The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Hatred of Anything by a God is a Logical Impossibility

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,350 times Debate No: 27045
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (47)
Votes (2)




I have made this debate impossible to accept, so if anyone wants to debate me, just post a comment in the comments section regarding your acceptance.

My resolution: The Hatred of Anything by a God is a Logical Impossibility


Please, no trolling or semantics.

The definitions will not be argued.


prejudiced hostility or animosity.

anything- any such thing.

God- the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernaturalcreator and overseer of humans and the universe.

logical- of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic.

impossibility- something impossible.

Round Structure-

1. Acceptance
2. Main Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals
5. Conclusion/Resolution Reached


Since God is a non physical entity which lacks a brain and the brain is used for humans to hate I think the argument that he has no physical brain to hate with is too cruel and unfalsifiable to be fair for pro to use. Instead, I think this is a clear-cut debate of whether or not the hatred of anything assuming it's possible for god to hate without a brain is a logical impossibility.

I think it most certainly is possible for God to hate something. I look forward to your debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks to RationalMadman for his willingness to debate this topic.


Omnibenevolent God

1. God in question is omnibenevolent.

1a. An omnibenevolent being is the most loving, giving, and selfless being in the world.
1b. Omnibenevolence is incompatible with malevolence.
1c. A malevolent being would be able to hate something.
1d. An omnibenevolent being cannot be malevolent.
1e. An omnibenevolent being cannot hate anything.

The hatred of anything by an omnibenevolent being is a logical impossibility.


First I shall humorously highlight my opponent's logic by direct correlation by simple replacement of words.

1. An omnibenevolent being is the most loving, giving, and selfless being in the world.
2. Omnibevolence is incompatible with malevolence
3. A malevolent being would be able to hate something.
4. An omnibenevolent being cannot be malevolent
5. An omnibenevolent being cannot hate anything

I shall now state the exact same logical system using different terms to highlight the humorous fallacy he made.

1. A human being is a mammalian creature belonging to the family Hominid.
2. Being human is incompatible with being reptilian.
3. A reptilian being would be able to eat something.
4. A human being cannot be reptilian.
5. A human being cannot eat anything.

I really hope you saw the humorous side, I prefer to tear apart debates in an amusing manner rather than a hostile one.

Now let's get down to business.

God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe.

To be omnipotent is to have unlimited power and to be able to do anything. Such a creature surely has the ability to hate.

To be omniscient is to know everything, this doesn't stop god being able to hate.

To be supernatural is just to have superpower (could be to hate).

To be omnibenevolent is to be all-good. My opponent had a fair enough outline of what good what. BUT, being good doesn't mean the emotion hate cannot be felt IT ONLY MEANS GOD DOESN'T ACT ON IT.

I hand it over to pro.
Debate Round No. 2


emospongebob527 forfeited this round.


Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3


Vote Pron.


He is joking by putting 'n' at end he means vote con.
Debate Round No. 4


God hates all other men more than me, that's why he made me sexier than all of them. EVIDENCE!
Debate Round No. 5
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
You just sit your soft little mr nice guy toosh down. The big kids got this!

There's no crying in baseball. You know that. Walk It Off :)

Now back to big kids stuff!

Soldiers 10:4--Don"t make mistakes. It is a battle. Religious leaders from all religions realize that the more you know, the more educated you are, the more you understand this world we live in - the chances you will become non-religious are greatly increasing. This is not just a statement. It is backed up by various studies, that show the correlation between the level of education and religious disbelief. Therefore these leaders want you to live in the dark. They don"t want you to understand science, they don"t want you to study and research the yet unknown phenomena of this world. They are afraid that they will lose their grip on you, so they scare you with fables about damnation :)

FourHorsemen 3:15--Science we are told should NOT tread on the toes of theology. But why should scientists tiptoe respectfully away? Its time for people of reason to stand up, and say enough is enough. Religious FAITH discourages independant thought, its divisive and its dangerous--Richard Dawkins :)

"Now, I am absolutely convinced, that the main source of hatred in the world is religion and organized religion, absolutely convinced of it. I think religion should be treated with ridicul and hatred and contempt, and I claim that right--Christopher Hitchens--Best of the Hitchslap

DevientGenie 3:44--The politically incorrect verbage found in some of the Genie's wit, creates the illusion of a hardened heart, much like the complexity and diversity of life creates the illusion of a creator :)

BigKids 1:18--We have now emotionally evolved and can now effectively satisfy the emotions of love, hope, and faith, when we allow our intuition, intellect and instinct to finally stretch their legs :)

PROOF 7:51--Evolution by natural selection is as true as the moon landing. Only the nut cases think we never landed o
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
I don't know if you realize this, but whatever it is that you're trying to do, what you're doing is making yourself look like an idiot. Spewing intolerant gibberish is not going to get you anything except removed from the site. Contempt and ridicule aren't, as you say, 'what need to be done.' Tolerance is the key to a serene and happy life.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
What youre not willing to do!

Hold in contempt, mock and ridicule religion anywhere and everywhere it is with no regard!

You just sit over on the sidelines being Mr Polite and Mr Politically Correct, and Mr Respecting of religion and let the big kids do what needs to be done!

HumanError 3:46--The label "atheist" has taken on meanings that are so weak on so many levels, its ridiculous bigotry driven by ignorant arrogance that is ultimitley inspired by belief that the reason for gravity, the sub atomic world of physics, genetics, biology, and all the stars and galaxies, has an anger problem and is concerned with your sex life :)

Ideas 4:3--Museums are a great weekend activity to truly bless your children with the truth instead of consistent poisoning of the pansy written in the holy binky that throws temper tantrums :)

WAKEUP 4:12--Religious leaders know that the corrosive effects logic and reason present to religious doctrine must be curtailed by mocking science as somehow incompetent :)

BigKids 12:9--We came from something, not nothing. Scientific understandings are as follows: When we say nothing, we are referring to space, empty space. When scientists remove the atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, everything, even gravity and radiation, everything is removed from this empty space, that empty space still has weight after removing everything. So the nothing, is really something that our 5 senses cannot apprehend. We can be lazy and say its a god, put some scripture behind it, get some followers, and infect governments with lunacy or we can roll up our sleeves and keep digging into this Higgs Boson and let kissing girls get married :)

WAKEUP 11:3--Its called brainwashing for a reason, the right amount and it sometimes works, and tax exempt church leaders relish in the effects :)
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
What are you trying to accomplish?
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
torvald, get over yourself. Its one website, just because youre whining about being called out again doesnt mean anyone is following you egomaniac.

There's no crying in baseball. Walk It Off :)

Now back to big kids stuff :)

Owyuken 2:6-- The Religous views on Science: Grrrrr, or, thats kinda neat and/or weird....huh, or devil, or conspiracy, or money grubbing lazy stupid scientists, or incomplete or inadequate, or so what?, whats scinece have to do with anything?, or just flat out impossible to be even close to correct. The brilliant mind of a highly educated person in all areas of all industries in society says about science: Wow...Each discovery is INSPIRING, because it gives me HOPE for the future, and I feel the LOVE with a closer connection to the universe, and I have FAITH that science will find a way to BLESS AND SAVE me and make life better, whenever it can, because it is simply the most BEAUTIFUL AND MAGICAL simply becasue we know its real, and because we know how it works. Science is done by brilliant minded individuals who win Nobel Prizes , NOT idiots, or pedophiles" :)

BigKids 14:7--Do not avoid and ignore those who are good without god, pity those that need god to be good :)
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Oh no, not this guy again. Pal, start a debate for God's sake, but stop following me around and spamming comment sections!
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
(continue end of last message)....and all still living species of organisms continue to evolve today. They are not unchanging end-products :)

CHECKMATE 10:3--The heliocentric model of the universe, which is now universally accepted and included in all science taught in schools and colleges, was not always acknowledged by scholars. The history of Copernicanism, as this cosmological theory is called, is a case study in the evolution of human thinking and the difficulty encountered in challenging well established traditions. Suckling from the holy binky for nutrition, is unfortunatley, a well established tradition, however, we are seeing an increase in those letting go of the tit and being good because they want to, Not because an admittingly jealous sky daddy masochist demands it :)

PROOF 7:51--Cumulative evolution by natural selection is as true as the moon landing. Only the nut cases think we never landed on the moon :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
torvald. Ive been dealing with ignorance enough to know that if I say 500,000 yrs, they may say its only 250,000 and to me it doesnt matter if its only 100,000, this is exactly what I said.."Homosapiens have been around for at least 100,000 yrs", I said at least to show for at least, 98,000 yrs nothing then there was a crucification party 2,000 or so yrs ago and revelation in the most illiterate ignorant poverty stricken, dirtball violent parts of the middle east :)

DUH 6:12--Science has shown how something comes from nothing, we havent shown that the reason for everything is really a petty sexist motherphucker like the holy binky proclaims :)

Thoughts 8:9--Thru the combination of intuition, intellect and instinct a man creates his thought. A lack or sever depletion of any of those three ingredients, will result in fairy tale beliefs to satisfy the fear that remains as a result of lack of those three ingredients :)

EVOLUTION 11:10--Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another. The speed and direction of change is variable with different species lines and at different times. Continuous evolution over many generations can result in the development of new varieties and species. Likewise, failure to evolve in response to environmental changes can, and often does, lead to extinction. When scientists speak of evolution as a theory they do not mean that it is a mere speculation. It is a theory in the same sense as the propositions that the earth is round rather than flat or that our bodies are made of atoms are theories. Most people would consider such fundamental theories to be sufficiently tested by empirical evidence to conclude that they are indeed facts. As a result of the massive amount of evidence for biological evolution accumulated over the last two centuries, we can safely conclude that evolution has occurred and continues to occur. All life forms, including humans, evolved from earlier species, and all still livi
Posted by Torvald 3 years ago
Because I hate your username, and 'Percival' is a nicer name.
Posted by emospongebob527 3 years ago
Why you keep callin' me Percival?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though Pro forfeited a round Con just kept on giving slander and didn't use the forfeit round to his advantage.
Vote Placed by Torvald 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments would have gone to Pro, had he not forfeited. Conduct would've been tied, or even to Con, had Con not insisted a Con-vote, and trolled the last round. Neither side used reliable sources, and both had about equal spelling and grammar, so this debate was pretty well-matched. Pro would've won more decisively, in my book, had he not forfeited.