The Instigator
Pricetag
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

Worshiping 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  
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: 5/27/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,587 times Debate No: 4242
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (13)

 

Pricetag

Con

Here's my problem. God simply cannot be omnipotent, perfect, and loving (which Christianity and other major religions preach). Take life as a case study, all around us there are gross injustices. Cut throat business men get ahead, good guys finish last. Charity and kindness are laughed at, materialism and opulence are exalted. Millions are slaughtered in war, genocide, natural disasters; others are tortured, raped, beaten, scarred. Diseases ravage and deplete entire generations, children grow up with little or no knowledge of their parents. Is this the master plan of an omnipotent, perfect, loving God?

By all those who look to logic and reason as their guide this cannot be. Thus we are left with several options, God is loving but is not omnipotent and perfect. Then why would you worship him? That would be like worshiping your parents. They created you and love you and are superior in some ways (wisdom, experience) but they are prone to error and should perhaps be respected but to worship them would just be crazy. The next scenario is that God is omnipotent but not perfect (if he gives to injustice he can't be perfect), and he is not exactly loving (see: injustices). Again why worship him? Out of fear? Is that any way to live? To be afraid of a being that obviously is not just (in this scenario), that has lower moral standards than most of the humans on this planet, a supposedly greatly inferior species. Next scenario, God is omnipotent and perfect and therefore does not concern himself with those who are inferior to him (us). Again why worship him? If he does not care about us, why should we waste our time worshiping him? Lastly if God does not exist why worship him? I think that one is self-explanatory.

So here is my challenge to my opponent whoever you shall be. Prove to me that it makes sense, logically, to worship God.

By the way the debate will be four rounds, just to add some variety. Good luck to my opponent, may the best debater (not ideology) win.
beem0r

Pro

My opponenet offers several scenarios, and explains how under each it makes little sense to worship God.

His argument is reminiscent of the Epicurean paradox: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"

Rather than basing his scenarios on ability and will to eliminate evil, my opponent focuses on perfection, omnipotence, and lovingness. For my first argument, I will simply add another scenario, in which god has all of these traits.

I.
God could value free will and his scientific laws. If God did not allow any injustice to be done, and all there was was good, good would no longer be remarkable. It would probably lose its taste for God. God isn't some puppet master, controlling our every action, deciding how strong the wind is today or tomorrow. He allows us to do whatever we will, he allows the universe to unfold as it will, whether that end in injustice here on earth or not. Also, he has the power to make this perceived injustice quite just. Victims of injustice can be given just rewards in the afterlife as compensation, injustice-doers can be given just punishment. I now see no validity in my opponenet's arguments. There's no reason to not worship god in this case, and there's plenty of reason to do it [he made the universe, including us, etc.]

II.
Irrespecitve of whether God's character merits worship, God should be worshipped for self-gain. If God exists, he is likely to reward those who have worshipped him, or at least it is rational for a person to think this. Thus, based on this line of reasoning, God should be worshipped.

4 rouinds, ergo that'll be it for now.
Debate Round No. 1
Pricetag

Con

Thank you for taking this debate and may the best debater win.

First you said:
"God could value free will and his scientific laws. If God did not allow any injustice to be done, and all there was was good, good would no longer be remarkable. It would probably lose its taste for God."

Here it seems as though you are binding God to human perceptions. We may perceive a duality (there is no joy without pain); however, God can do anything (supposedly). He could create joy without pain and he being all mighty is not bound to this human perception himself or doesn't have to be (if you take it that he can do anything hence omnipotence).

"God isn't some puppet master, controlling our every action, deciding how strong the wind is today or tomorrow. He allows us to do whatever we will, he allows the universe to unfold as it will, whether that end in injustice here on earth or not."

The existence of free will is still questionable at best (see:http://www.debate.org...). However, assuming it does exist we are already limited in many ways. The majority of things that we do or rather are done to us are completely outside our control. Weather, environment, diseases, etc. can't be controlled by man. I look at the world and I see that things could be a lot better, there seems to be so much unnecessary suffering all around that I can't accept the fact that the creator truly has our best interest in mind (if he exists). Therefore, I couldn't in good conscience worship him. I don't think others should worship him as well.

"Victims of injustice can be given just rewards in the afterlife as compensation, injustice-doers can be given just punishment."

This is simply poor epistemology. There is no logical or empirical proof that there is an after life or that it rewards the good and damns the evil. I really don't think this can be used as an argument in this debate.

"There's no reason to not worship god in this case, and there's plenty of reason to do it [he made the universe, including us, etc.]"

If God does not have our best interest in mind (by looking at the world I can say he does not) then why should we worship him? Hitler did remarkable things for Germany, he revived their economy, he made one of the most glorious war machines man has ever seen. Would you worship him? Stalin made vast improvements in Soviet industry and fed tens of millions with his plans, would you worship him? No we would not worship these people because although they wielded great power and achieved great things they did not have the best interest of the people in mind. I would argue that God seems to work in much the same way. He is benevolent in some actions but overall (from what I can see on earth) evil has conquered much and he has done little to stop it. I can't in good conscience worship that.

"If God exists, he is likely to reward those who have worshipped him, or at least it is rational for a person to think this."

You are basing this hypothesis on what exactly? That good people fall to the back of the line while the greedy and ruthless are rewarded? What here on earth has shown that God rewards the good? If anything it is those with no values, who will do whatever it takes get ahead and everybody else suffers. By all rational and empirical evidence we see on earth that God is not just. My opponents arguments seem to be more dogmatic than logical, I implore others to take note of this.
beem0r

Pro

Re: Perceived duality

I'm not saying God couldn't create a world with no evil, only good. What I'm saying about this point is two-part:

A> He has no obligation to us to eliminate all our sufferings. He does not have to deal with all our problems for us. We should still worship him for creating us in this case.

B> Why would God then have any reason to be happy about our good works? If everyone's automatically good by nature, there's nothing remarkable about a good person. Good is only remarkable when put in contrast with evil. And a world of good would probably be boring for God to watch, and he should not place our insignificant interests above his own.

This isn't to say he doesn't love us. The sacrificies he would be making [he, an infinite being, would be less happy] FAR outweigh the insignificant troubles of the human race. Just because you love someone doesn't mean you take any and all sacrifices to help that person. For instance, if taking a bullet in the leg would help my mother save 1$ a month, I would not do it. My leg is more important than her 1$ a month. Just as God's happiness is more important than reducing our suffering.

Just because our creator isn't ONLY focused on our best interests does not mean he does not have our best interest in mind. See the 1$ a month for a shot in the leg analogy. God shouldn't take the proverbial bullet in the leg just to save us our 1$ a month.

My opponenet suggests that he could not worship our creator, simply because our creator won't do whatever it takes to eliminate all human suffering in the world. This is a ridiculous expectation my opponent places on God.

My opponent claims that "Victims of injustice can be given just rewards in the afterlife as compensation, injustice-doers can be given just punishment." should not be given weight in this debate, since I cannot prove it. However, consider that we cannot prove any arguments at all about the nature of God and the supernatural realm. I ask that we still consider this as a possiblity, not that it matters. The unlucky can remain unlucky - it is not God's burden to bear to make sure everyone sees justice. He created us! And we're ungrateful because some of our lives aren't quite as good as they could be? At least we have lives.

Comparing worshiping God to worshiping an influential leader is a faulty analogy. God CREATED us. He didn't just help out our economy. He didn't just help us goain new territory. These are insignificant, and most would say these do not merit worship. Also, consider that my opponent uses examples like Hitler and Stalin, but does not include the horrors these men commited. Even if helping an economy or military of the nation was enough to worship someone based on, the injustices these men would far outweigh that. My opponent knew this, and that's why he used such grim examples, cleverly omitting the bad details to make it seem that the analogy fits with God too. However, my opponent has shown no injustice done to man by God. Even if there was injustice done, it would be very difficult for this to outweigh the good of CREATING us.

So that's it for the first contention. It comes down to this: We should worship God because he created us. This is the most beneficial thing anything has ever done for us, or ever will. If anything merits worship, it's this.

Next, the "self-serving" argument.
I argued that it was also a good idea to worship God because God is likely to help those who worship him.

My opponenet responds against this, claiming that this argument has no basis. Let's think about ANY relationship. If a person is noce to you, you are likely to be nice to him. If a person is mean to you, or ignores yyou because you're just not important enough, you're more likely to spite them, or at least to not help them.

I am NOT arguing that everything on Earth is fair. Far from it. However, most of what happens on Earth is due to natural laws, and therefore not based on explicit decisions by God. God's not thinking "Hmm, should I ruin some village with a Tsunami today?" IT JUST HAPPENS SOMETIMES. The best advice I can give for this is QQ more nubsauce.

It's very rational to think that God would help those who worship him, at least in the afterlife. Why? Because any intelligence we DO understand would act that way, so why would we expect the opposite from God?

So let's say there's an extremely generous 90% chance that God won't help us if we worship him. That makes a 10% chance that he will. Since God not helping us isn't a loss, and God helping us is a gain, the average value is still a gain. Therefore, we should indeed expect it to help us if we worship God, and thus we should worship him for this reason as well.
Debate Round No. 2
Pricetag

Con

Pricetag forfeited this round.
beem0r

Pro

My opponent concedes. My R2 points have not been refuted. Great justice demands that you vote PRO. That is all.
Debate Round No. 3
Pricetag

Con

I apologize for having to forfeit the last round, it may have been a bad idea to start this debate right before finals week; however, my reply is as follows:

You said:

"He has no obligation to us to eliminate all our sufferings. He does not have to deal with all our problems for us. We should still worship him for creating us in this case."

But he is the one who created us and is therefore not only responsible for our well being but is also responsible for cleaning up the crap he created. He made us imperfect, he made nature, he made pain, he made evil, he made all; therefore it is his responsibility to make sure that these things are used justly. With his apparent unwillingness to do this I must say that is not logical to worship such a being.

"Why would God then have any reason to be happy about our good works? If everyone's automatically good by nature, there's nothing remarkable about a good person. Good is only remarkable when put in contrast with evil. And a world of good would probably be boring for God to watch, and he should not place our insignificant interests above his own."

A perfect being needs entertainment and happiness, really? Is that the argument you're going with? I would think that the alpha and omega wouldn't need anything. Do you not see the illogical nature of this argument?

"This isn't to say he doesn't love us. The sacrifices he would be making [he, an infinite being, would be less happy] FAR outweigh the insignificant troubles of the human race. Just because you love someone doesn't mean you take any and all sacrifices to help that person. For instance, if taking a bullet in the leg would help my mother save 1$ a month, I would not do it. My leg is more important than her 1$ a month. Just as God's happiness is more important than reducing our suffering."

Same question as the last part, but this time consider that God created everything. I don't think it would very hard for him to fix our issues, he is supposedly omnipotent.

"My opponenet suggests that he could not worship our creator, simply because our creator won't do whatever it takes to eliminate all human suffering in the world. This is a ridiculous expectation my opponent places on God."

He made this mess, it's not a ridiculous expectation, what is ridiculous is that he has made such a mess and not felt the need to fix it.

"The unlucky can remain unlucky - it is not God's burden to bear to make sure everyone sees justice. He created us! And we're ungrateful because some of our lives aren't quite as good as they could be? At least we have lives."

Again he made our lives crappy, the blame falls on his shoulders, it's not ungrateful it's demanding justice. So what he created us? I could make a kid but if I damn him to a life of squalor and pain then I am guilty of neglect. God not only created us but also the things that force us into such situations. He is even more responsible and as of yet has not even tried to fix his mistakes.

"My opponent knew this, and that's why he used such grim examples, cleverly omitting the bad details to make it seem that the analogy fits with God too. However, my opponent has shown no injustice done to man by God. Even if there was injustice done, it would be very difficult for this to outweigh the good of CREATING us."

Incorrect I didn't add the bad details because I figured it was unnecessary to do so. I am making an analogy to God because he has caused the death, the suffering, the poverty, the wars, the diseases, the horror of this world. He is the worlds biggest terrorist. My analogy stands, take it or leave it.

"It comes down to this: We should worship God because he created us. This is the most beneficial thing anything has ever done for us, or ever will. If anything merits worship, it's this."

Some peoples lives are good but I would say that the majority of lives are not. The more accurate question is, "Is it better to live in suffering and pain and misery or to be dead forever?" I'd choose death.

"However, most of what happens on Earth is due to natural laws, and therefore not based on explicit decisions by God. God's not thinking "Hmm, should I ruin some village with a Tsunami today?" IT JUST HAPPENS SOMETIMES."

It happens because of God's natural laws and he could easily stop them; however he doesn't. He seems to either be ignoring our plight or having fun watching us suffer, either way that is not someone who I would like to be my friend. He has the power to do anything while we suffer. He created the situations and events that cause our suffering, it is his duty to fix our ills, as they were caused by him.

"It's very rational to think that God would help those who worship him, at least in the afterlife. Why? Because any intelligence we DO understand would act that way, so why would we expect the opposite from God?"

On this earth he shows no justice, why should we expect it to be any different in the afterlife?

"So let's say there's an extremely generous 90% chance that God won't help us if we worship him. That makes a 10% chance that he will. Since God not helping us isn't a loss, and God helping us is a gain, the average value is still a gain. Therefore, we should indeed expect it to help us if we worship God, and thus we should worship him for this reason as well."

Refer to last question and why should we worship the cause of our pain?

Conclusion:

It is illogical to believe in a being that created evil and all the ills of the world. I respect the power but I loath the use of it. God can do anything and as history clearly shows he has damned us to a life of pain and squalor and has done nothing to stop it. He has a responsibility to us not only because we are his creation but also because he created the messes we are in, it is his mess to clean and in not doing so he loses all credibility as a loving being. See the logic of my argument, vote CON.
beem0r

Pro

My opponent constantly accuses god of "not cleaning up after his mess" or "not fixing our issues." However, let us examine these arguments. If God isn't fixing all our 'problems,' then he must not find them problematic. Just because YOU don't like what's happening doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Just because you think there are 'issues' that need fixing does not mean that God sees it the same way.

Regardless of whether God is right or wrong in not 'cleaning up this mess' [though saying God is wrong on a subjective matter is a bit illogical to begin with], HE STILL CREATED US. As I stressed last round, this is quite enough to deserve our praise and worship. MY opponent failed to make any argument countering, simply making parallel arguments about God's duty to clean up after us and nature.

Even if god made our lives completely horrible, he still MADE OUR LIVES. If that doesn't deserve worship, nothing does.

My opponent claims that he would rather not exist at all than to live in pain and suffering. This is ludicrous, and he's clearly lying to either us or himself. Our lives, no matter how poor the quality thereof, are worth everything to us.

Take the lyrics of the Three Days Grace song, Pain: "I'd rather feel pain than nothing at all." I'm sure we can all relate. Nothingness, for most people, is the worst possible outcome.

My opponent asks: "On this earth he shows no justice, why would we expect him to in the afterlife?"
As I have pointed out, God does not directly interfere with affairs here on Earth. All he did was set up some laws, make some matter, and watch. We should not hold him accountable for everything that results from this, especially since the only people being 'hurt' by his 'actions' are infinitely unimportant compared to him.

And my opponent tried to argue against my argument,

"So let's say there's an extremely generous 90% chance that God won't help us if we worship him. That makes a 10% chance that he will. Since God not helping us isn't a loss, and God helping us is a gain, the average value is still a gain. Therefore, we should indeed expect it to help us if we worship God, and thus we should worship him for this reason as well."

By saying "Refer to last question and why should we worship the cause of our pain?"

In this argument, 'why we should worship the source of our pain' is because it might help us, and we have nothing to lose. My opponent's argument failed utterly in addressing my own on this issue. This argument was not about god deserving worship, it was about it being helpful to us to worship him.

For BOTH reasons, we should worship god. God created us. That alone warrants worship. Also, worshiping him is likely to bring you in favor with him, which is a good reason on its own.

PRO for great justice.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Pricetag 8 years ago
Pricetag
I probably shouldn't have started this debate right in the middle of exam week, so I apologize for conceding round 3; however, I hope I can make up for it in the round 4.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
I typed in environment and got this debate. What gives, pricetag?
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Oops, thought it was a 3 round debate. I guess my opponent may not have conceded completely yet. Ergo, count my R3 simply as an extending of my R2 points rather than a declaration of victory.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Sorry it took so long for me to post my R2, I was at a friend's house this weekend.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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: Con lost conduct for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by obama0808 8 years ago
obama0808
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by obama0807 8 years ago
obama0807
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Obama0809 8 years ago
Obama0809
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Pricetag 8 years ago
Pricetag
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
Pricetagbeem0rTied
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