The Instigator
Brandonmaciel333
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
whatledge
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

Where Was God During The Holocaust

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 5/25/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,933 times Debate No: 12144
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (9)
Votes (14)

 

Brandonmaciel333

Pro

The Title Says It All
Nothing Needs To Be Added
whatledge

Con

As my opponent has not presented which God, I will use the christian god Yahweh for my stance.
By reading my opponents.... argument, to say the most. I have concluded that he believes the Holocaust was an act of evil. Now if we agree that there is evil, then we also agree that there must be something that is good. When we have good and evil in this world, we reach the conclusion that there is a moral law that seperates the two. Once there is a moral law, there is a moral law giver that instilled the moral law. The moral law giver must be God, who is unchanging, infinite, and consistent. In the case that the moral law giver is society, or an individual, the moral law becomes relative or something that evolves and changes. It becomes inconsistent and the moral law becomes impossible. And hence if there is no god, there is no moral law, which ultimately means there is no good or evil.
So where was god during the holocaust?
That is a question that I do not know the answer for, since I am not god. But my infinitely limited and imperfect answer is that God (Yahweh), was a god that gave his only son so that humanity may be forgiven for all its transgression, including the holocaust. We imperfect beings with our infinitely limited wisdom cannot question god, who is perfect. How could we imperfect beings claim what PERFECTION should be? No matter what the reason was that god allows any evil in this world to happen, do you think you know better than god?
Of course, my answers and questions are based sorely on my faith in the bible, but when the question is regarding GOD, I believe that my faith becomes a valid asset to my arguement.

Conclusion:
Now I realized I haven't tackled the main question stated, but I assumed that my opponent was labeling Holocaust as evil while trying to descredit god as nonexistant or false through the event. On a philosophical note, good and evil cannot exist without god. If morality was something relative differing from individuals then the holocaust can be both good or evil, it is up to the individual to decide. If god did not exist the holocaust becomes neutral, neither good nor bad, but because god exists we can ponder why this evil happened, along with every other suffering and pain that is prominent all over the world. So where was god? Who knows, but he must have surely been somewhere.
Debate Round No. 1
Brandonmaciel333

Pro

yes the holocaust was an act of evil (everyone knows right from wrong no matter who you are)
yes there is good and evil but it dose not mean that this god was the moral law giver
you don't even know if god is real even if you do believe
"That is a question that I do not know the answer for"
why you trying to prove when ur sources require "faith"
the bible is not a reliable source
whatledge

Con

-yes the holocaust was an act of evil (everyone knows right from wrong no matter who you are)
I beg to differ. Who decides what is right from wrong? It is evident that Hitler and his Nazi anti-semtist agenda believed that they were RIGHT. And who are you to say they are wrong? You say everyone "knows" right from wrong, but who decides what is right and what is wrong? Right and wrong becomes impossible unless you have a firm BELIEF that something is right and that something is also wrong. You KNOW only what you BELIEVE to be true, what you BELIEVE does not apply to everyone, it certainly did not apply to Hitler, who certainly was outspoken for doing "good" for Germany through trying to execute a genocide of a whole ethnicity.

-yes there is good and evil but it dose not mean that this god was the moral law giver
I agree with you that the act was evil. And I raise a single point that if there is EVIL, then there is also GOOD. Then there must be something that SEPERATES good from evil. Hence there is a MORAL LAW that seperates good and evil. Once there is a moral law GIVER, we come to the controversial question: "Who is the moral law giver?"
I would list 3 possibilties for the moral law giver for the sake of simplicity.
1. YOU are the moral law giver. The moral law is relative, in that everyone has their own view of what is good and what is evil. So if Hitler, as an individual, believed that the Holocaust was good, then the Holocaust is good. What YOU think becomes irrelevent because the moral law applies to us all individually and is relative. So therefore the Moral Law cannot exist because it is not a LAW if it applies to YOU, but not Hitler. And once the Moral Law ceases to exist nothing seperates good from evil. And your initial stance becomes invalid because nothing is evil or good.
2. Society is the moral law giver. We as a society decide what is good and what is bad. I will use a simple analogy to illustrate my point. A few decades ago, Abortion and Gay Marriage was ILLEGAL. We now see that Abortion is legal, and Gay Marriage slowly working its way to becoming legal. The Moral Law has changed. It has evolved. Something that CHANGES cannot be a LAW. Hence, society cannot be the Moral Law Giver. And if there is no Moral Law giver there is no moral law, and nothing seperates good from evil.
3. God is the moral law giver. He decides what is good and what is evil. His Moral Laws do not change over time. They were already given to us through Holy Scriptures, or for example the ten commandments. The ten commandments do not change. They do not compromise or evolve. They are what they are. Hence God's Moral Law is unchanging. Only God out of the three candidates is valid.

-you don't even know if god is real even if you do believe
"That is a question that I do not know the answer for"
why you trying to prove when ur sources require "faith"
the bible is not a reliable source

You are absolutely right, I do not KNOW if god is real. But that is the same as ANYONE in this world. How can you know if George Washington existed? Do you merely believe what historians say about him? What makes a history book so credible? Unless you MEET George Washington you cannot know if he really existed. You BELIEVE that he existed through the evidence given. That is the same concept and logic I use with the bible. I believe that the man Jesus Christ existed because there are Roman Documents that state that he was indeed crucified on the cross. This historical document is no less credible than the textbooks on George Washington. We really KNOW very very little. We believe many many things. And we find somethings more believable than others, which is absolutely fine. I believe that the bible is a reliable source, but that is besides the point. The point is that you are questioning the existence of a god because of an evil act, but evil and good cannot exist without a god (read the 3 candidates above again), unless you are your own god, which so many people are inclined to think.

Through faith you believe what you think you know. We believe what scientists and historians tell us. We do not KNOW if they are telling the truth, we give them credibility, and through faith we choose to believe them, and we also choose to doubt them. I think if you think about this deeply enough, I believe you will understand how much faith rules our lives, truth, and even our own existence.
Debate Round No. 2
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
RFD
B/A - TIE
CONDUCT - CON - Con actually formulated arguments whereas pro seemed to kind of waste time with nominal answers.
S&G - CON - Pro made numerous capitalization errors and I saw no egregious erros on Con's part.
ARGS - CON - Con at least had arguments.
Sources - TIE - Neither side used any sources, at least they were not cited within the debate, at it does not appear as though they were cited in the comments section either.
Posted by Brandonmaciel333 7 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
dam i lost this
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
lol, wut? Why on earth would relative morality entail that everyone had the same moral nature?
Posted by whatledge 7 years ago
whatledge
@mattrodstrom
if your nature provides your morality, then you are saying that morality is relatie. What is in your nature to perceive as evil, may be good to another person with a different nature. You argument will only work if everyone in this world had the exact same nature, which is not the case.
Posted by mattrodstrom 7 years ago
mattrodstrom
" Once there is a moral law, there is a moral law giver that instilled the moral law. "

OR...

There is your nature which provides you with morality.... and it doesn't reach beyond Humanity.
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
Although I am an athiest, the con side of the argument was better, thus if I could vote I would vote more towards that side. Brandon, work on expanding your arguments and using correct grammer and spelling and you'll do much better.
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
tvellalott
Although I am an athiest, the con side of the argument was better, thus if I could vote I would vote more towards that side. Brandon, work on expanding your arguments and using correct grammer and spelling and you'll do much better.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Ha ha!
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I would have answered very politely that he was too drunk to intervene, and that he was therefore at home, sleeping it off. By the end of the war, his hangover would have been mild enough to grant him the capacity to spur the allies to total victory.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Brendan21 7 years ago
Brendan21
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kalinabelle 7 years ago
Kalinabelle
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sportnak 7 years ago
Sportnak
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by MsScribbles 7 years ago
MsScribbles
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 erinelizabeth 7 years ago
erinelizabeth
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
Brandonmaciel333whatledgeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41