The Instigator
AaronTheGreat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
x2MuzioPlayer
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Why God is Justified in His Actions and Why Humans Remain Ignorant

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
x2MuzioPlayer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,041 times Debate No: 29947
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

AaronTheGreat

Pro

The reason humans do not understand God is because they refuse to place themselves in His position. It is obvious that humans are born babies and remain as such. Your brain does not evolve. Your brain does not change. The only thing that happens is that humans grow in size. Place yourself as the Supreme Creator or whatever name you may choose. It is only you, and a canvas of void. You may create, do, and establish whatever you please. You may lie to yourself for your own sake, but no matter what you choose to create or whatever rules or guidelines you choose to invoke, there will be many, atleast one human, that will have an issue with it or have a question of it. God has the highest burden of All. Always working. Always developing. Always viewing. Why? Because humans are incapable of being truly content or satisfied with anything. Humans claim or pretend rather, that money is everyone's desire, yet even as a quadrillionaire, a human will find something wrong with something. As yourself being a God, and with everything that is in existence, what more could you Give, keyword Give, to all humans that would completely satisfy them to the point where they would no longer ask for anything? You cannot say because in order to do so, you would have to know all humans and all human desire.
x2MuzioPlayer

Con

Pro needed to defend several things to affirm this resolution. First, his argument needed to establish God is just (to be completely justified). Second, he has to explain why God is just. Third, he must prove humans are ignorant, then explain why humans are ignorant. All I have to do to meet the burden of rejoinder as Con is refute any of the four premises of the resolution.

God is Not Just:

"God has the highest burden of All. Always working. Always developing. Always viewing."
"What more could you Give, keyword Give, to all humans that would completely satisfy them to the point where they would no longer ask for anything?"

These are the only two quotes I can vaguely conceive of being related to this premise. First, Pro defines God as able to "create, do, and establish whatever [he] pleases." If that's true, he could have created humans to not suffer and give them the humbleness to accept God's gift of life without further desires. But he didn't. That would solve all the problems humans face, and all the burden God has to make them happy. If God is truly omnipotent, he has the ability to end pain. But, he doesn't. History has proven that. Case in point: Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao. This list from the twentieth century alone adds up a body count over 100 million (approximately six million, ten million, and seventy million, respectively). The reason God is not just is because he created people, and people suffer. He knew they would suffer, and he knew they were imperfect. If he truly loved people, he would have perfected them before creating them. So, what more could he give? Well, he could create a personal heaven for each person where all their heart's desire would be fulfilled. Remember, Pro has said God is all-powerful and he could do this. Pro claims God has this heavy burden to curb and control humanity. God is all-powerful. It's like saying a mathematics major has a burden to be perfect in a math class designed for ten year olds. That's not hard, that's a big fish in a small pond.

Why is God Justified?

"It is obvious that humans are born babies and remain as such."
"You cannot say because in order to do so, you would have to know all human and all human desire."

For the sake of argument, let's say God is justified by all his actions (even the three notorious tyrants of the twentieth century). But, why is God justified? Pro never articulates why God is justified in his actions, except that we must assume they are. Just because he's all powerful and can do whatever he wants doesn't mean he's good. Even if all humans are infantile throughout life, that doesn't mean God is justified in coercing people to do what he wills, or not doing so when it would save countless amounts of lives.

Humans are Not Ignorant:

Saying humans are ignorant in understanding God is insulting. Pro is defending that God is just, that he knows God is justified in his actions, yet he claims all people are blind to God. Either we're ignorant in the face of God, and we can't prove his actions are justified, therefore refuting the resolution, or we do have knowledge of God's actions, in which case, the entire premise that we are ignorant is conceded and the resolution is refuted. This resolution is particularly poor because it embeds, at its core, an argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). To sum it up, Pro is saying "we can't prove God is unjust, therefore he must be just." It's a ridiculous claim and, under its own weight, collapses.

Why are Humans Ignorant?

"The reason humans do not understand God is because they refuse to place themselves in His position."

That's it? All we have to do is have the will to place ourselves in his shoes? Pro makes a challenge, saying "Place yourself as the Supreme Creator or whatever name you may choose. It is only you, and a canvas of void." I will take up Pro's offer and position myself as God. Let's see who wins. First, I'll start at the beginning. As God, I will not create humans with the desire to have more (whether it's money, food, possessions, etc.). I will create a personal heaven for each person and they will live happy forever. There will be no children dying of cancer, no wars, no starvation, and no illness. Let's play out my Universe. Stalin didn't kill millions of people. Neither did Chairman Mao. Hitler didn't either. Nobody's dying. Nobody's suffering. People are living in peace. Pro says "humans claim or pretent rather, that money is everyone's desire, yet even as a quadrillionaire, a human will find something wrong with something." First, this is unsupported. Let's be realistic. I can refute this by saying I, personally, do not take money as my main desire. It's a means to an end, not the end itself.j Second, as God, I eliminate money and give every human being the basics for a healthy life. Problem solved. Pro also says, "no matter what you choose to create or whatever rules or guidelines you choose to invoke, there will be many, at least on human, that will have an issue with it or have a question of it." Nope. I'm God. I created humans to never have an issue with me. They grasp the finiteness of life and take pleasure in it. They also follow my moral code, whatever that may be (remember, as God, I'm able to "create, do, and establish" whatever suits me).

If we tally up the score, I saved millions of lives, ended hunger, children no longer die of cancer, and people are satisfied with life. God, on the other hand, let millions die in needless wars, allows famine, also allows children to die a painful death, and created humans to never be satisfied. God was not justified in his actions because there were far superior alternatives to choose from (even not creating humans, then at least he breaks even on the satisfaction/suffering scale).

Conclusion:

Pro's arguments for why God's actions are justified and why people are ignorant are completely refuted and contradictory. The argument from ignorance shouldn't be an acceptable reason for claiming God is just, let alone his actions being justifiable. Aside from Pro having no case, the resolution itself is contradictory when trying to affirm. Either we're ignorant and therefore can't prove the resolution to be true, or we have knowledge of God in understanding why he is justifiable in his actions, and the second half of the resolution is refuted. Lastly, God has killed millions of innocent lives, or at least let the people he created kill each other painfully. I, on the other hand, in my theoretical Universe, saved all those lives and let them live in peace for all eternity. If God is omnipotent, this could be the only justifiable action since, as Pro frames God's will as trying to give as much as he can "to the point where [people] would no longer ask for anything." Since God did not create a Universe like that, it's safe to say he either doesn't exist (which, in and of itself refutes the resolution) or he's in some way, shape or form, malevolent. In that case, he has not fulfilled Pro's burden placed on God to try and give people satisfying lives. For these reasons I urge everyone to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
AaronTheGreatx2MuzioPlayerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: +1 Wiploc's RFD and vote. Con did a good job responding, too.
Vote Placed by Luggs 4 years ago
Luggs
AaronTheGreatx2MuzioPlayerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not make any convincing arguments, and Con didn't insult we humans as ignorant.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
AaronTheGreatx2MuzioPlayerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof, but he wandered around aimlessly, without trying to prove anything.