The Instigator
Dimmitri.C
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
baggins
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The Islamic Concept of God is Inadequate

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 5 votes the winner is...
Dimmitri.C
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,167 times Debate No: 16350
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (55)
Votes (5)

 

Dimmitri.C

Pro

Muslims believe that their God (Arabic: Allah) is essentially the one and only true and all powerful, all knowing, sustainer, ordainer, judge and creator of the universe.[1] Muslims also believe that the Qur’an is the final book of divine guidance and direction—in conjunction with this normative claim Muslims are additionally obligated to presuppose that the Qur’an is the advanced self-actualisation of both the Old and New Testament.[2][3] The concern of this discussion will be approximately related to investigating the adequacy of this claim, i.e., Allah is the God of the Old and New Testament, and whether or not this claim is relevantly justifiable in contrast with that of Christian theology. Nevertheless, in the narrow sense, the main disputation of this debate will be concerned with that of evaluating whether or not Muslims have faith in in a satisfactory conception of God. Therefore, the main apprehension of this deliberation will be specifically synchronised with the theology of Allah as testified by Mohammed and whether or not the qualities of Allah, e.g., ethical excellence, are logically adequate and relatable to that of the Christian God.

Islam and Christianity share many parallels. To style one, both Christians and Muslims approve and believe that God is the Highest Being Imaginable by virtue of His nature—if you could contemplate of a being greater than God, then, the former would inevitably be replaced by the latter. Thus, Christians and Muslims agree: God, by virtue of His nature, is inescapably the Highest Being Imaginable. This declaration is problematic for the Muslim, though. For once we begin to scrutinise God’s moral and loving character through the doctrinal scope of the Qur’an, we come to inevitably discover that Allah isn’t morally perfect. For example,


[Qur’an 3:134] “Who give to charity during the good times, as well as the bad times. They are suppressors of anger, and pardoners of the people. God loves the charitable.”

[Qur’an, 60:8] “God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable.”

[Qur’an 30:45] “He does not love the unbelievers”

[Qur’an 22:38] “Surely Allah does not love anyone who is unfaithful, ungrateful.”


What we can see here is that the God of Islam chooses to love those who are virtuous and love not those who are corrupt. From a Christian perspective, this interpretation of God’s love appears intrinsically inconsistent with both the teachings of who and what God is explained to be Bibically, while, from a philosophical perspective, this view of God’s love seems to be logically inconsistent with God’s ultra-mundane attributes.[4][5] Thomas Aquinas in his book, ‘Summa Theologiae,’ was very attentive to this topic. Thomas Aquinas concluded that, ‘God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God’s complete actuality.’[6]
In this case, it seems as if the Muslim has little to no legroom. The Muslim apologist must either act inconsistently by selectively dismissing these verses in the Qur’an by acknowledging or dropping that God is all-Loving to try and save himself from contradiction or the Muslim apologist must problematically acknowledge that God isn’t all-Loving while surrendering to the inescapable conclusion which follows, i.e., the Islamic God isn’t morally perfect—God's nature necessitates that He is perfect. Therefore, how can the Islamic God, whose nature necessitates moral perfection, be lovingly selective? The philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig has been documented arguing against the rationale of the Islamic concept of God,

“So the Qur’an assures us of God’s love for the God-fearing and the good-doers; but He has no love for sinners and unbelievers. Thus, in the Islamic conception, God is not all-loving. His love is partial and has to be earned. The Muslim God only loves those who first love Him. [Emphasis Mine] His love thus rises no higher than the love which Jesus said even tax-collectors and unbelievers exhibit.

Now don’t you think this is an inadequate conception of God? What would you think of a parent who said to his children, “If you measure up to my standards and do as I say, then I will love you”? Some of you have had parents like that, who didn’t love you unconditionally, and you know the emotional scars you bear as a result. As the greatest conceivable being, the most perfect being, the source of all goodness and love, God’s love must be unconditional and impartial. Therefore, the Islamic conception of God seems to me to be morally deficient. I therefore cannot rationally accept it.”[7]

The argument I have created accomplishes that God is omnibenevolent and morally perfect by virtue of His nature—qualities of God’s nature that are required of His Being. This is not a position that I have capriciously defined; rather, this is a position that both Christians and Muslims have faith in necessarily by virtue of their theology. The Catholic Encyclopedia elucidates that the philosophical validation for such an assertion branches from God’s Aseity: ‘The non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.’[8]
Francis Edwards Peters has been recorded saying that, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Mohammed and his followers worship the same God as the Jews. The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".[9] The claim Francis Edwards Peters has made with respect to the Islamic God being equal to that of the Abrahamic God in the Old and New Testament in person isn't of interest to this debate; rather, the claim that the Abrahamic God is in essence one and the same as the Abrahamic God is under question—how can the Islamic God be the same as the Christian God in essence if the Islamic God isn't all-Loving? Thus, the Qur’anic theological and philosophical justification for such a claim is precisely what we will be discussing in this debate. Thus, my argument goes as follows,


1. Allah is God.
2. Allah is, therefore, the Greatest Conceivable Being.
3. If it could be shown that Allah is not the Greatest Conceivable Being, then, Allah would not be Greatest Conceivable Being and, therefore, God.
4. Allah is not morally perfect as He does not love the evil-doers. (logical contradiction)
5. Therefore, Allah isn’t the Greatest Conceivable Being.
6. Therefore, Allah is not God.

For the God of Islam to be considered a serious contender within this pluralistic age, the God of Islam must be Perfect to be considered rationally worthy of worship. However, the God of Islam lacks one fundamental attribute Christians generally capatilise on. Namely, God’s all-Loving and ethically perfect nature. The goal of my opponent in this debate will be that of logically synthesising Allah’s unloving nature and characteristics. I have presented my first argument, therefore, anyone who chooses to accept my challenge will be required to refute and rationally bridge the presented inadequacy of the Islamic concept of God.

Good luck!


Bibliography:

[1] Gerhard Böwering, ‘God and his Attributes’, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an; John L. Esposito, Islam: ‘The Straight Path’, Oxford University Press, 1998, p.22

[2] Living Religions: An Encyclopaedia of the World’s Faiths, Mary Pat Fisher, 1997, page 338, I.B. Tauris Publishers.

[3] Qur'an 17:106

[4] John 3:16

[5] Deut 7:7-13

[6] ‘Kreeft‘, pp. 86-87

[7] William Lane Craig debates Shabir Ally. “Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?” McGill University, Quebec, Canada, February 2009.

[8] “The infinity of God”. Catholic Encyclopaedia. Newadvent.org. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

[9] Francis Edwards Peters.

baggins

Con

Thanks to Dimmitri for initiating this debate.

You have said

"Islam and Christianity share many parallels..."

I approach this debate in this spirit. Even as we explore the differences in our religion - we will remember that our faiths have much in common. And we pray to God to He may use this debate to increase our understanding of faith and to enable us to practice what we understand.

The crux of my opponents argument is, how can an all-loving merciful God punish anyone. As he says...

"Allah is not morally perfect as He does not love the evil-doers"

I will be discussing this from several angles.

PART 1:

1. The implication of justice: As per Quran, Allah is the Most Merciful and Most Benevoulent. However Allah is also the Most Just. I hope my opponent will accept that justice is a part of divine attributes of God. As a just ruler of the world, Allah is bound to reward those who try to do good. However another implication of justice is punishment for those who do evil.

2. The Most Forgiving: So what happens to God's mercy? Allah is also the Most forgiving. So if anyone who has sinned turns to Allah, Allah hastens to forgive her.

Quran 7:153 - But those who do wrong but repent thereafter and (truly) believe,- verily thy Lord is thereafter Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

3. The loving God: Allah loves those who do good. Allah loves those who sin - but turn back in repentance. Allah definitely does not like the evil-doers. Loving evil-doers - while they continue in their oppression would be unjust. However if anyone turns tentatively towards Allah - Allah hastens towards her. It is narrated in a Hadith:

Bukhari:9:93:627,
Narrated Anas:

The Prophet said, "My Lord says, 'If My slave comes nearer to me for a span, I go nearer to him for a cubit; and if he comes nearer to Me for a cubit, I go nearer to him for the span of outstretched arms; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running.' "

4. Mercy and Just anger: So does the mercy of God clash with God's just anger towards evil-doers. The answer may be yes. It is narrated in a hadith.

Bukhari:4:54:416
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "When Allah completed the creation, He wrote in His Book which is with Him on His Throne, "My Mercy overpowers My Anger."


5. Unconditional Love: My opponent argues that God should love everyone unconditionally. I have shown that loving evil-doers unconditionally would violate justice and would be an encouragement to evil. God is eager to love evil-doers if they give up their misdeeds and turn in repentance.

My opponent has further compared unconditional love to unconditional love of parents toward their child. This shows a failure to grasp the nature of evil of humanity towards God. Will parents love the child if she refuses to recognise the parents? Or if she tries to hurt and kill those children who love the parents. Of course - if a misguided child repents, we can hope that the merciful parents will be ready to forgive.

PART 2:

Quran is a book which confirms the books which came before it.

Quran 3:3 - It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

Muslims do not consider the bible in current form to be uncorrupted word of God. Still the concept of God in OT and NT is same as Quran. That is to say - reward for those who do good and for those who repent from sins and turn to faith. Punishement / Eternal destruction for those who remain adamant in sin and faithlessness.

The Old Testament: This is from the reference to old testament which you provided!

Deut 7
9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

I hope you notice, this is the same message as in the Quran. Further...

Deut 8
18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day.
19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.
20 As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.

New Testament: As per catholic church, faith in our Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) is sufficient for salvation. As per Muslims, for salvation we need to follow the teachings of Christ Jesus (Peace on Him). However this dispute is irrelevant to this debate. Even according to new testament people who refuse to believe in Jesus (Peace on Him) will face eternal destruction. If God indeed loves evil-doers as you have claimed, why are these people condemned? Following verses are also from the reference you have provided...

John 3
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

(Please note - Muslims do not accept that Jesus (Peace on Him) was 'begotten Son of God'. However that is irrelevant to this debate)

The second Thessalonians is much more explicit.

2-Thessalonians 1
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

==Note==

One points which is irrelevant to this debate but need to be mentioned. I am not sure - but it looks like you have Rashid Khalifa translation of Quran. Don't. Several verse in this translation has been deliberately distorted. However the verses you have used for this debate are OK. Still it will be better to use one of the translations in reference.

==References==

All my references are to Bible, Quran and Hadith

1. Bible: http://www.biblegateway.com... This is my favoraite website for studying bibile. The good thing is - it is having several versions. By default I have used KJV.

2. Quran: http://www.quranexplorer.com... Several translation of Quran. By default I have used Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation. Quran can also be accessed at Centre of Muslim Jewish Engagement http://www.usc.edu...

3. Hadith: Try this http://www.quranexplorer.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Dimmitri.C

Pro

As I begin responding to Baggins’ counter-arguments I would first like to personally thank him for accepting this debate. I sincerely appreciate your proclivity toward debating the issue I have presented.

I would like to begin by saying that Baggins has participated in committing the straw-man fallacy in both of his responses. For Baggins has assumed that my argument is constructed upon the question of ‘why’ and ‘how’ the Islamic God—a being who is assumed to be all-Loving—can justifiably condemn sinners, who do not repent nor come into reconciliation with Him, to hell. This is a gross distortion of the argument I have presented. For the argument I have presented is based upon the properties of the Islamic Gods being and whether or not Allah, as the Maximally Greatest and most Perfect being, is adequately capable of limiting love to those who do not behave how He wishes them to behave—how can Allah be the Highest Imaginable Being if Allah is not morally perfect? This is the point of my argument. If
God is in some particular way morally imperfect, then, God would then not be a perfect being and, therefore, not the Highest Imaginable Being possibly. Baggins has completely missed the point of my argument only to continue forth and construct a straw-man.


However, for the sake of debate I will continue to add breadth to the initial contents of my syllogism by means of articulating how the conclusion I have come to is, in principle, axiomatic and intuitively true. The argument I have presented is focused on a particular burden of referential substantiation. For example, maximal greatness entails moral perfection and moral perfection entails the attribute and property of unconditional love—in conjunction with the verses I have quoted from the Qur’an the conclusion follows inescapably. Namely, Allah is morally imperfect and, therefore, is not Highest Being Imaginable and, therefore, not God. Now if Baggins wishes to successfully refute my argument he will first need to explain how Allah can be partially loving while being considered perfect.

In reply to what Baggins has said in the latter of his response I would first like to illuminate what I meant by how the Islamic God, in essence, is universally different to that of the Christian God—there seems to be a large amount of theological confusion on Baggins side of the debate. I have stated that Islamic God isn’t comparable to the Christian God based on the nature of the Christian God’s love. Yet, Baggins has vaguely quoted a few particular verses in the Old and New Testament with the vain hope that this will someone validate his contention. Baggins has failed to unequivocally explain how and why these verses justify his contention, though. Baggins has also cut his own argument short by failing to quote the texts in full. I have shown that the Christian God is all-Loving and, therefore, incomparable to that of the Islamic God. Yet, Baggins believes that the Christian God is comparable to that of the Islamic God based on the rewards the nation of Israel received for its obedience—it needs to be noted that Baggins response epitomises the main contention of my syllogism, i.e., Allah is morally imperfect and, therefore, not God. For Allah only rewards the obedient with love.

Now, If we were to read the entire first passage of what Baggins has quoted from the Old Testament we will find that quotation sells him short. For example, what we find if we start reading from Deuteronomy 7:7; rather, than if we were to start from Deuteronomy 7:8, is a verse explaining the Gods love is unconditional; rather, than the contrary—we should be concentrating on the comparable discrepancies between Allah and Christ instead of the similarities. For the discrepancies are what differentiate the two from one another adequately.[1]

“The Lord did not prefer nor choose you because you were more in number than all the nations, for you are the least of all nations.”

This fuller quotation of the text I have supplied justifies the comparable discrepancies between the two Gods that I have pointed out; rather, than bring them comparably together. Baggins has also quoted John 3 with the vain hope of trying to show that God cannot justifiably send those who He loves to hell, but, what Baggins has failed to understand is that the declaration made within John 3 supports the claim for the divinity of Jesus Christ. This declaration furthers the theological differentation I have made. For Muslims do not believe that Jesus Christ is God while Christians do—I don't see any reason why God, as a Loving Parent, isn't capable justifiably punishi His Children for rejecting Him, as well. This objection is entirely irrelevant to the debate, though. For that question is related to whether or not God has morally sufficient reasons condemn sinners not whether or not the Islamic God can be considered the Highest Imaginable Being. Baggins has essentially agreed with my conclusion while arguing irrelevantly about issues that aren't pertinent to this debate.

Now, let’s try to bring back together the threads of this debate and see what has been said,

1) Baggins has misconstrued my initial argument by constructing a straw-man. Namely, by referring to the crux of my argument as, ‘how can an all-loving merciful God punish anyone.’ Baggins has, therefore, failed to respond appropriately to my initial argument.

2) Baggins has essentially in the latter of his response accepted the conclusion I have drawn by misquoting a Biblical verse which declares the Divinity of Jesus Christ; rather, that the opposite, while arguing fallaciously over the apparent similarities of the two Gods; rather, than concentrating on the differences which define them. Baggins has also argued irrelevantly by asking questions that are related to whether or not God has morally sufficient reasons as an all-Loving God to condemn His children—questions that are not pertinent to the discussion.

It is evident that Baggins hasn’t responded to any of my arguments appropriately nor established an argument that advances his position adequately—in fact as I have pointed out earlier, Baggins has essentially accepted the conclusion of my syllogism by affirming that Allah only loves the good-doers. This is my final response back to Baggins as there is only two rounds. So I urge the voters to vote pro based on my conduct, the arguments I have presented and my counter-responses!

Bibliography:

[1] Deut 7:7


baggins

Con

Thanks to Dimmitri for his post.

1. My opponent's case: My opponent presented a syllogism...

1. Allah is God.
2. Allah is, therefore, the Greatest Conceivable Being.
3. If it could be shown that Allah is not the Greatest Conceivable Being, then, Allah would not be Greatest Conceivable Being and, therefore, God.
4. Allah is not morally perfect as He does not love the evil-doers. (logical contradiction)
5. Therefore, Allah isn’t the Greatest Conceivable Being.
6. Therefore, Allah is not God.

I started my arguments by attacking the step 4 of syllogism. I have shown that loving evil-doers is not a requirement for moral perfection. In fact, I have shown that loving evil-doers will be against the principle of justice. Further I have also shown that the position of bible (both OT and NT) in this regard is same. I have also shown that Allah loves those evil-doers who repent - which is perfectly correct. My opponent has failed to contest any of these points.

Since his arguments constitute a syllogism, negating one point is sufficient to negate the whole argument. I have negated point 4. Consequently his complete argument is negated.

2. Love and punishment: My opponent thinks it is OK for God to condemn sinners - who do not repent - to 'eternal destruction' with 'flaming fire'. (2nd Thessalonians - 1: 9 and 10). However as per him 'God must love evil-doers' to be morally perfect!

Imagine a husband beating his wife. And he keeps beating her without stop. And he declares in between - while continuing with the beatings - that he loves her. Is this the concept of 'all-loving' about which our Christian brothers and sisters talk so much? Would my friend consider this husband to be morally perfect!

3. All-Loving God: Let me present the correct concept of 'All-loving God' (which is valid in both Christianity and Islam).

Suppose X is a big sinner. Her believing friend Y asks her to correct herself. X says that since she has committed so many sins - it is pointless for her to start believing at this stage. Y will tell her not to worry. Y will tell her that God loves X no matter how many sins she has committed . If X turns to God even now, God will welcome her like a lost child and she will be saved.

Y will never tell X to continue living in sins because an 'All-loving' God cannot punish her. Indeed, if X refuses to listen and dies in sin - she will be punished.

So when we emphasis the 'All-loving' nature of God, we are emphasising that God immediately accepts those who repent. This concept is identical in Islam and Christianity. This does not subtract anything from the moral perfection of God. Rather it is a beautiful example of God's justice - with mercy and salvation for all those who ask.

4. Some verses: Dimmitri has made a weird claim , 'Baggins has cut his own argument short by failing to quote the texts in full.' In reality I quoted more than what was required - so that everyone is able to examine the context of verses themselves.

Commenting on Deuteronomy, my opponent opines:

'Yet, Baggins believes that the Christian God is comparable to that of the Islamic God based on the rewards the nation of Israel received for its obedience'

Children of Israel are indeed blessed by God - as has been confirmed by Quran - so I am never going to contest any honor that they were given. In reality my focus was on Deut 7:10 (as I think will obvious to any unbiased reader)

Deut 7:10

And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.

God informs children of Israel (Jews) that God has chosen them for blessings not because of their numbers (or power). God has selected them so that they may love God and uphold his commandments - and if they do so they will be rewarded. In the verse I have highlighted above God warns them that if they hate God (and disobey commandments), they will be destroyed and God will repay them (take revenge).

I hope you notice - this same as the message of Quran. Incidentally the message is true for Jews today also. If only they pay a little more attention to keeping the commandments...

Talking about John 3: Dimmitri has further stated...

"what Baggins has failed to understand is that the declaration made within John 3 supports the claim for the divinity of Jesus Christ."

I had explained that divinity of Jesus (Peace on Him) is not the issue of this debate. My focus was on next verse...

John 3:18

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


If God loves everyone, why does God condemn those who do not believe in Jesus (Peace on Him) to eternal condemnation. My opponent failed to elucidate on this point.

== Conclusion ==

1. I have negated Pro's syllogism by showing that God need not love evil-doers to be morally perfect.
2. I further proved that the policy of God towards evil-doers is same as that in Christianity (in both OT and NT), i.e. love for those who repent, condemnation for those who don't.

I was tasked with defending adequacy of concept of God in Islam. I have exceeded that and upheld the concept of God in all Abraham religions by the standards of logic.

Vote CON

===========

Best of luck to Dimmitri for his future debates

Peace
Debate Round No. 2
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
I find it odd that Christians condemn the Koran for the SAME THING THEIR BIBLE SAYS!!
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
I would love to debate another Muslim on another topic.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I'm sorry. I will try to discuss this in a more civil tone...
And, as you said: All the best.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Man-is-good,

If you draw issue with the decisions I have made based on how I have voted it on your debates I suggest you message me; rather, than comment on a debate that is completely irrelevant to the issues you're discussing. I am more than happy to discuss why I voted against you not for through messages.

All the best.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I am sorry. But I do want out several points:
1. arguing that, at the basic level, that the Islamic concept of god is inadequate,is what I said "unjustiabily wrong..." I wish you could have, in some ways, have appropriated a more respectful stance.
2. I also wish that you could have refrained from voting in many of my debates with much inadqueate responses and votes that I feel are clearly mistunderstood. Unless, if you want me to vote on one of your debates with a clearly wrong or incomplete reason, then I suggest you from refraining from answering or voting in my debates. I cannot agree with your voting reason. Please refer to the comments page when I have written and see why this attack was not "unsubstaniated".
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Man-is-good,

Your name is contrary to your behaviour. I suggest you refrain from participating in committing unsubstantiated ad-hominem attacks.

All the best.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Unjustifiably intolerant of other religions
Dimmitri.C. I hate you.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Thank you for participating in the debate, Baggins! I really enjoyed sharing dialogue with you. In the future if you are ever interested in discussing an issue that pertains to Islam, then, I am more than happy to be engage you on the topic.

God bless you Baggins.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Pro quite clearly won the debate but I can only give him one point because he didn't provide any definitions which would have prevented statements like these from Con:

"I have shown that loving evil-doers is not a requirement for moral perfection. In fact, I have shown that loving evil-doers will be against the principle of justice."
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Shajahanahmed,

I have the same issue. I am not able to confirm my identity either.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Dimmitri.CbagginsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Explanation in the comment section.
Vote Placed by BruteApologia 6 years ago
BruteApologia
Dimmitri.CbagginsTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the arguments from Pro were misunderstood… I'll elaborate on this more in the comments section soon enough.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Dimmitri.CbagginsTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: refer to past voters
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Dimmitri.CbagginsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Dimmitri.C, you did not adequately show that Allah MUST be all loving, while baggins showed that it is acceptable (and required) for him not to be. Since the bulk of your argument rests on this, and you didn't support it, you lose. Also, punishing evil-doers does not equate with not-loving them. There are many ways that we can speak of God's love for those he punishes... I'm sad you didn't bring any of those up.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Dimmitri.CbagginsTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: "Baggins has, therefore, failed to respond appropriately to my initial argument. " - no, he gave a very clear response to that, and it is a standard one which is noted in debates such as WLC vs Islam Apologists, it is an argument against unconditional love itself. You presented a solid argument in the OP, but did not deal well with the rebuttal 1 pt to Con.