The Instigator
PaddyCuinne
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
charles15
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

The abrahamic god exists.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,062 times Debate No: 8779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

PaddyCuinne

Con

The standard definition of the abrahamic god is

1) All Powerful
2) All Knowing
3) All good

he must also be a conscious being

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is impossible for this god to exist because He would not allow evil to exist in any form. Negative emotion exists as well as suffering poverty and starvation.

It is also impossible for anything that is all knowing and All powerful to exists because

all knowing means he knows what he will do next

all powerful means he can change what he can do next. This is obviously impossible
charles15

Pro

Hey welcome to the Debate.org I hope me and you have an interesting debate!
_________________________________________
PART 1
>> "It is impossible for this god to exist because He would not allow evil to exist in any form. Negative emotion exists as well as suffering poverty and starvation."<<

This statement in itself does not prove the non-existence of God all this proves is that my opponent does not understand the first couple chapters in the Bible; which all talk about mans creation and also how man 'cursed himself.' Im sure the majority of every person on this website has heard the story of how Adam was tempted by Satin and therefore ate the forbidden fruit, after-which his wife, Eve, ate some as well. Now, After those things had been done, God punished them for there sins; and from that point on, Sin entered in the world which produced, "negative emotion, suffering, poverty and starvation." The point here, is that it was man's choice to sin and God then punished Adam for his disobedience. And this is the reason why God 'allows' evil things to happen in the world, because of the curse that man put upon himself.

My opponent may ask : "If God is all powerful then why did he not stop Adam from eating the forbidden fruit?"

My answer and every other theologian you ask will not know the answer, this is one of the many mysteries known to man in the Bible. There is also the mystery of how can God be three persons but one God, though we as humans cant understand these phenomenons it does not mean that it is impossible for God to exist. I guess we can ask God when we get to heaven. But that question would not matter anyways, because it has nothing to do with the existence of God it only has to do with what my opponent thinks of God's choices.
----
>>"It is also impossible for anything that is all knowing and All powerful to exists because

all knowing means he knows what he will do next

all powerful means he can change what he can do next. This is obviously impossible"<<

I believe my opponent thinks of God to much as a human. God does not and can not change what he will do the next day his decisions and actions are all moving forward on one consistent line. Its almost as if my opponent believes that God can look into a crystal ball and see what he will do the next day, this is not the case God has decreed what he will do the next day: AND NOT based off of what has happened this day. For instance, its not as if God sees little Johnny not get any Birthday presents and then based off the event God gives Johnny a thousand dollars the next day because he felt sorry for Johnny. No, his mind has already been made up since forever ago (literally) that Johnny would not get any presents and that Johnny would get a thousand bucks the next day.

My opponents opening argument, so far has not come anywhere near to proving that God does not exist. My opponents opening argument only stated things that he didn't understand within theology, and since my opponent did not understand these things, such as, why God would allow sin in the world; he therefore says "Well there is no God."
This is no where near satisfactory for what is required in order to prove the non-existence of God.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Although God aloud Adam to sin in the garden God also came down to earth and died for our sins. Jesus lived a perfect life and yet he died a horrific death on the cross so that anyone who repents of there sins could be forgiven and be cleansed through his blood. God loves us very much, and we must be humble like he was, in the sense that he came down from heaven and was born in a manger and then lived on earth with humans.

Wisdom starts with fearing the Lord.

Good Luck, and I look forward to your response =]
Charles Colucci
Debate Round No. 1
PaddyCuinne

Con

Thank you for accepting the challenge.

You say here that Satan tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. I have a few problems with this.

1) God is all powerful and therefore must allow Satan to exist. Allowing the incarnation of pure evil to exist is obviously contradictory to gods status as all good.

2) god is all knowing and therefore knew Adam would take the fruit. (if he didn't know he is not the abrahamic god.)

3) God put the tree there

Another point that I'm sure will be mentioned is that god gave man free will. This simply cannot be true if you believe in the abrahamic god again because he is all knowing. This means he knows every action we will take. Because god is also in control of everything any evil that does exist must be controlled by him and allowed to exist. This means he is not all good and therefore not the abrahamic god.

I Understand the definition of god completely and i also understand the definition of evil free will etc. This knowledge allows me (using logic) to disprove the abrahamic version of god.

I ask my opponent if he believes evil or pain exists in any way?

Because if so an all good god cannot exist.

There were "sins" before Jesus, while he lived and after he died. What effect did Jesus dying have.

I must also mention that the second part of my opponents argument does not go anywhere towards proving the truth of the existence of god (something he tried to imply that i did.)

I am enjoy this debate and hope to hear back from you very soon
charles15

Pro

Thanks for the rebuttal.

PART 1 (Rebuttal)
>>>"God is all powerful and therefore must allow Satan to exist. Allowing the incarnation of pure evil to exist is obviously contradictory to gods status as all good."<<<

Sin is evil in God's eyes, yes that is true, and God does control all the evil that happens in this world, it would be impossible for evil to exist without God or anything evil to happen without God. So in that sense God does control all the sin in the world and has even predestined each and every individual sin to happen. At the same time we have free will and every sin that occurs is a human being's fault NOT GOD'S even though God predestined all sins to happen. Now this is ,in fact, a mysterious phenomenon, no theologian has ever been able to completely solve this mystery. The Bible says that pharaoh hardened his heart (pharaoh's choice to sin) BUT, the bible also says that God hardened pharaoh's heart. Now there are two things going on here that one might say "contradict each other" that is why this is a mystery. Now that I have explained the issue of free will vs. God's sovereignty I believe that we should start debating about the actual existence God! Again, just because you don't understand the theological mysteries that are in the Bible doesn't mean God doesn't exist. And you have yet to prove this. I mean, what you're debating is a totally different issue compared to the physical existence of God. I suggest you take a different route in your debate. For further details on the whole issue of free will you could talk to a pastor, because I basically just outlined the major details of the mystery. Same thing with the devil when he made the decision to sin against God.

>>"I ask my opponent if he believes evil or pain exists in any way?
Because if so an all good god cannot exist."<<

Yes pain exists, for instance, God says not to murder but murders happen every day. This doesn't mean that God is evil for this since all sin is purely man's fault. Thus God is still all good. And the ONLY reason why God allows sin is because of the curse that Adam gave to all his children. Why did God allow for Adam to sin in the first place? I don't know, but its irrelevant to the resolution at hand here! Just because my opponent disagrees with God's way in handling things doesn't mean God does not exist.
_______________________________________________

PART 2

The reasons why God exist are simple...

1) Without God morality is up for grabs and means nothing. Lets look at a certain situation. If one person says stealing is wrong but another person says it is right then how can one decide what is right. All we have to judge off are the two people who have poller opposite ideas. Now, since morals are transcendent there most be one right answer. So without a higher being (God) to appeal to, then morals can not be accounted for.

2) No scientist can prove that God does not exist. Plus, there are many flaws in evolution, such as the modern fossil record which does not meet the requirements for DARWINISTIC EVOLUTION.

3) There were over 500 witnesses to see Jesus being raised from the dead.

4) Without God how did anything come into creation in the first place, the laws of physics say that something 'can not' come out of nothing. So there must have been God to create the universe.

I look forward to your response,
Charles15
Debate Round No. 2
PaddyCuinne

Con

"Sin is evil in God's eyes, yes that is true, and God does control all the evil that happens in this world, it would be impossible for evil to exist without God or anything evil to happen without God. So in that sense God does control all the sin in the world and has even predestined each and every individual sin to happen."

Here you say that sin is evil and that god allows it - therefore saying that god allows evil to exist. This means he cannot be all good and so is not the abrahamic god.

"At the same time we have free will and every sin that occurs is a human being's fault NOT GOD'S even though God predestined all sins to happen."

God is all knowing and therefore he knows every action we will take as soon as he creates us. This means (essentially) he made the choice for us. If we sin or do any evil he created us to do so and so he made us sin. This again means he cannot be all good and so not the abrahamic god.

"Now that I have explained the issue of free will vs. God's sovereignty I believe that we should start debating about the actual existence God!"

If sin exists and free will does not the abrahamic god does not exist so i am arguing the existence of god. You insist that i do not understand the subject but it seems to me that you do not understand my arguements. This is evident when you say "I mean, what you're debating is a totally different issue compared to the physical existence of God."

"God says not to murder but murders happen every day. This doesn't mean that God is evil for this since all sin is purely man's fault."

I will reiterate this point because it is very important. God knows all and can control all. If he does not have control over mans actions then he cannot control all and so is not the abrahamic god. This means free will is not compatible with the abrahamic god. If you believe in a similar god that is not all powerful then it is not the abrahamic one and that is a separate debate.

1) This argument (as any logical person can see) has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of god. Even if it would be BETTER if he did exist that does not mean he DOES exist. But even though this has nothing to do with the debate (again something you accused me of) i will refute it.

Morality: there are many effective moral systems such as utilitarianism that provide fully objective morals. And -as a personal note- I was once a christian and followed the ten commandments to a tee. Currently i am a utilitarian and i am much more moral now than i ever was as a religious believer.

2) A philosopher can prove that the idea of god is logically flawed and so can disprove his existence. For example you cannot disprove the idea that there is a pink elephant somewhere in the universe but you can disprove the idea that there is a square circle invisible pink elephant (because it cannot exist.) This is exactly what i am doing with the abrahamic god because -as i have explained- he is self contradictory. The fossil record is not complete YET. but we have a huge portion of it.

3) Even if this was true it does not prove the existence of a self contradictory abrahamic god. Is it not possible they saw someone that looked like Jesus? There are so many possible explanations and to assume resurrection is simple illogical.

4) matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed but they can be converted and shaped by forces such as gravity. The big bang was the expansion of this matter and energy(nothing was created). Matter and energy have always existed and require no creator.

Even if your point was true this does not prove the abrahamic god which you must remember is your goal.

Thank you for your response and i look forward to continuing the debate.

I also ask that we bring up no new arguments in the last round as the opponent would not have a chance to refute them.

Thank you.
charles15

Pro

charles15 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
And he was tempted by "Satin"? Don't get me wrong satin can be tempting, but I don't think that was what Genesis was talking about.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Did anyone notice the fact that Pro got the Adam and Eve story wrong?
Posted by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
t-BoogerPicks, I guess nothing gets by you (except, of course, my attempts at humor). And, well, frankly I do see myself as better than everyone else. As far as my ethical beliefs go, arrogance is not a sin, and honesty is a virtue. As for these Judeo-Christian values that you allege the Founders of the United States subscribed to (even though Thomas Jefferson proclaimed himself an epicurean, and Ben Franklin described lighthouses as more useful than churches), humility is a virtue. Therefore, I believe it's your obligation not to be arrogant, not mine.

As for your ad hominem attack on Gandhi, I agree: WTF? As I recall you said something to the effect of "Didn't that douchebag say to the Brits to appease the Germans in World War II?" That, my friend, is an ad hominem attack. I say "fallacies & bad influence" because (a) ad hominem is a fallacy, and (b) fallacies are a bad influence. That's not an ad hominem against you personally, only against what you said, which means Gandhi's point stands: there is a deep gulf between what the pastor preaches and what the congregation does after Sunday service.

But I do find it interesting how you think you can get away with saying that "most [Christians] are good". Have you met them all personally? It's interesting because all we hear about on the news are the bad ones. But I suppose these are just a few bad apples. They say only God can end the world and global warming isn't a problem; they preach family values and then violate Commandment Seven; they deny civil rights based on God's law. Never mind the fact that a supposedly "Christian nation", let's be honest, isn't exactly what Jesus Christ had in mind.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Brock_Meyer, you wrote "...and that if commies like me don't like it that I should just 'leave'..." So you can see how one might think that you are stating that you are a communist. Not all evangelicals are conservative; actually, 1/3 of evangelicals are liberal. The US was founded by predominantly Christian men and with Judeochristian values. They were not blinded by their religion and made sure to keep it out of the states affairs and vice versa.

I don't know what you mean by idealogical collective...anyways it's quite simple: I said you are either an atheist or a theist...you can also be agnostic but, whatever. Also, I think most people also recognize that they are individuals too, so I guess you fall under that category as well. Sorry if I offended you, but I only called you an atheist (in many words), which is what you said you were. I also added that there is nothing wrong with that so long as you didn't think you were better than anyone else but I guess you proved MY point there.

Lastly, ad hominem attack on Gandhi...WTF? I said the guy was an idealist I didn't call him names or speak untruths about him. This is the comments section not the debate section. "Fallacies & bad influence," now that's an ad hominem attack if I ever saw one. Show & prove those points; just because you disagree with someone doesn't give you the right to insult and slander him. As far as Gandhi goes: you brought up Gandhi, not I. Anyways, are most Christians good Christians? Yes, of course they are. Are there many that are not? Yes, but most are good.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
I thing agnosticism is the only logical choice...

If you're aren't willing to at least admit that you MAY be wrong on a subject that no one can FOR SURE know anything about... It's seems pretty injudicious, illogical, and insane..
Posted by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
T-bone, I never said I was a communist. It's merely the case that idiot evangelical conservatives often demonize atheists as communists, which is an attitude from the 1950s. It is part of that tritely possessive attitude of "love it or get out", as if the United States was founded by Christian men. Thanks for proving my point, though.

To the question of "which side I choose", I prefer to be evaluated as an individual and not as part of a ideological collective. As much as Christians like to identify themselves as part of a massive herd of sheep, I identify myself as an individual. Few people know why (or even agree with my reasons) I am an atheist.

Lastly, don't ad hominem attack Gandhi. This is a website focused on helping people learn how to debate properly, and your fallacies are sure to be a bad influence. The issue is not whether Gandhi is too idealistic; rather, the issue is whether Christians really have enough respect for Jesus Christ's teachings about humility and compassion to really honor his name.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Brock_Meyer, you don't have to be an Evangelical to believe that we are 1 nation under God. And much less to believe that you either love it or leave it, especially if you are a commie. Why? Because you cannot love this country if you are a communist. Why? Because communist beliefs are diametrically opposed to the foundations of this country. How can you love the country and be a communist then? Not possible without being dishonest. You may love what you THINK is this country, but you don't love the country IS truly.

In the end, ALL knowledge originates from belief/faith. You can choose to have nothing at this origin or God...it's up to you. If you choose God, you are in good company, as many of the greats have made the same choice. If you do not, then you are also in good company, as many of the greats have also made this choice. Whichever side you choose, do not pretend to be the superior.

As far as Christians & Christ: of course most people will never be able to live 100% as Jesus did but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try. Your views on this are extremely idealistic which doesn't shock me if you are a communist as you say you are. Gandhi was also a great man, but way too idealistic. How many people live as Gandhi preached? Not many. During WWII, Gandhi urged the British not fight back against the Germans...not the most pragmatic approach, huh?
Posted by Karmarouge 7 years ago
Karmarouge
When people argue the existence of god they are only arguing the
existence and the non-existence of each others faith or anti-faith; rendering the situation moot. We should all note that, It is impossible to prove the absence of another persons faith. Further, we cannot argue about a -things'- non-existence, as this is, at it's very core, an oxymoron.
Therefore an Abrahamic God {can} exist. This existence is only in the minds of those who choose to believe in Her,Him, it..etc... However, It is still arguably an existence.
Posted by Brock_Meyer 7 years ago
Brock_Meyer
I appreciate your sentiments GodSands, that if I don't want to go, I shouldn't have to. But that's not an attitude many evangelicals share. According to them, this (the United States) is a nation under God, and that if commies like me don't like it that I should just "leave".

As for wisdom, I don't understand how wisdom = God. Philosophy is, etymologically, "the love of wisdom", and is certainly not "the love of God". I also find it odd that the only means of pursuing wisdom is through the church, which is nothing more than a middleman between the worshiper and the worshiped.

I appreciate your gesture of "giving" me the knowledge that God exists so that I can now begin my pursuit of wisdom. But the epistemic problem is that, frankly, I don't trust you. What accounts for your certainty, and what makes the information you are giving me knowledge, instead of mere belief?

Charles15, you couldn't be more wrong. There was only one true Christian, and he died on the Cross. And I love the philosophy of Jesus Christ. However, there is no church on Earth that preaches humility. Gandhi: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time."
Posted by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
Brock_Meyer, I was looking at your profile and it seems that you would be smart enough to know that church services are much different then what you described. Is there something about God that offends you? It sounds like you hate christians or at least church.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Clockwork 7 years ago
Clockwork
PaddyCuinnecharles15Tied
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 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 charles15 7 years ago
charles15
PaddyCuinnecharles15Tied
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 Unsuspected-Saint 7 years ago
Unsuspected-Saint
PaddyCuinnecharles15Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05