do. This doesn't actually rebut the issue I brought up before, in fact it's pretty much entirely self-contradictory. How can our actions be "logically" prior to God's knowledge but not actually prior? What does that even mean? And how does this fix the problem of omniscience with free will, exactly? This isn't a matter of me missing the big picture. This is a matter of Pro trying to out-run the inconsistencies I've presented, rather than countering them.
Pro never actually countered my arguments, he just asserted that it all made sense when you don't focus solely on the parts that seem contradictory and when that didn't work he falsely accused me of semantics. The weakness in Pro's arguments are obvious. This is a clear vote for Con.
|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||4|