The Instigator
Kahvan
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

a thought to support gods existence

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,883 times Debate No: 10601
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Kahvan

Pro

I have had a thought that I will disclose briefly. But the point of this argument is for me to support the thought that I am presenting. before I disclose this thought I would like to say 2 more things. This is my first debate. And even though whoever debates against me obviously disagrees hope to keep this somewhat friendly.

Here is the thought process.
Since god created all things that must mean god created evil? Since god cannot have any part of being evil then evil does not exist. which means good does not exist which means god does not exist. Well, does cold exist? technically it does not. Heat exists and cold is merely the absence of heat. Does darkness exist? no it does not. Darkness is merely the absence of light. Does evil exist? no it does not. Evil is merely to absence of goodness. God did not create evil but evil the absence of everything good that god is and o stands for. (I know what I'm about to say is redundant) evil is simply the absence of what is good.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

The problem of evil is not necessarily solved by my opponent's assertion that evil is simply the lack of goodness. Even if God did not create evil, God still created the universe in a way that allows evil to exist. Since God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it would be well within the realm of possibility for God to simply create a universe where evil is not possible and only good is.

Since there are many more rounds, I will allow my opponent to clarify his arguments before continuing.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Kahvan

Pro

God gave us a universe to choose. Otherwise known as free agency. Having said this god has given us the opportunity to not choose good. By doing this he could not create a universe where it would be only possible for us to choose good because that would mean that he would have taken away our free agency which basically defeats our purpose here which is to choose good.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent argues that it is God's main goal to have humans choose, of their free will, between good and evil. However, this does nothing to defend his position.

I maintain that if he so chose, God could have easily created a universe in which all is good, man is perfect, and there would be absolutely no evil.

My opponent suggests that God, in order to satisfy this mindgame, has decided to create a universe where evil is rampant, just so that he can watch a fraction of his creation choose good over evil.

This is nothing more than a selfish act. God's entertainment from watching his creation choose good through massive suffering, rather than simply creating a universe that is all good to begin with, takes priority over the well-being of his creation.

There is no reason why this free agency is important. I cannot live forever, nor can I breathe underwater, fly in the air, sling web, run with super-speed, or move things with my mind. There are restrictions on free agency purely from creation. What makes the agency to choose between good and evil so important for humans?

Nothing. It only matters to God. The entertainment of an allegedly benevolent god, whose benevolence must now be called into question.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Kahvan

Pro

Kahvan forfeited this round.
Kleptin

Con

Regretfully, my opponent has forfeited the last round. My arguments extend forward. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Kahvan

Pro

I am extremely sorry for my absence but I had some rather unexpected and important issues to attend to these last few days.

"My opponent suggests that God, in order to satisfy this mindgame, has decided to create a universe where evil is rampant, just so that he can watch a fraction of his creation choose good over evil."

On this I have something to say. (obviously) We on this planet are barely a pinprick of his creation. However I would argue that he still does care about us. I like to make models. And i care about evry piece of the model I created. I take my time to make sure ever part of my model is as good as it can be. SO why would god not care about us even though we are so small? after all he did create us.

"There is no reason why this free agency is important. I cannot live forever, nor can I breathe underwater, fly in the air, sling web, run with super-speed, or move things with my mind. There are restrictions on free agency purely from creation. What makes the agency to choose between good and evil so important for humans?

Nothing. It only matters to God. The entertainment of an allegedly benevolent god, whose benevolence must now be called into question."

Why is free agency so important? It is important because it is part of the foundation of the reason why we are here. We are here to choose that is an important word, to choose between good or evil. To choose between either god or Satan. As for living forever it could be argued that we do live after death which is when we will be judged. As for the other abilities he mentioned I will be the first to say that I would love to have those and I think it would be great if we did. But I would also say that if we had those then we would all imagine even greater things and then wish for those. so the line had to be drawn somewhere and why not where it is now? It could be a lot worse.

So, the importance of agency to us and to god. It is important to us so tat we don't have to live unhappily (to say the east) forever with the devil or it is important to use so that we CAN live happily with our god.

Now think of this, we are all gods children so in essence he is our father. As our father he wants us to return to him. He wants us to be hap for eternity. But we have to choose. Him or Satan.
Kleptin

Con

I am glad my opponent made it back to submit his final round. However, since my opponent has forfeited that last round, I reserve the right to make new arguments this round.

Upon responding to my notion that God created a universe purely to watch us choose something we didn't really have to choose, purely for God's entertainment, my opponent merely states that he thinks God cares about us.

First of all, my opponent's argument is not very convincing. The majority of people on this earth sleep about 8 hours a night. Does God do the same? We cannot apply ourselves onto God, even if the activity is the same.

Second of all, this point, as well as the point of agency is irrelevant. The point I am making is that I find it hard to believe that a supreme creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omipresent, and omnibenelovent, would forgo alternative A for alternative B.

A: All his creation performs pure good by default, are eternally happy, and everyone is happy.
B: All his creation is tested with mindgames in the guise of "free will", and the only purpose of free will is to obtain true happiness in the form of choosing good.

The problem is the bottom line. The only thing you should do is choose good. My opponent speaks of a magnificent ability to choose between God and Satan, Good and Evil. If dinner serice offers you a choice of steak or poison, is that really any better than just offering you steak? There is nothing beneficial about agency or free will in this context.

Agency is completely meaningless because the choice does not represent a true choice. "Steak or poison" is not any better than just "steak". God is well within his means to simply offer us the only choice that we should take, and my opponent has not made any argument otherwise.

My opponent says that agency is important because it allows us the chance to avoid living unhappily with the devil. You know what an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should do instead? Remove the option entirely!

So yes, to get back to the resolution, my opponent's argument that God did not cause evil is irrelevant. God created a universe in which evil exists. He was not forced to do it for our sake, God *chose* to do it. He put the priority of our free will over the priority of a universe in which evil does not exist.

My opponent's arguments did not affirm the resolution that his "thought" is valid. He did not support any of his ideas. Even if God let evil exist due to wanting us to have free will, a choice between steak and poison does nothing for us.

Free will is a perverse curse in the guise of a gift. The resolution is negated.

Thank you to my opponent and the audience.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
If I may ask, Kahvan, did you derive those, making a point that his philosophical premise is flawed, from Albert Einsteins debate with his professor?
Posted by killynathan 4 years ago
killynathan
just my opinion: From my understanding of the Christian "God," God is a creator by nature; creating is what God(Whatever God is I am going to call God God) loves to do. God created this world very fairly in that he will judge a person differently depending on certain standards. For example, if a man died without ever hearing of the word, that man will be judged based on his or her moral conscious, which the Holy Spirit guides in all. Yes, there are A LOT of bad things in this world but God promises that whoever has God in him will be OK. I will just stop here. If anyone stumbles across this and wants the tell me or ask me something, feel free to message me or something. I am not a experienced debater in an away so please do not feel like I am trying to spark one.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
RFD:

Conduct: CON, since he didn't forfeit. I nearly made this a tie on the basis of him saying that he'd introduce new arguments, but his last round seemed like nothing more than a rebuttal to what PRO had already said, so I let it slide.

S/G: CON. I found more typo's in PRO's case.

Convincing Arguments: CON. PRO's argument hinged on God not necessarily having created evil, but allowing a choice. CON responded by pointing out that creating the option for the choice in the first place is bad. Furthermore, CON pointed out that there were already severe lack of choices which humans have (such as not being act beyond their physical limitations), hence mooting the importance of choice in the first place. PRO didn't really respond to this, but rather pointed out that a free agency allowed one to choose God over the devil, to which CON argued once again that one wouldn't have to make that choice in the first place if evil were not created.

For the most part, this sums up the debate. Anyways, PRO's arguments were lacking and CON exploited this.

Reliable Sources: Tie. No sources were used.
Posted by Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
I'll read and provide an RFD for this debate tomorrow if I have the time.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Was the resolution whether or not the thought supported God's existence? Because it really couldn't.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
KahvanKleptinTied
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 Logical-Master 6 years ago
Logical-Master
KahvanKleptinTied
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 InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
KahvanKleptinTied
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 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 mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
KahvanKleptinTied
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 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 spear49 6 years ago
spear49
KahvanKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Maikuru 6 years ago
Maikuru
KahvanKleptinTied
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