The Instigator
tower
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
popculturepooka
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
popculturepooka
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,025 times Debate No: 11532
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (59)
Votes (8)

 

tower

Pro

The entity described as God in Orthodox Judaism is real, and has all the qualities attributed to Him by Orthodox Judaism, and Orthodox Judaism, with all its doctrines, laws, and practices, is the only true religion.
1.There is a God of some sort, because there is no other explanation as where the world came from. All scientific evidence points towards a creation point of the Big Bang, but science is at a loss to find a cause for the Big Bang. Logically, something not bound by the laws of cause-and-effect e.g., God, caused it.
2.Assuming God is benevolent (we can assume this because a supreme being would have no other need for us than to show us his benevolence), he would give us happiness.
3.True happiness cannot be given, because then it is charity, and the happiness would be marred by the lack of comfort that is universal with the acceptance of charity. Therefore, a system would have to be set up in order to earn happiness.
4.The happiness would be most effective in a place that is dedicated to happiness. This place cannot exist on earth, if only because the suffering of others who have not earned happiness would mar the happiness of those who did earn it. Therefore, an afterlife would have to be created, and happiness would not necessarily be given in this world.
5.A benevolent God would give instruction as to how to earn this happiness, because creating a system which no one knows how to use is as cruel as not creating one at all.
6.He would give it an extraordinarily large amount of people, and not one person, because one person, even a person demonstrating miracles, can be conceived as a hoax. However, a very large amount of people, all stating God spoke to them, cannot be conceived as a hoax, because it is impossible to convince thousands of people a) that God spoke to them when he didn't, or b) to lie to the rest of humanity and claim that. It is equally impossible to claim that God spoke to thousands when he didn't, because one cannot produce the thousands or their descendants. (Obviously, the thousands must survive for this to hold true.)
7.The only religion to claim this is Judaism.
8.If God changed his mind about how the system works, he would have to hold another event to rival the original. Since neither Christianity nor Islam nor any other religion based on the Bible claim this, they must all be false.
9.The Old Testament's (according to Judaism, the only testament) laws and statements cannot be followed as is, since it is written in a highly esoteric and poetic form (e.g., "thou shalt bind toetafos [Hebrew] between thine eyes…" what are "toetafos"? How does one make them? Where between the eyes do they go? None of this information is given.). Therefore, there must be an accompanying oral explanation handed down with the original written Bible.
10.Orthodox Judaism is the only branch of Judaism that possesses such an explanation, handed down through the generations, and considers it completely valid.
popculturepooka

Con

Thanks to Tower for providing the opportunity to discuss such an important issue.

And I will be numbering my criticisms so that they correspond with his points.

1. Pro's first point is a classic argument from ignorance [1] that is often given the whimsical name of "God-of-the-Gaps" which specifically refers to the argument form of (among other things) "we don't know how X happens, therefore God did it".

To illustrate this more clearly take Isaac Newton. Newton developed a brilliant theory of gravity that allowed him to predict planetary movement in our solar system yet it was not without its flaws. One major one is that Newtonian gravity was compatible with planetary movements going in *any* direction but empirical observation showed that this was not the case. Newton was at an absolute loss to explain how all these planets moved in such an ordered way and probably thought science would never have an answer - so he posited that God was the one who adjusted the planets so the moved in such an orderly fashion. After all, nothing else was conceivable, right? Unfortunately for Newton he didn't have that much knowledge of astronomy, which is understandable considering the time period, and didn't know about solar system formation and it was later found that how solar systems form explained the phenomenon perfectly.

What does this have to do with Pro's argument you ask? Everything. I argue his reasoning is much like Newton's - "there is no other explanation as to the world came from, therefore God created the world." Notice what Pro is basically saying is we don't know how the universe began therefore God did it. I am sympathetic to that sentiment as a Christian and I believe that that basic argument can be turned into a good one but it is clear Pro's argument is obviously invalid.

First, it's not even true that there aren't other explanations for where the world (I'm assuming it's meant universe) came from! There are numerous theories as to what has caused the big bang - everything from quantum fluctuations [2] to various brane theories. [3] So that part of the contention fails miserably.

Second, and perhaps even more significantly, even granting his invalid argument it would not get him to a "God" that he can base the rest of his arguments on. At the very best we could get a being who is supernatural, powerful, intelligent, space less, timeless, and personal (if we were to grant the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, that is). But notice what this does NOT get you which is crucial to Pro's following points - a benevolent God. There is nothing we can deduce from solely being the creator of the universe that could lead us to believe that the creator of the universe is also benevolent - for all we know it could have been an amoral or evil "god" that created the universe! It's an astounding leap of logic to go from "creator of the universe" to "the God of Orthodox Judaism" in just one (invalid) argument. It would seem Pro's argument crumbles at it's very first contention! And what's worse is Pro bases all of his points on an argument to prove God's existence that doesn't even work....This rebuttal alone is enough to stop Pro's argument in it's tracks.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the above argument fails (which it doesn't, of course) and go on to the other points.

2. Why should we assume God is benevolent? Pro gave us no reason to suppose that there is a supreme being in the first place (which I agree would be benevolent). Besides that how does a perfect being, assuming Pro believes that God is perfect in every way, have "needs" anyway? Perfection implies that the being in question is not in need of anything as that would further imply a deficiency that God has.

3. What is even meant by "true" happiness and how is this relevantly different from other kinds of happiness? I know for a fact that I can give happiness and be given happiness. When I take my 6 year old niece it the park it gives me tremendous happiness ad I know that having her uncle hang out with her gives her happiness as well. That would seem to defeat this point unless Pro can provide a relevant distinction between my happiness and "true" happiness.

4. What does t even mean to have happiness that is "effective"? Effective to who? The person who is happy?

5. Not necessarily. For one, a benevolent God could have us imprinted us with a sense of how to earn this happiness thus negating the need for explicit instruction.

6. Say that thousands upon thousands of people have stated not only have aliens spoke to them but they have abducted them and used them as something akin to lab rats. I certainly can conceive that as a hoax, or more probably, that they sincerely believe that they have been abducted by aliens and tell the rest of humanity that. There need not be any lies involved if they do not know they are mistaken.

This is roughly analogous to Pro's claim. It's quite possible thousands of people to sincerely believe God exists and has spoken to them when it did not really happen. I think many examples of people saying that God told them to kill X are plausibly in this arena. Adding more dubious accounts doesn't make it any less or more believable necessarily.

I suppose Pro is relying on corroboration but personal testimony is notoriously unreliable.

In fact, if I knew a person had performed genuine miracles I'd be much more inclined to accept their proposed system of happiness then thousands of people that could be mistaken.

7. Unless I'm very much mistaken Christianity also claims this as Christians believe in the same God that Jews do.

8. Why would God have to hold another comparable event? We've seen Pro's previous reason doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, God could have let everyone know by way of some incredibly great prophet who could perform miracles. ;)

9. I have no issues with this point because it does not really lead Pro anywhere.

10. This, as it stands, is a bare assertion. Surely, even excluding other religions HOW does orthodox Judaism supply the explanation that others lack? How does it distinguish self from other branches of Judaism that undoubtedly claim the same thing. And of course Orthodox adherents to Judaism consider their explanation valid - I am assuming they wouldn't be Orthodox adherents of Judaism if they didn't consider their explanation valid. Other branches of Judaism also presumably claim their explanations are valid as well.

[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[2] http://www.infidels.org...
[3] http://www.dailygalaxy.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tower

Pro

1.Granted that to state something is true because there is no known alternative is logically flawed. However, this argument goes deeper than that. I would be willing to accept that the Big Bang was caused by another system of events. If so, what caused that system of events? The Law of Cause-and-Effect has never been broken to our knowledge. No matter how far back you go, no matter how many systems you posit, the question still remains as to what was the initial cause that wasn't affected by another cause. So we are forced to conclude that according to the laws of the universe, there must exist something not bound by the laws of the universe. There must exist a force that is supernatural (defining supernatural as outside of nature). Essentially, any supernatural force that caused the universe to be created is God.
It's not like Isaac Newton or any scientist who cannot figure out a scientific explanation, and thus attributes it to God. (If I see something that works according to some unknown principle, it is possible that I don't know that principle.) However, this is a logical argument; the very question, by nature, excludes any scientific answer.
The next part of Cons argument essentially is repeated in step 2, so I will address it there.
2.I will admit that my "Benevolent God" argument was presented too quickly. Here it is in greater detail.
It stands to reason that God created us for a purpose. This is because evolution, or whichever process created us, could not have been the result of a random system God set up. Namely, because evolution generated by random mutations does not reach human or animal or even certain plant levels of complexity in the given time.
An allegory: when a mouse completes a maze in record time, the cause for celebration is not that the mouse broke any land speed records or moved with unusual quickness. Rather, it is because the mouse proved that it was capable of traveling towards a goal, and that it knew what the goal was. If it had accidentally moved only in correct direction the first time in the maze, its timing would have been identical, but the odds of that happening are infinitesimal. Similarly, the age of our planet does not allow for the development of its life unless that was its goal. That is to say, the genetic mutations necessary for our life are so complex that in order to achieve them in the time given, they would have to have such a low margin of error that they could not be coincidental. It would be like a hurricane that whipped through a junkyard and created a Boeing 747. It is conceivable this could happen if the vortex held the pieces for billions of years, but if it only held it for the length of time necessary for (an intentional) construction of a 747, it would seem suspicious. Add in a being who is capable of orchestrating such a thing, and you would have no doubt he was responsible. Similarly, if God exists, there is no doubt that he was deliberate in creating humanity.
God could not be evil or amoral for a very simple reason; historically he has not. Not to be contrite, but all evil is borne of man, e.g., free will. Although there are natural disasters, these are clearly the exceptions, not the rule. If God was evil, it would be very easy to make the atmosphere different so although we survive, every breath would be a living hell, or to make all food taste bad, or to make no beauty, or any other of the plethora of things that make life on earth pleasant. If God is evil, he is doing a pretty bad job of it.
So it stands to reason that God is benevolent. Still, what could God possibly "need" from us? There is nothing God cannot do without the existence of others except show mercy. One cannot show mercy unless there is something to show mercy on. Therefore, we exist so God can show us how great he is by giving us happiness.
(PS- perfection does not mean not having needs. It means the ability to meet any need you have. We are the means for God to meet his need to show benevolence.)
3.When I say true happiness, I mean to exclude things that are temporal, like relief at having your physical needs met, or thing like adrenalin rushes or sexual activity. I mean a real, genuine satisfaction in life. And while I have no doubt that you and your niece both have genuine happiness, it comes at a price. You're not getting it "for free". You have to sacrifice time and effort to create the relationship with your niece. It may be worth the effort, but the effort is still requires. All things that cause happiness require effort. Anything that is given without effort only causes temporal joy. Thus the phenomenon of children (or adults) being "spoiled". True happiness is earned.
4.I mean to create perfect happiness, where it is not marred by anything. Everyone in the world has something that bothers them. "Effective" happiness is happiness that, by nature, cannot be marred.
5.You're correct, that God can (and, I believe, does) imprint us with the instinct to do good. However, in order for doing to be a challenge (and thus require effort), one must have an instinct to do evil, as well. Thus, we still need an unshakable, clear, concise, and undeniable (if a person can overcome his evil instinct (which has to be as strong as his good instinct or else overcoming it does not take effort) a person can overcome his good instinct as well) set of instructions. In other worlds, we need a disinterested source, because human beings are (and must be) unreliable.
6.Granted, thousands of people have believed God spoke to them, the same way thousands have believed aliens abducted them. However, never in history have 1.2 million people simultaneously claimed God appeared to them at the same time, in the same fashion, and told them all exactly the same thing. Imagine that you woke up one morning and the entire city of Dallas claimed that God spoke to them last night, and told every last one of them the same thing. I'd be very inclined to believe them! Conversely, people who claim that God spoke to them or that aliens abducted them rarely make parallel claims, and if they do, they're not simultaneous, so they had time to influenced by their predecessors.
Also, I'm not aware of any group of thousands that think God spoke directly to them, telling them to kill a certain person.
Additionally, Con says he would be inclined to believe an individual who displays miracles. While Con may believe this, remember that for most of world history, the general populace believed in non-divine magic and miracles. The supposed miracles performed by Jesus, Mohammed, or even Moses were not considered at the level of impossibility they are today. God would not rely on magic tricks to deliver his message, because people would be able to conceive of it as a hoax performed by a magician.
7.Christians believe Jesus overturned the Law of Moses. God would not have done something so monumental without holding an event to rival the giving of the Law.
8.Can you conceive God being so evil as to tell thousands of people they must do something, and then not telling them he changed his mind? As I explained, a single prophet is worthless when it comes to things like this.
9.I am using this point to prove that the Bible requires the oral explanation that only the Jews have, namely the Talmud and associative texts.
10.I apologize for not explaining that I was referring to libraries of explanation that stem from the Talmud. Reform Judaism, surprisingly, denies the divine origin of not only the Talmud, but of the Bible, and even Conservative Judaism maintains that rabbis can override laws set down in the Bible, because its' a man-made interpretation of God's will.[1] It's easy to see why these logics are faulty; how do explain the claim that God spoke those words? How do get 1.2 million people to agree on an interpretation? So, no, other branches of Judaism do not claim their interpretations are valid.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
popculturepooka

Con

Thanks to tower. I apologize if this round is not up to par; I have a pretty pounding headache.

1. The argument may go deeper than that but, unfortunately, your argument for the existence of God still remains an argument from ignorance. That was your exact argument form,"There is a God of some sort, because there is no other explanation as to where the world came from". A classic god-of-the-gaps argument. You are free to reformulate the argument to make it valid but it is still not valid no matter how you explain it. Strangely, you seem not to realize the contradiction in your own argument. You state that the law of cause and effect has never been broken to our knowledge but then in the very same sentence claim that there is something that hasn't been effected by another cause. Wouldn't that mean that the law of cause and effect HAS been broken according to our knowledge then?

And, again, you are ignoring the fact that there are other explanations of the universe's existence that do not involve anything supernatural. Indeed one of the theories even answers your question of what caused that system of events? The answer could very well be nothing caused that system of events. From my second source in round 1: "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)"
" According to the most popular interpretation of quantum theory it's possible for things to come into existence UNCAUSED. This would render your whole train of logic invalid.

Even granting that a supernatural force created the universe there is no reason to suppose that it is God. All you are doing is identifying something supernatural and claiming it is God. No arguments to expand on that point or anything. I repeat - it is such an extraordinarily large leap from "creator of the universe" to "God". It's conceivable that there be another supernatural force that created the universe so you must give us an argument as to why we should identify this force with God. It's not enough to paper over the difficulties and claim that this force is God and to further assume that this god is benevolent.

It still seems Pro cannot even get his argument off the ground if he cannot provide, at the very least, a logically valid argument for GOD.

2. Right off bat Pro misunderstands evolution and thus his argument staggers. It is not random; there is a process that is called natural selection that "chooses" (so to speak) various traits that leads to better survivability n the environment. If evolution is not random (which it isn't) then his argument about there not being enough time on this planet and slim chances for humans to evolve fails.

I'm sorry but saying that God could not be evil or amoral because he has historically been not is a weak argument.. It just seems you are just skimming over all of the horrible things that have happened in earth's history like the holocaust or the millions of starving kids in Africa. If God is the only way to salvation and wants as many humans to gain salvation as possible why are there so many unbelievers? Couldn't he make it more obvious that he exists? These are two problems that would seem to demand answers and do make it seem as if God is less than benevolent. There are definitely some unpleasant things here.

3. Pro claims that true happiness is never given or that it is not given for free because the happiness I get hanging out with my niece requires, at the very least, some effort. This seems to be almost unintelligible to me. True happiness between beings (like Pro says between God and humans) would have to be reciprocal. That involves giving from one to another. Indeed, in heaven it is often said just being the presence of God would GIVE us perfect happiness. How does Pro reconcile that view and his distinctions between "true happiness" and mundane, temporal happiness.

4. Pro claims that happiness would be most effective in a place dedicated to happiness because the suffering of others would mar the happiness of those here on earth, but this brings ups an interesting objection. Suppose that you are in heaven - would not your "true" happiness be marred by the knowledge that there are those suffering in hell? Do to this I don't think Pro makes a relevant distinction between happiness and true happiness here.

5. Strangely Pro's claims here to seem to contradict orthodox theology. It is usually claimed that God cannot do any evil whatsoever - so how is it that he was able to imprint us with an instinct to do evil? That would certainly seem like an evil act. I can accept that free will necessitates that one be able to choose between good and evil but that is a far cry from saying that God IMPRINTED human beings with the instinct evil.

6. Whatever ancient people were they were not stupid. They realized that walking on water or parting the Red Sea just doesn't happen without divine intervention. They realized that women do NOT just become pregnant without intercourse without divine intervention. The realized that people do NOT just come back to life without divine intervention. Even in the Bible there were many who doubted that Jesus rose from the dead; they may have not realized the exact manner in how physically impossible that would be due to ignorance of science but they weren't THAT gullible.

Ironically, Pro's own contention can be used against him. Certainly God speaking to 1.2 million people would be considered a miracle and going by Pro's own logic the general populace believed in non-divine magic an miracles or "magic tricks". If they could conceive of say, Jesus' miracles as a hoax then they could conceive of the appearance of God to 1.2 million people as a hoax. Further Con claims they all had the same story as to how God appeared to them but that is just plain suspicious by today's standards. In modern judiciary proceedings it is considered MORE believable and verifiable if the all the witnesses have the same basic facts right but differ on slight details as this makes it MUCH more likely that they did not just get together and make it up. If they all purportedly had the same exact experience and reported it as such then that would make it questionable as it's conceivable that some had this experience and spread it throughout the community to get consensus.

7. How is it not monumental to send the very Son of God to earth? Despite the how monumental it would be to appear 1.2 million people simultaneously I count the former as much more monumental. That may be my bias, though. ;)

8. Your previous explanation does not hold water as I showed. And, obviously, he had no problem getting the message across even in the ancient times as Jesus apparently had many followers.

9. Fair enough.

10. I'm not sure if I made my point not clear in my last round but what you are doing is judging their explanations invalid from with the framework of orthodox Judaism and then proclaiming that the orthodoxy is the only one with a valid explanation. "While Conservative and Reform Judaism also believe that some kind of Oral Law was always necessary to make the Torah comprehensible and workable, they reject the belief that most of the Talmud dates back to Moses' time. They are more apt to see the Talmud and the Oral Law as an evolving system, in which successive generations of rabbis discussed and debated how to incorporate the Torah into their lives." [1] This doesn't mean they don't view their explanations as invalid; just that the oral Torah is adaptable to modern times.

[1] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
Debate Round No. 2
tower

Pro

I apologize for the rushed and unorganized nature of my arguments. Passover starts in an hour, and it was this or nothing.

1. The point I was trying to make is that the fact that a law of nature that a law of nature automatically excludes something from it (cause and effect simultaneously dictates everything must have a cause and that there is something that does not have a cause) means that something exist that is not bound by the laws of our universe. I will say again, claiming the universe arose from vacuum fluctuations is meaningless. What created the system of random fluctuations? What gave the vacuum the ability to spontaneously warp? Just because my opponent labels my argument as God-of-the-gaps does not render it untrue. The law of cause and effect was never broken. The laws of the universe do not apply to God, so He cannot break them.
Also, claiming another supernatural being created the universe is semantics. Any supernatural being who created the universe is God by definition.

2. Evolution is both random and not random. Yes, the traits kept by natural selection are deliberate, but natural selection does control mutation. First, the being must mutate randomly, and then natural selection keeps the being to reproduce. So, essentially, the traits are randomly introduced. The level of mutation required, plus the odds of a mutation that is good enough for natural selection to keep, created a timeline that does not match the age of the earth or even the universe. This is the most common problem brought up with the theory of evolution, and it currently does not have an answer.
Bad things that happen are exception, not the rule. The proof is that we call them bad, not normal. Con has not explained why the whole world is not a living hell. If God is evil, then Hollywood is more creative than Him. Also, I don't recall saying God is the only way to salvation, but even if He were, making himself blindingly obvious pretty much usurps free will, which makes it impossible to earn happiness. A disservice to us.

3. To be honest, I don't entirely understand Cons argument. However he wants to set up the system, God cannot simply bombard us with things in the hopes of causing happiness. It is obvious to pretty much everyone that people who receive charity do not enjoy it. God must set up a system in which we earn our happiness.

4. Heaven is a different reality that our world. In our world, people naturally feel empathy to those who suffer. Perhaps in heaven the understanding that people are being cleansed of their sins is gratifying. All we know is that non-marr-able happiness in this world is impossible. The same is not necessarily true of the next.

5. I'm not aware that I ever claimed God cannot do evil. Even if that were true, however, imprinting us with an evil instinct is not evil. On the contrary, giving us a challenge to overcome puts us in the position to earn more happiness. It is a kindness. Making doing good naturally would not exactly allow us to claim we worked to do good.

6. To the contrary, there were many cotemporary beliefs about non-divine magic. The bible tells when Moses went before pharaoh the first time, he turned his staff into a snake to prove God sent him. Pharaoh was unimpressed and summoned his own magicians to turn their staffs into snakes. Clearly, people believed in supernatural, yet non-divine, events.
Certainly, it is a miracle that God spoke to1.2 million people. But even if it weren't, it still would not matter. The fact there was a miracle does not make them listen to God, the fact that God told them what to do made them listen to God!
People conceived Jesus' "miracles" as irrelevant magic. I'm not sure how God speaking is magic.
Additionally, we don't have 1.2 million reports that are word-for-word. We have one report that 1.2 million people corroborated. It as if somebody told you what happened and then 1.2 million people said "yes, we saw that, too." That is very convincing!

7. How would people know he is telling the truth he is the son of God? By monumental I mean holding an event that matches the first one in believability. And the testimony of 1.2 million people is far more convincing that one person claiming to be a prophet, or a messiah, or a god (or one of his relatives.)

8. It's not a matter of getting the word out. It is a matter of using an incontrovertible method, like the first time. Christianity was lucky to be the one of the multitudes of contemporary cults to be adapted as the official religion of the powerful Roman Empire. That does not make it more convincing.

9. Agreed.

10. Non-orthodox Judaism does not claim to have oral tradition of how to do things. Con says this himself. Instead, in each generation, the rabbis make up their own interpretation to their own convenience. Orthodoxy is the only branch that claims an unchanged oral tradition. Reformism And Conservativism both agree to this.

Thank you.
popculturepooka

Con

I shall keep this one short.

1. Pro has basically admitted that he has a committed an argument for ignorance but insists that does not render God's existence untrue. He's right, technically, an invalid argument for something' s existence doesn't necessarily mean that something doesn't existence - it just means it's bad logic and should be unpersuasive. Imagine this argument: "We don't know how the universe came into existence therefore God didn't do it." Now, anybody in their right mind would point out this is an argument that is unpersuasive and is just invalid but that is exactly what Pro did except replace "God didn't do it" with "God did it".

And he again misunderstands the nature of the vacuum fluctuations - they don't NEED a cause which is the whole point of me bringing them up about how it's possible to "escape" cause and effect without God.

Finally, Pros last assertion of a supernatural being creating the universe is by definition God is merely just trying to define God into existence. I showed earlier how their is a huge leap from traits of a being who created the universe to the "God of Orthodox Judaism".

2. Pro misunderstands the "random" in random mutations. In evolution the "random" is meant statistically and just means that we cannot for certain predict which mutations would have popped up as it it were. We say a coin flip is random because we can't tell for certain which side it will land on even though statistically the odds are 50/50. But we can still know how probable the "randomness" of the coin flips is. It's not that all mutations are equally likely at all.

I don't if I can accept that bad things are the exception not the rule. It definitely seems as if there is just as much evil as good in this world. In fact, the vast majority of the world doesn't have enough food to eat or clean water to drink. It certainly is a living hell to them.

3. I meant that if we are to share true happiness with God in heaven then it would have to be a mutual, reciprocal GIVING relationship of happiness otherwise there would be a disconnect. This would refute Pros point about true happiness not being able to be given.

4. Pro makes the assumption that all suffering is due to sin so those in heaven would feel happy that those suffering are getting their sins cleansed. That plainly is not true as their are children suffering due to no fault of their own.

5. Pro apparently clams that God can do evil, then. That raises the question of how God is benevolent in light of that revelation? I don't think his explanation holds any water, however. Imagine if I programmed a robot filled with evil desires but then punished him for killing people. That makes no sense as it was my fault in the first place.

6. They may have believed in non-divine magic (indeed, they did) but they were again not as gullible as Pro seems make it out. They still knew genuine "miracles" when they saw them like, say, rising from the dead.

I'm not sure how God talking simultaneously to 1.2 million people wouldn't be classified as anything else but a miracle. But, ignoring that, you said that all of these people corroborated in one report that they all had the exact same experience in the exact same way. Despite the methodological issues of gaining that information the the modern judiciary method would still certainly cast doubt on this report.

7. Indeed, I attacked the believability of this in my preceding point. If we used modern standards it would seem that it's just made up if they all had the exact same story. Suppose that he wasn't claiming and actually showed that he could back up his claims as the Son of God (for the sake of argument) surely that'd be just as monumental, if not more monumental then the Pros multitudes of peoples wouldn't it?

8. I am confused as to having some prophet who performed miracles and who's records are still here today isn't incontrovertible in he same way that Con thinks God speaking to the multitudes are.

10. What? It says that non-orthodox Judaism has an evolving oral law right here: "They are more apt to see the Talmud and the Oral Law as an evolving system, in which successive generations of rabbis discussed and debated how to incorporate the Torah into their lives." (From Round 2 sources) That doesn't mean they don't have an oral tradition, though. Just that they think it is flexible.
Debate Round No. 3
tower

Pro

tower forfeited this round.
popculturepooka

Con

Unfortunately tower has forfeited.

Extend my arguments into this round.
Debate Round No. 4
tower

Pro

tower forfeited this round.
popculturepooka

Con

Unfortunately, again, my opponent has forfeited.

Extend my arguments into this round as well.

Thanks for the debate, tower!
Debate Round No. 5
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Three hundred days for the voting period to end?>Really? Lol.
Posted by bombmaniac 6 years ago
bombmaniac
i think its because he had to go back to school in israel where he doesnt have internet access
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
RFD: I think I everything is tied except when it comes to arguments and conduct.

I gave myself arguments because Pro basically admitted to using a logically fallacious argument to prove God's existence and couldn't successfully surmount the gap between "personal creator of the universe" and "a benevolent God".

And I gave myself conduct because tower, unfortunately, forfeited 2 rounds.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Yeah, it is. I didn't notice it was 5 rounds when I took it. lol

>.>
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
5 rounds is a lot though.
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
Disappointing forfeit.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Eurgh, forfeits! :/
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
I have always wanted to try matzah. lol. Apperently it's popular with Palestinian muslims.
Posted by tower 6 years ago
tower
Well, guys, enjoy. Best I could do in the 25 minutes that I managed to squeeze into my schedule. I picked a very bad time to debate. Oh well, off to enjoy some matzah.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Yeah, happy Passover, tower.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by tower 6 years ago
tower
towerpopculturepookaTied
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 dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
towerpopculturepookaTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by SukiWater 6 years ago
SukiWater
towerpopculturepookaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Moroni23 6 years ago
Moroni23
towerpopculturepookaTied
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 micktravis 6 years ago
micktravis
towerpopculturepookaTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
towerpopculturepookaTied
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 philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
towerpopculturepookaTied
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 popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
towerpopculturepookaTied
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