The Instigator
CiceroThomas
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

There is no logical paradox or contradiction in the Christian conception of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Tatarize
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,962 times Debate No: 7013
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (8)

 

CiceroThomas

Pro

Thank you in advance to anyone who accepts this debate.

Philosophers, theologians, scientists and many others have debated the topic of the christian conception of God and apparent logical contradictions contain therein for more than a millenium.

My proposition in this debate is that there is no apparent paradox or contradiction in the christian conception of God that cannot be logically resolved in such a way that allows for His existence. I am not attempting to prove undeniably that God as understood by Christianity DOES exist just that He logically CAN.
Tatarize

Con

There are several logical paradoxes in the concept of the Christian God.

1) Problem of evil.

There is evil in the world.
If God is all powerful, then God could defeat evil.
If God is all good, then God would want to defeat evil.
If God is all powerful and all good, then there is no evil.
However, since there is evil we have a contradiction. Either God cannot be all powerful or cannot be all good.

2) Argument from unbelief.

There is unbelief in the world.
If God is all powerful, then God could prove his existence.
If God wants us to believe, then we should believe.
If the punishment for unbelief is great and God doesn't want us punished, then we should believe.
There should be no reasonable unbelief in a world with an all powerful God who wants us to believe.
There is unbelief in the world.
God either cannot prove he exists or wants us to go to hell for not believing.

3) Omnipotence paradox.

God is all powerful.
An all-powerful being can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.
Such a rock could not be lifted by an all-powerful being.

------

Ultimately, there are apologetics to apply to these arguments perhaps God grants us free will and therefore evil exists. However some things such as natural disasters are not the product of free will. Perhaps God is testing our faith by trying to trick us with dinosaur bones or good reasons to accept the Bible is false, why bother if he knows whether we will succeed or not. Perhaps God isn't really all powerful enough to contract himself.

However, these are simply ways of trying to avoid the arguments, defuse them, or suppose a different concept of God. That may placate the believer who struggles with them but it certainly doesn't suggest they don't exist. They clearly do exist even if twisted logic can be used to try to rip them away from the mind.

And these are just the philosophical arguments, there are also many other Biblical arguments which don't make any reasonable sense.

The central story of the Bible is that God creates perfection and God's perfection screw it up (because clearly they weren't perfect) because some talking serpent has people eat from a magic tree. They get kicked out of perfection to protect God's other magic tree, then go off and live, human populations flourish until God kills them all with a flood except for Noah's family. Then God finally gets around to taking human form in order to make a blood sacrifice of Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive His creation for eating His tree. So he goes through a long story and finally winds up getting killed by the Jews nailed to a cross saying "Myself, Myself, Why have I forsaken Myself."

There are plenty of logical paradoxes and contradictions in the Christian conception of God. Even if you suppose you have fantastic apologetics for anything I offer, you're still just apologizing for the paradoxes and contradictions clearly evident.
Debate Round No. 1
CiceroThomas

Pro

There is nothing 'apologetic' about counterarguments to these so-called paradoxes, the paradoxes themselves are flawed. All three that you have presented are based on an incomplete version of the Christian conception of God. They take attributes that are useful for the argument in isolation and ignore a more complete image of God's abilities and character.

1) Problem of Evil
- God is all powerful and can defeat evil (True)
- God is all good and does want to defeat evil (True)
- God is all power and all good therefore there is no evil (False)

That third one is where the paradox starts to falter. As you correctly anticipated 'free will' is the basis of my answer to this. Whether one interprets Genesis literally or not the conclusion is roughly the same: human beings have free will to choose good or evil. Although God's omnipotence makes Him technically capable of interfering in every aspect of the world and weeding out evil his character (unyielding honesty) prevents Him from doing so out of respect for our own free will.

'Natural evil' is barely even a question in this case... to apply a moral value to a reaction of the natural environment that happens to have negative consequences for humans is in itself a little flawed but nevertheless a similar argument as above applies to it. Humanity chose dominion over their own actions and world in place of adhering to a perfect path in a perfect environment. For human free will to function God restrains His interference in the natural world. If we could not be harmed by nature then we would act very differently than we do now. Our choices would be influenced by God's direct interference. Freedom from God meant freedom from God... including being free from His uninvited interference.

Concerning the destruction of evil: it WILL happen and is clearly stated so in the Book of Revelation. Ultimately God's goal for us is to see us reconciled to Him so that we will be restored to the eternal, flawless nature that was intended but He will not interfere with our God-given right to choose for ourselves.

2) Argument from Unbelief
- There is unbelief in the world (True)
- If God is all powerful, then God could prove His existence (True)
- If God wants us to believe then we should believe (True)
- If the punishment for unbelief is great and God doesn't want us punished then we should believe (True)
- There should be no reasonable unbelief in a world with an all powerful God who wants us to believe (False)

This argument relies on the proposition that not only CAN God prove His existence but that He WILL... in blatant violation of our right to free will. We humans are rational, reasoning beings and when confronted with incontrovertible evidence (and consider that an all-powerful God could present evidence that would be IMPOSSIBLE to deny even to the most fervent doubter if it were His intent to prove His existence) we would be forced to accept it. Even those who outwardly continued to claim disbelief could not truly deny God's existence.

3) Omnipotence Paradox
- God is all powerful (True)
- An all-powerful being can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it (True)

As with most apparent paradoxes (which are logical on their own) it does not apply to a complete Christian conception of God. God is the Triune God: Three persons in one godhood. We know that God according to the Christian conception can create a rock so heavy He could not lift because He has done it before. God created the world and everything in it. Jesus Christ, God the Son, came to Earth in human flesh with all the physical shortcomings and limitations that we are all live our lives with. There were a great many rocks that Jesus could not lift... i doubt there was only one. Simultaneously, however, He COULD lift them... God the Father could have at anytime lifted the rock yet it would still have been outside of Jesus' (who was still God) physical capability to do so. God IN HIS ENTIRETY is omnipotent but that does not exclude that the three distinct persons that make up that godhood have narrower roles and abilities.

-----

As with your other arguments your account of the story of the Bible is incomplete. That in itself is not unreasonable given the limitations of the size of each response compared to the size of the Bible but it has led you to an incorrect reading. I'll point out your more glaring errors:

1) God created a perfect universe part of which was a flawless, innocent creature possessing free will. Creature with free will chooses to strike out on its own, free from God's rule and interference. In doing so they cut themselves of from their source of life and risked a permanent separation. God honoured the decision of the free will He gave his creations and withdrew most of His interference from the universe. Due to His enduring love for them, however, he put plans into motion that would pay the just debt of their willful separation.

2) God the Son (one of three persons of that single Godhood) came to Earth, lived a blameless life, acting in service to others and denying His right to power (as both God the Son and his lineage from David) before experiencing death and enduring hell to pay the debt. In justice God would not let sin go unpunished but in love and mercy He was willing to take that punishment on Himself.

3) That God should forsake a person would mean hell. God had forsaken His right to rule, His right to vengeance and indeed Himself in permitting a person of His godhood to endure Hell despite leading a blameless life in total conciliation with God.

I have not, do not and will not apologize for these arguments. They are consistent with scripture, with each other and with Christian doctrine. The Problem of Evil, Argument from Unbelief and Omnipotence Paradox have here been resolutely found wanting in their purpose to reveal a logical inconsistency within the Christian notion of God. As far as this debate is concerned there remains no logical inconsistency in the Christian concept of God.

I thank Tatarize for taking up this debate and look forward to his next argument.
Tatarize

Con

Apologetics is largely a task of making up things. Why is it that Superman can fly faster than the speed of light to travel back in time but doesn't simply do that all the time when he messes up? Well clearly, it's very hard to do or might damage the spacetime continuum or something of the sort. Much of what my opponent offers falls into the categories of Middle Knowledge. All the premises follow, but the conclusion doesn't because I've just made up factoid X. These do not actually sort out any logical paradoxes or contradictions within the story but serve to try and confuse the issue or violate one of the premises in a stealth fashion.

--

God cannot be all-powerful and all-good if evil exists. Claiming those are true and then inserting a middle knowledge idea of "free will" doesn't actually salvage anything. Using it as a theodicy (a proposed solution to the problem of evil) raises a number of flags and problems.

First, it says that God isn't all powerful if he can't violate free will or isn't all good if he won't prevent evil. So whether God doesn't violate free will because he can't (not all-powerful) or because he won't (not all good) it still finds a contradiction ready and waiting for it.

The only other alternative is that Free Will is somehow a greater good, that it's okay if a rapist rapes and murders a ten year old girl because God couldn't or wouldn't violate the free will of the rapist. What about the free will of the girl? Isn't it possible to respect the rapists choice while still preventing the innocent from being harmed? If God had the ability to stop it and didn't, isn't that the definition of evil?

A necessity to accept the theodicy is that all evil in the world must be a result of free will. But, a good number of terrible things happen without any free will. A quarter million people were killed during the Boxing Day Tsunami. It swept in ripping children from the arms of their mothers to wash back ashore a few days later partly rotten, bloated, and white. What free will existed there? Why was God prevented from helping in that instance? Couldn't he have stealthily prevented the tsunami altogether?

What kind of "respect" for the free acts of rapists, can be maintained and yet allow one to be considered good? Is there some reason that his "unyielding honesty" should really force him to stand by and allow the Nazi gas chambers to keep functioning?

What about the Bible stories where God does interfere? God repeatedly hardens the pharaoh's heart after he freely chose to let Moses' people go. He respects free will enough to violate it to get Pharaoh a few more plagues and kill his men but not enough to stop the holocaust? What of all the walking around and talking God does in the Bible?

Further, we could still choose. Even if God just told all the gas chamber attendants "You know you're going to go to hell for that." They would still have a choice. However, odds are good that things would be far better off.

Letting evil abide until the end of days doesn't fix anything. If we could be flawless and heavenly then there is a better state we could be in. We could simply have souls created in heaven and bypass the entire Earth and Hell things. If God knows the future and knows who is going to do good and who would do evil, why not make the good souls and just put them in Heaven?

Invoking free will simply muddles up the waters, it doesn't solve the problem or make the paradoxes not paradoxes.

---

Likewise with regard to the Argument from Unbelief, there is no violations in free will to give people good reasons to believe. There is every reason to suppose that God is nothing more than a bronze-aged myth thought up by tribal goat-sacrificers who didn't understand anything about the world and made up myths to comfort and entertain them... just like every other people in the world. Why do we find fantastically good evidence for dinosaurs some 64 million years ago and an entire planetary history when the Bible says the universe was created about 2000 years after the Sumerians first brewed beer? Why should unbelief be completely reasonable?

There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is round. However the Flat Earth Society still exists. There's unquestionably good evidence that evolution took place and still polls show that about half of all Americans have doubts. Why not simply give good evidence and allow people to reasonably make the choice to save their souls? The Christian conception of God is not consistent with a world that, in every way it can, attests to that conception being astoundingly shortsighted. There is certainly some middle-ground between absolutely every reason to doubt and evidence that magically compels belief. As each improvement in the quality of evidence would save countless souls from the torture and pain of hell, we should live in a world with reasonable evidence with room for doubt. Rather we live in a world with no evidence where unbelief not only exists but is the logical conclusion of the evidence.

Let us not forget the other problems with free will, in that if violated in totality, everybody would believe and nobody would be damned to hell for all eternity. Every soul and person who goes to hell is a person who could have been spared an eternity of torment and pain if God had helped. If Free Will is, as you are suggesting, a ticket to evil in the world and an eternity of hell... then it isn't a gift to mankind but rather the product of evil itself.

---

The Godhead doesn't save you from the omnipotence paradox. Could God the Father create a rock so heavy that God the Father couldn't lift it? It doesn't matter which part of the Godhead does what. One part of the paradox is violated either the rock wasn't created to be too heavy to lift or the rock wasn't lifted. If God the father created the rock so that God the father couldn't lift it, then that alone violates the paradox.

---

With regard to the Biblical problems, why does God's enduring love not simply not fault them in the first place? If God would happily drown the world in a giant global flood, why not kill a few Nazis in their cribs? Couldn't you create a better world, still with free will but with considerably less evil? Does heaven have free will? If not, is Earth better than heaven? If so, then isn't heaven better than Earth?

Justice to whom? God wouldn't let sin go unpunished? It is justice to punish somebody else for the crimes of another? Is it justice to fault the descendants of some original sinners, who themselves have done nothing wrong.

--

I thank my opponent for his previous arguments, and though I do not agree with them, they do go great distances to explain his conception of God. Given his understanding, I now need to add a few contradictions. Free will is generally a doctrine accepted by most of the protestant faiths with the exception of Calvinism and a few other groups. There isn't any actual scriptural support for the idea and it was largely invented whole-cloth by Augustine. So I couldn't include these initially.

---

Free Will Paradox.
-- If God knows what you are going to do before you do it then you never really had a choice anyway. God knew before he created Adam and Eve that they would choose to eat the fruit. They are faulted for being created in full knowledge of their actions. If you can make a choice between choosing A or B, but God knows you will choose A. You cannot actually have free will in the matter.

Free Will Omnipotence.
-- God cannot violate free will. God therefore cannot do everything. God is unable to go against his nature and violate free will therefore he cannot be omnipotent.

Evil Omnipotence.
-- God cannot do evil. There is an inherent contradiction between being all good and being all powerful. The nature of being omnibenevolent prevents one from properly doing the things and malevolent things in the world.
Debate Round No. 2
CiceroThomas

Pro

Thus far your arguments have depended upon an incomplete version of the Christian conception of God and displays a lack of knowledge of scripture. The very wording of the so-called paradoxes you present reveal them to be incomplete: they refer to omnipotence, omniscience, good, evil yet do not even acknowledge God as a being with a character, personality and independent agency and so neither you nor these so-called paradoxes bother to explore alternative explanations. Now that isn't entirely a flaw in the paradoxes themselves since many of them were invented in an attempt refute the existence of A God rather than refuting the existence of a specific conception of God... this debate, however, is about a specific conception of God, the Christian conception of God, and whether or not that conception of God is inconsistent or logically paradoxical. I have and will continue to demonstrate that any apparent paradox is a misunderstanding that results from an incomplete representation of the subject.

I'll respond in order of the topics that seem to be in dispute.

FREE WILL

You claim that "there isn't any actual scriptural support for the idea [of Free Will] and it was largely invented whole-cloth by Augustine". That is false and demonstrates again that you lack a complete grasp of the subject.

Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."

This is a clear example of humans being presented with a choice, something not possible for a being without free will, and this section is not alone in its obvious implication of free will. The exact phrase "free will" is not mentioned but many parts of scripture quite explicitly support the doctrine that humans have choices and decisions to make.

God CAN violate free will but He DOESN'T. God is omnipotent, yes, and omniscient but also has personality, motives and free will of His own. You touched on a 'Greater Good'... well indeed there is one. God wishes to see humanity reconciled to Him and raised to eternal life and salvation in a perfect world the bliss of which will outweigh the harshest of human sufferings. In this world humanity reigns but this world and our time in it are temporary and God is concerned with the permanent. He permits humanity the self-determination it insists upon and offers a way back to those who choose Him again. It is what happens to us on the other side of death that God is chiefly interested in.

In your analogy about a rape you again demonstrate incomplete knowledge of scripture by suggesting that God should "respect the rapist's choice while still preventing the innocent from being harmed". You do not realize that according to Christian doctrine there ARE NO innocents. That we all have sinned and that one sin is not better or worse than another. It is erroneous to view sins in the same way that one would view crimes in a human society. A sin is an act of separation from God and there are not degrees of that separation. The willful sin of every human has brought them to live in a world dominated by humanity's rather than God's will. The Bible very clearly draws a line between the world that humans dominate and the world that God is preparing for those who choose it.

Romans 3:23
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

Matthew 22:21
"... Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

James 1:12-13
"Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him. Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God," for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."

God DID help, he offered a way out of death. The proposition that God should have violated our free will so that we could all live in eternal bliss is a childish abdication of personal responsibility. Free will ENABLED us to fall it did not cause us to do so and it also ENABLES us to be reconciled to God but does not force us to be.

"Couldn't you create a better world, still with free will but with considerably less evil? Does heaven have free will?"

All evil is caused by humanity's sin. Both direct action in violation of His will and a day-to-day life of denying His existence and power led to the same non-interference. Those who desire His interference in their fate and are willing to be reconciled to Him receive as much. This is one role of prayer.

James 1:6-8
"But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."

NATURAL EVIL
"A good number of terrible things happen without any free will. A quarter million people were killed during the Boxing Day Tsunami."

Why was that 'evil' and not simply tragic? It isn't logical to attach a moral value judgement to an event of the natural environment with disastrous consequences. Even so free will still applies: if God interfered in the natural environment in such a way that we would not ever be harmed by it our actions would be very different. God was not 'prevented' (in the sense of being unable) he did not because of humanity's dominion over this world. That means we get all the apparent perks of running our own show but humanity was also warned that do so would mean death.

Genesis 2:17
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

JUSTICE
"It is justice to punish somebody else for the crimes of another? Is it justice to fault the descendants of some original sinners, who themselves have done nothing wrong."

Re Romans 3:23. We are not faulted for the acts of our ancestors whether you interpret Genesis literally or not we are faulted for our own sins against God. God is not simply one thing or another. Being just, loving, merciful and truthful He took the price of our defiance onto Himself by enduring hell in our place.

OMNIPOTENCE
To amend the paradox to "If God the Father created the rock so that God the Father couldn't lift it" makes the question itself flawed. God the Father is outside of our universe, our time, our space and our laws. The principles of logic and physics upon which this universe is dependent do not confine God the Father... the only time when He has been confined by our universe's laws of logic was when He was Jesus Christ. To even ask the question is flawed logic and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the subject. The solution to the paradox is that its premises, based in human rationality, do not apply to God.

---

Free Will & Omnipotence

The fact that someone else knows the result of your actions doesn't change whether or not you had a choice. Have you never known someone well enough that you could predict their actions in a given situation accurately? Having knowledge of what someone will do DOES NOT mean that they have no choice but to do it. Moreover knowing that someone will make mistakes does not obligate a good being to stop them in an act of selfish domination... it obligates a good being to warn them.

Evil & Omnipotence

God DOES NOT do evil. To assume that means He is incapable of doing evil is illogical and refuted in the temptation of Jesus. Satan would not bother to tempt a being who was incapable of falling into evil. It is entirely consistent for a being to be technically capable of evil but not be evil.
Tatarize

Con

The existence of paradoxes and contradictions with Christian conceptions of God aren't negated by middle knowledge. Introducing free will serves to either violate God's ability or God's goodness. Condemning all man-kind for being evil and bringing evils on themselves, likewise doesn't make the objections go away. Introducing loopholes in logic that allow God to be paradoxical and contradictory and say that that's okay doesn't fix the problem. Other than trying to bury the problems in theology, he did nothing to truly resolve them. He waved his hand and raised a dozen other problems in other places by supposing some reason that this previous bit didn't make any sense.

The larger problem with his argument however, must be a simple burden of proof objection. What if I provided nothing? What if I said didn't bother to introduce the contradictions or paradoxes I introduced? What if I sat back and just said "Go!" -- Is my failure to provide a logical paradox or contradiction proof that "There is no logical paradox or contradiction?"

I have shown several real paradoxes and contradictions, but even if I had not, did he satisfy his burden? Could there possibly exist some contradiction or paradox that I failed to point out? He never actually sought to defend his claim, simply to do some basic handwaving at my offering. He supposing that an all-good God stands around as billions suffer and untold numbers of good people are slated to burn forever and ever in hell for following their reasonable minds to their reasonable conclusions.

Let us suppose that there may be a contradiction in an all-good all-powerful being allowing Gandhi to burn forever in Hell. Has pro established that there can be no contradiction in that? Has he done anything other than theological hand-waving and trying to bury the problems?

Do we have any good reason to suppose that there are no logical paradox or contradiction in the Christian conception of God? The assumption is not on his side, he should actually have shown that the entire Christian conception of God is logically coherent.

But, moving right along..
--

"Either God would remove evil out of this world, and cannot; or He can, and will not; or lastly, He has both the power and the will. If He has the will, and not the power, this shows weakness, which is contrary to the nature of God. If He has the power and not the will, it is malignity, and this is no less contrary to His nature. If He is neither able nor willing, He is both impotent and malignant, and consequently cannot be God. If He is both willing and able (which alone is constant to the nature of God), whence comes evil, or why does He not prevent it?" - Epicurus

The argument itself is sound and one of the "nature of God" needs to change. My opponent has decided that God can prevent evil but does not want to, and thus defaults to malignity. The contradiction applies, and simply needs to choose one of the various offramps. Either God isn't Good, or God isn't powerful, or evil doesn't really exist.

--

Ultimately he's isn't ever solving the problems, just outsourcing them in sophistry. "God wishes to see humanity reconciled to Him and raised to eternal life and salvation in a perfect world the bliss of which will outweigh the harshest of human sufferings."

So why not simply reconcile humanity? If you're all powerful and you want something done... BAM! Done! Outsourcing the problem doesn't solve it. Is God unable to reconcile humanity without harsh human suffering?

--

And while I admire his ability to blame rape victims for the evil sins of existing, and thus deserving rape. It doesn't seem to actually remedy the problem. He ultimately come back around to the idea that free will is the greater good. That it is better to have free will than to not have evil. Because God can't give people free will and prevent evil because he's not all powerful? Because God can't allow free will and still allow people to carry out evil acts that they chose to do? Because God must allow people to burn forever in hell rather than simply not bother with Heaven or Earth and just skip the whole process? The God described isn't good he's simple Pro-Free-Will, which seems like a long winded way of saying that he never does anything to stop anything ever. -- The contradiction isn't solved, it's simply slightly buried.

He remains consistent in blaming humanity for everything bad that happens to them. So when a girl is raped it's good to know the doctrines of Christianity are there ready to say that she got raped because she is evil. Certainly the Jews must have been very sin-filled and vile to warrant the holocaust, especially the children. -- He has clearly contradicted the "Goodness of God" with this theodicy. All the resolutions of the Argument from Evil are just as bad as the original problem.

--

Then given the omnipotence paradox he invents a God loophole that says that "God doesn't have to ascribe to logic or contradiction". That God can have logical paradoxes and logical contradictions, and it doesn't faze Him. Well, in that case, more power to him, but he just lost the argument.

Why not simply apply this God loophole to everything? God can go around asking for genocide from followers and still be Good because God is immune to logic and contradictions don't apply! God isn't subject to human logic or judgment, sure if he were he'd be a completely horrendous individual petty, vindictive, bloodthirsty, and standing around while good people suffer (sorry Evil people who brought it on themselves) and does nothing. This response effectively resigns the argument.

---

Free will and Omniscience.

>>Have you never known someone well enough that you could predict their actions in a given situation accurately? Having knowledge of what someone will do DOES NOT mean that they have no choice but to do it.

Yes, but I didn't have absolute knowledge. Sometimes people surprise you, but they would never surprise an all-knowing being even when they surprise themselves. This response to the argument is nothing more than hand waving.

--

Thank you for having read the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
I love how my name has "winning" under it rather than won. Silly timed debates.
Posted by CiceroThomas 8 years ago
CiceroThomas
congratulations con
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Classic arguments well argued by Con. Pro largely evaded rather than responding. Why does God allow small children to die of painful diseases? The connection to free will is never explained by Pro in any logical way.

Pro stepped a little over the line on conduct with personal accusations of Con's "failure to understand." Minor, but best to say "Con's argument does not reflect ..."
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Scratch that, Con won Spelling
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
BEFORE/AFTER DEBATE Con: I am a Unorthadox Quaker, so my beliefs are different from tyhat of most Christians

CONDUCT Tie: Both sides were equally courteous

SPELLING/GRAMMAR Tie: Not many mistakes

CONVINCING ARGUMENTS Con: Con simply had extremely convincing arguments that Pro failed to negate

SOURCES Tie: Neither side offered a source
Posted by CiceroThomas 8 years ago
CiceroThomas
"God doesn't have to ascribe to logic or contradiction"

i never actually said that. if you want to quote me... quote something i actually wrote. your entire last argument has nothing to do with refuting or responding to mine and nothing to do with the Christian conception of God... as with every other point you raised it shows that you do not understand the subject.
Posted by CiceroThomas 8 years ago
CiceroThomas
for any who are wondering... a few things popped up out of the blue in the last day or so. i absolutely will post my arguments for this debate but there's just been an unforeseen delay.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I say they are positive only to distinguish them from the more common types of debating about God - his lack of evidence. The onus is usually on the Christian to provide whatever "evidence" they can.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
I don't regard them as positive arguments. They are simply pointing out the contradictory nature of the definition. They aren't positive arguments against God. They are simply arguments that that particular version of theism is flawed and that those characteristics result in a contradiction.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
AOE and ANB are, in my opinion, one of the strongest "positive" arguments against God.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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 ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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 resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
CiceroThomasTatarizeTied
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