The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
CuriousSeeker
Con (against)

god has no moral compass

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 333 times Debate No: 116371
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Taken from "Dossier of Reason"
Here is underlying proof from the immoral bible, that god, in which no one can even prove exists, has no moral compass.
1. God Created everything (Prov 26:10, Col 1:16) including evil. Isa 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lam 3:38
2. God is unquestionably just and righteous in all of his works Duet 32:4, Dan 9:14
3. God should be feared because he can send you to hell Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5, Heb 10:31
4. God causes blindness, deafness and dumbness Ex 4:11
5. God causes suffering so that his great works can be demonstrated John 9:1-9, 11:4, Isa 30:20, Ezek 38:16
6. God Kills Deut 32:29, 1 Sam 2:6
7. God causes rain, tempest, drought and hurricanes Job 5:10, 37:2-12, Isa 30:30, 42:15, Matt 5:45
8. God sends lying spirits and deceives prophets before destroying them 1 Kings 22:19-23, 2 Thess 2:11, Ezek 14:9, Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Tit 1:2
9. God hates violence of mankind so he violently destroys all life Gen 6:11-13, Ezek 8:17
10. God rejoices in the destruction of sinners Deut 28:63, Ps 37:13, Pr 1:26
11. God sends evil spirits 1 Sam 16:14, 18:10, 19:9, Judge 9:23
12. God tempts and can lead mankind into temptation Gen 22:1, Matt 6:13
13. God tried to kill moses Ex 4:24
14. God assists manslaughter Ex 21:13
15. God stirs up jealousy Isa 42:13, Deut 32:21
16. God Sends false prophets to test people Deut 13:1-3
17. God gives false laws, commandments and statutes. Ezek 20:25-26
18. Sends delusions and lies so that people might be damned 2 Thess 2:11-12, Isa 6:9-12, Mk 4:12
19. Lists punishments, including cannibalism, he will carry out to disobedient Lev 26, Deut 28
20. Sends locusts and pests to eat crops Joel 2:25
21. Becomes angry when Saul doesn"t kill enough 1 Sam 15:18-19, 28:18
22. Ends a famine after seven innocent men are hanged 2 Sam 21 (v14)
23. God is Jealous Ex 20:5, Num 25:11, Deut 5:9, Josh 24:19
24. Repents Gen 6:6, Ex 32:14, 1 Sam 15:11, 35, 2 Sam 24:16, Jonah 3:10, Jer 18:10, Joel 2:13
25. God demands blood as a sacrifice Lev 3:2, 4:6-7, Gen 8:21, Lev 1:9, Ezek 20:40-41
26. God"s sword is covered with blood and greasy fat Isa 34:6
27. God belches fire and smoke in anger Ps 18:7-8, 15
28. God has commanded drunkeness Jer 25:27
29. God rewards fools and transgressors Prov 26:10
30. Kills Uzzah for trying to steady the ark 1 Chron 13:10, 2 Sam 6:7
31. Allows David to choose the punishment inflicted on the people for David"s sin 2 Sam 24:11-13
32. Tricks David into a census and then vents his anger on the people, killing 70,000 2 Sam 24:1
33. Hardens pharaoh"s heart so that he can punish him and his people and commands moses to threaten pharaoh with murder Ex 4:21-23, 7:3, 13, 10:1
34. God hardens people"s hearts Rom 9:18
35. Considers the handicap, illegitimate children and their descendants, or men with injured genitalia inferior and unworthy to enter the congregation . Lev 21:17-23, Deut 23:1-2
36. God uses his chosen people to punish other nations Ps 149:5-9
37. God punishes many for the sins of one, the innocent are punished for the guilty, especially their guilty ancestors Deut 28:41; Gen 9:24-25, 20:7,18, Ex 12:29, 20:5, 34:7, Num 16, Deut 5:9, 23:2, 28:32, 41, Josh 7:8-26, 22:20, 2 Kings 5:27, Isa 14:21, Ezek 23:25, 46-47, Mal 1:2-4, Jer 31:29-30, Hos 2:4-5, Rom 5:14, also Adam's Fall generally in NT)
38. God will punish the men by causing their wives to be ravished and their children to be "dashed to pieces" (Isa 13:16, 18, Zech 14:2, Nah 3:10)
39. God's punishment of entire nations or cities by destroying every living thing naturally includes the destruction of babies and unborn embryos (e.g. Isa 34, the Flood, the plagues on Egypt, Sodom; Jesus also: Matt 11:20-24).
40. God will cause adultery as punishment (Deut 28:30).
41. God will cause drunkenness as punishment (Jer 13:12-13).
42. God will "spread dung upon your faces" as punishment (Mal 2:3).
43. God punishes one third of the human race (the descendents of Ham) because one man's nakedness was seen by his son (Gen 9:24-25).
44. God punishes Pharaoh and Abimelech because of Abraham's lie about Sarah. Abraham is not punished for lying (Gen 12:14-20, 20:18).
45. God turns Lot's wife into salt for looking back (Gen 19:26).
46. God kills for Onan for "spilling his seed on the ground" (Gen 38:10).
47. God endorses Judah condemning Tamar to death by burning for harlotry (Gen 38:24).
48. God kills all of Egypt's firstborn, including animals, to punish Pharaoh (Ex 12:29).
49. God will punish an animal with death if it grazes on the mountain while he is there (Ex 19:12)
50. Miriam is made a leper temporarily for speaking against Moses (Num 12:1-10), but Aaron, who was equally guilty, is not punished.
51. God punishes the Israelites for complaining about their food, first by sending fire to kill them (Num 11:1), then by sending poisonous snakes to kill many (Num 21:4-6).
52. God punishes the Israelites with plague for eating the quails he sent (Num 11:33).
53. God kills Korah and 250 others, with their families, because they questioned Moses' authority (Num 16:1-40).
54. God kills another 14,700 by plague, for murmuring against the punishment of Korah (Num 16:41-50).
55. Nadab and Abihu are burnt to death for offering "strange fire" (Lev 10:1-5).
56. Achan and his children and animals are burned to death for Achan's crime of keeping booty (Josh 7:8-26).
57. God smites a whole city with hemorrhoids as punishment for taking the ark (1 Sam 5:6-9).
58. God kills 50,000 men of Beth-shemesh because they looked into the Ark (1 Sam 6:19).
59. God kills Nabal for refusing to be extorted by David and gives David Nabal's wife (1 Sam 25:38).
60. God kills David's child in order to punish David (2 Sam 12:15-18).
61. God will punish David by giving his wives to another to enjoy in public view (2 Sam 12:11-12).
62. God does not punish Solomon for Solomon's sin, but punishes Solomon's son (1 Kings 11:9-12).
63. God kills a prophet for believing a lie told by another prophet of God (1 Kings 13).
64. God causes a lion to kill a man because he refused to strike a prophet when commanded (1 Kings 20:35-36).
65. God causes 42 children to be killed by bears because they tease Elisha about his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24).
66. God caused cannibalism as a punishment (Lam 4:9-11, 2 Kings 6:26-29).
67. God will punish Samaria by allowing their infants to be dashed to pieces and their pregnant women to be ripped up (Hos 13:16).
68. God strikes a sorcerer with blindness for trying to dissuade a
potential convert (Acts 13:6-12).
69. God causes infant sacrifice (Ezek 20:26).
70. God is a "man of war" and causes war between people for his glory. (Ex 15:3 Deut 3:22 2 Sam 22:35, Ps 18:34, 144:1 Ps 24:8 Ezek 38:16, 23)

RULES:
Prove that god is moral and refute the verses above (refute at least 10 of the verses above and prove that there is god's love within them)

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
CuriousSeeker

Con

Having done a quick perusal of your initial arguments, I believe that your contention is slightly flawed. For one, The Christian god seems to be an Aristotelian "unmoved mover." That is, something that initiated all that exists, or at least, physically exists in our reality. I will explain why this is an important detail to consider in this debate.

First thing, let me show you the reasons I believe God to be an "unmoved mover" by using scriptures found in the Bible.

There are a few passages/verses in the Bible that support this idea:

Isaiah 66:2,
"For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

Nehemiah 9:6
"You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

1 Colossians 1:15-17 states, The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Now, for the sake of succinctness, let us pass over the nature/identity of the character of Christ for the moment and just look at the general message that the passage in Colossians is attempting to convey. God, through an individual, created everything that is possible for humans to observe and even the things that human's can't observe. Nothing exists that is not the work of God.

Now, of course, you could argue that certain abstract notions could exist apart from God--think mathematics, and lofty concepts such as love, and morality--but bringing that into the game allows me to make the argument that these "abstract notions" are, in fact, not independent, but, inherent aspects of God. I mean, I would think even materialist believe in the "existence" of numbers in an abstract way; or will concede that logic is a notion that seems to "universally "work" in making inferences about reality. Again, I am not saying that the fact that 1+1=2 and that "The Principle of Identity[1] somehow "proves" that math and logic are transcendent objects or characteristics of God--or that God is even a factor in this; but if logic's application seem to work universally in our lives, and mathematics has been able to reach far and wide in its ability to accurately describe and model the physical properties of the world, then it certainly lends some "credence" to the idea that there may be not only transcendent objects (i.e. stuff that exist apart from the tangible and physical), that can interact in certain ways with the physical world, but also an origin to those transcendent object. If you were able to somehow "prove" that transcendent objects exist, then it may not be too hard to then ask the question, what or who was the cause of these abstract transcendent objects--if they even require a cause.

If there are transcendent objects, then we would need to ask the question, are these objects un-caused or do they also have a cause? If they are indeed caused, then we would need to figure out the origin of that cause. And if that origin also had a cause, then we"d need to uncover the cause behind that cause too. Eventually, this would lead to an infinite regression. We would have a long chain of causes that keep going back infinitely. Aristotle believed that eventually there needed to be a "spark-plug" that caused everything to be.

Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica about Aristotle's beliefs.

"...He then argues that there cannot be an infinite series of moved movers. If it is true that when A is in motion there must be some B that moves A, then if B is itself in motion there must be some C moving B, and so on. This series cannot go on forever, and so it must come to a halt in some X that is a cause of motion but does not move itself" "" ""an unmoved mover[2)

Saint Thomas Aquinas, an influential Italian friar, tried to utilize some of Aristotle's premise, to answer exactly what the "Unmoved Mover" was. The result has been used as an apologetic argument, but it shows some reasons why past Christian thinkers viewed God as this "Unmoved Mover"

This is Aquinas' " Argument from Motion"

1.Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2. move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3.Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in
5.one respect and potential in another).
6.Therefore nothing can move itself.
7.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
8.The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
9.Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.[3]

Why do I bring this all up? Well, you seem to maintain that God somehow does not possess a moral compass. My friend, what standard are you even pointing to when you cast this judgement? For this debate to even work it is required for you to assume first that we share the same preferences when it comes to morality. I may believe that God's actions are moral because they align with my idea of what is right or wrong. While you may say that God is immoral because His actions contradict what you believe to be morally right. So, I must presume that you believe that morality is something that is absolute and transcendent. Now if this is what you believe, your argument will run into some potholes going down this pathway. I will explain why.

If morality is an aspect of God, then it figures that one can form the basis of morality from His very existence since morality is in His nature. Therefore, any sort of morality that human beings derive unsourced from God would only be what humans think "ought to be," rather than what actually "ought to be." Which leads to the conclusion that any action that God commits is inherently righteous since the ultimate standard of morality would be synonymous with God. It is impossible to call what is by nature, good, bad and still be making a truth statement. Humans would be unable to say that God is bad, due to the fact that God would be axiomatically good.

Even if you believed that morality was separate from God, it is difficult to deduce that God is immoral.

Take this verse in Genesis:

Genesis 2:16

And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;

The only way that we could violate God"s commands and still be morally right, would be if God was not in unison with what is moral; but you would first need to prove that the standard of morality is not contained within the nature of God; This would involve determining what morality actually is. Now, humans can theorize about morality--and have done so for ages, but human methods can only go so far before they reach their limit. Morality, fundamentally does not deal with the question, "what is" but with "what ought to be." Evaluating this issue, definitely, requires an "authority" to point to what is right and what is wrong.
If morality is separated from God, that places God as the only intermediary (if you believe the Bible to be the word of God), between us and the true nature of morality. This ultimately makes God the only true "authority" since He is the only one who can ascertain the nature of morality. To show God as being immoral, you"d have to either prove that God is not the ultimate authority on Morality, or that He is a liar--both of which are difficult.

Now, I do want to address some of the verses/passages that you gathered from the Bible. I will address one of your points for right now and then I will finish the rest, as well as give my rebuttal to your arguments in my next post.

(1) God Created everything (Prov 26:10, Col 1:16) including evil. Isa 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lam 3:38"

I understand that it is very difficult for us to grasp this concept. God can allow evil to occur because He knows the rich goodness that will result because of it. While God may be the cause of evil, the Bible is explicit that He is not the doer of the evil( Num. 23:19, Ps. 92:15, Jas 1:13)

You mentioned this i your 5th point. Suffering can bring about great good.

The verse that is used most often in support of this notion is Romans 8:28,

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose."

If evil was not ordained by God, then God would not be sovereign over His creation(not biblical supported). Disasters can never happen unless God specifically allows them to happen.

The reason it is hard to see God working in this way and still see Him as good is because humans lack an example which we can comprehend God's point of view. Humans are not fitting examples. Humans do not posses the foresight that God has. The reason that God is the only one who can allow evil to happen and not be incriminated, is because His intent is good and the result will end up being good. Humans are unable to make such guarantees when they commit or allow horrendous acts because they can not know the full, far-reaching implication of their own actions on others as God can for His.

Thank you for starting this debate. My best wishes to you, and I"m eager to see your rebuttal!

Sources
Sources
[1] https://www.britannica.com...
[2]https://www.britannica.com...
[3]http://web.mnstate.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

"Having done a quick perusal of your initial arguments," And I will do the same for you and will only do a flyby of what you have stated. "I believe that your contention is slightly flawed." Well 1. I didn"t state it. The Dossier of Reason did. 2. It shows god"s complete immorality. 3. Since you only have done a "quick perusal" how can you judge correctly? 4. "For one, The Christian god seems to be"" Well you nor anyone can prove that the christian god even exists. 5. much less "an Aristotelian "unmoved mover."" Is completely false.

"I believe" Well at least you had the nerve to say that. Because that"s not a 100% proven then. "God to be an "unmoved mover" by using scriptures found in the Bible." Well that"s totally false.
This is taken from the secular web" https://infidels.org...
GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Your god "moves" all---the---time. But then again, you cannot even prove that this god of "yours" even exists.

"There are a few passages/verses in the Bible that support this idea:" But if you prove that, then that would be a contradiction. And there are a good thousand or more contradictions and inconsistencies in your bible proving it to be unreadable.

Now I have no idea as to what version of the bible you are reading, but it is a clear abomination without question.

Isaiah 45:7 is a perfect example
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
The KJV reads "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Notice that one word "evil" that the version you read backs off from and I"d be willing to bet that when it comes to the nitty gritty and or the really sick and perverted parts, especially from what your god did in your bible, that the version you read, it backs away from those sick and disgusting verses making the words in them a lot less vile, perverted and hateful, especially towards children as your god does quite literally hate children.

It is also pinpoint obvious right here, right now, absolute and solid proof as to why your god would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. I mean how does someone, well actually any blithering idiot translate the words "disaster" from "evil"? The two words have 0% to do with each other.

Another form is "1 Colossians 1:15-17" does not exist in the KJV. It also does not exist in the NLT. Only in Colossians 1:15-17 does it exist. Unless you made a mistake and put the "1" there by accident which is perfectly OK. Hell, you should see some of the mistakes I make! Wow!

But we are going to skip christ all together as he was a false prophet, completely untrue, worthless gibberish, has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate, its god only, regardless, and trust me you do NOT want to get into the losing end of christ.

"God, through an individual, created everything that is possible for humans to observe and even the things that human's can't observe. Nothing exists that is not the work of God." What a boring little unproved story. You MUST prove the validity of YOUR god in order for it to be true.

Why would I "want" to think your unproved god is love, when this god of yours in his sketched up marking pad proves he"s a terrorist? Math? Sure? Stephen Hawking, perhaps the smartest man who has ever lived, and his colleague have come up with a mathematical equation that proves something does come from nothing. In other words, your god was not needed to have created the known universe.2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak. Your god can be disproved no matter which language you speak. The Maya also came up with the number 0. Nothing. You cannot think of nothing no matter how hard you try.
"...inherent aspects of God." Which god? And how do you test for this god of YOURS only? How do you demonstrate this god of YOURS only? then it certainly lends some
Then you use the word "transcendent". But what does it mean if you cannot prove anything exists?
"If there are"" Stop right there. You use the that all high and mighty word "if". Why not keep it at that because you don"t know anything at all especially about "transcendent objects," and to say "then we would need to ask the question, are these objects un-caused or do they also have a cause?" But how would you know if you cannot test or demonstrate their existence? "If they are indeed caused, then we would need to figure out the origin of that cause." But you don"t know. Its like you are attempting to plug in a light bulb from here in Orlando, scum sucking leech center of the world and then wiring to Shanghai, expecting it to turn on without any supervision when you click on that switch. "And if"" there you go again with that "if". SO WHAT? OK this has 0% to do with "god has no moral compass".

Wow. I can't even ask this question "Would you like more to prove YOUR god is a "mover"? Because you asked...

"My friend, what standard are you even pointing to when you cast this judgement?" Never mind. That right there proves that you do not have a moral compass. This debate is now over.
CuriousSeeker

Con

I would like to first point out that I meant to show Genesis 2:16-17 not just Genesis 2:16 in my last post.
Genesis 2:16-17 goes like this:

"16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.""

Now on to my first rebuttal:

"Since you only have done a "quick perusal" how can you judge correctly?"

When I said, "quick perusal" all I meant was that did a cursory overview of your verses. Your original argument consisted mostly of a bunch of verses you gathered from the Bible. I didn"t address your ten, initially, because I thought that your postulation was an untenable one and that I should address exactly why. I will address the nine remaining points by the end of this "rebuttal."

"Well 1. I didn"t state it. The Dossier of Reason did."

Since you are representing the "Dossier of Reason" by taking the pro-side of the debate, I have to address you when I point out a certain flaw. Since you choose the quotes and material that you present in you arguments, I presume, that you agree with whatever is being conveyed. If you don"t agree with your own position then why are you debating that side? You could be doing it purely for fun but, having taken a look at your profile, I highly doubt this is the case.

"Well you nor anyone can prove that the christian god even exists. 5. much less "an Aristotelian "unmoved mover."" Is completely false."

True, I am unable to prove that God exists 100 percent, but you are also at a roadblock too; you are unable to prove that God doesn"t 100 percent exist. God is unfalsifiable. Now, you could make a case that the burden of proof is on me to prove my proposition true, but regardless of this point, this is actually not pertinent to this debate? We are not discussing whether or not God exists, but we are dealing with a hypothetical question of, IF the Judao-Christian God did exists, then would He be immoral.
If you wanted the subject of the debate to be about God"s existence then you didn"t make this clear in your starting argument.

""I believe" Well at least you had the nerve to say that. Because that"s not a 100% proven then. "God to be an "unmoved mover" by using scriptures found in the Bible." Well that"s totally false".

"...Your god "moves" all---the---time. But then again, you cannot even prove that this god of "yours" even exists."

I am not sure if you get exactly what an "unmoved mover" is. Maybe I didn"t explain it well. An "unmoved mover" is the "first cause." It is what caused all that IS. It is called,"unmoved" because unlike the rest of creation, It has no cause behind it. It is "eternal" Having no beginning. It is not bound by the principles of cause and effect.

"There are a few passages/verses in the Bible that support this idea:" But if you prove that, then that would be a contradiction. And there are a good thousand or more contradictions and inconsistencies in your bible proving it to be unreadable."

Unless we have different ideas of what a "unmoved mover" is, I believe that I have presented you with scriptures that will bolster this contention. I will let the voters decide on this, though.

"Now I have no idea as to what version of the bible you are reading, but it is a clear abomination without question."

You are correct that I used a slightly different version. I used the NIV instead of the KJV. Still, I addressed the evil issue in my last post. I will, however, go into a tad bit more detail here.

Evil is a result of human doing wrong. When humans do not love,(as God commanded to do), and instead hate, it caused all sorts of problems in the world. Relationships are broken, things are stolen, people are murdered, racism, and rape occurs. Now God gave us the freedom to choose right and wrong. We"re totally free to choose. Unfortunately, freedom to choose good, requires that evil also exist. If humans could only do what is good, then we don"t really have a choice. We would be stuck doing only good. So, to give humans true freedom, evil needed to exist. Now, God, being creator needed to make a way for evil to come about. How did He do it? He probably created the circumstances where within evil could exist. Creating the "circumstances" is very different than if He had actually committed something that was evil.

"Another form is "1 Colossians 1:15-17" does not exist in the KJV. It also does not exist in the NLT. Only in Colossians 1:15-17 does it exist."

I made a mistake there. I didn"t mean to write the number one before Colossians.

"What a boring little unproved story. You MUST prove the validity of YOUR god in order for it to be true."

Again, we are not dealing with the validity of God, we are talking about a purely hypothetical situation.

The reason I brought up the "transcendent objects" was to show that there are really only three possibilities in regards to God"s relationship to the concept of Morality. God can only be the creator of Morality, be an "aspect" of Morality, or God could be separate from Morality and must thus abide by it. I then went on to show that is is next to impossible--if one believes that Morality is "transcendent", to prove that God is immoral.
You do seem to believe that Morality is absolute, and everyone should abide by it. If you believe this, you must also believe that humans didn"t invent it, and that it must be transcendent.

Now I will address the rest of your points.

"2. God is unquestionably just and righteous in all of his works Duet 32:4, Dan 9:14"

God is completely righteous. I addressed earlier how one could be wholly good, and still be the cause of evil.

3. God should be feared because he can send you to hell Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5, Heb 10:31

It is scary to be judged. You must keep in mind though, that the same God who is judge, is also the God who made a way to easily escape that judgement(Romans 8:1, John 3:16). It is out of great love that Christ laid down His life for us while we were still being disobedient(Romans 5:8). A God who is not willing to punish those who commit evil is not one who is truly loving. He would be allowing people to commit wrongs and then getting away with it. Likewise, a god who is unwilling to forgive, is not a god of love. Love always forgives.

Hell is primarily relational--it is what one experiences when one it not in the presence of the Lord(2 Thessalonians 1:9). Unfortunately, not being in the presence of the Lord means being stripped of all that is good and pleasurable since God is the root of all things good(James 1:17). The fact of the matter is, Hell is where you go if you choose to be away from God. God will respect that decision. God can not coexist with sin forever without casting judgment(Psalm 7:11). if one does not accept what Christ"s sacrifice, then He can not have a relationship with God. If God could circumvent this reality, he would(2 Peter 3:9), but He can"t. Those in Hell, have chosen to be in Hell, because they do not want to be with God.

"God causes blindness, deafness and dumbness Ex 4:11"
(The context of the verse was God assuring Moses that He is sovereign over everything. It was supposed to be be comforting. Also, you presume that deafness and blindness are bad. Now, I certainly never want to go deaf, but what we view as a disability, God may see as a strength(2 Corinthians 12:9).

"God causes suffering so that his great works can be demonstrated John 9:1-9, 11:4, Isa 30:20, Ezek 38:16"

I already addressed this point.

7. "God Kills Deut 32:29, 1 Sam 2:6"
Let's take a look at the second verse, 1 Sam 2:6 . The verse actually states that God gives life as well and brings death. First off, death, by itself, is not inherently evil. Animals die all the time. If nothing ever died, there would be overpopulation. Death is necessary in our world. Secondly, killing is not inherently bad either. Killing may be necessary to survive--in the case of self-defense, or in times of war. Murder, however is wrong. God is the giver of life, so he basically has "ownership" over life itself, and can therefore take it away at will. We do not have ownership over life, so we can not intentionally rob another human of that right.

God causes rain, tempest, drought and hurricanes Job 5:10, 37:2-12, Isa 30:30, 42:15, Matt 5:45
You already stated in your last post that "disaster" and "evil" aren't related, so here you are, in a way, contradicting yourself.

You said, "how does someone, well actually any blithering idiot translate the words "disaster" from "evil"? The two words have 0% to do with each other."

8. God sends lying spirits and deceives prophets before destroying them 1 Kings 22:19-23, 2 Thess 2:11, Ezek 14:9, Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Tit 1:2

God can send evil or deceiving spirits to bring about a certain result or to test people to see if they will sin. Tests are not evil, they are meant to strengthen or to show where one's abilities are inadequate. Also, the prophets, by speaking falsely, are still sinning and therefore can still be held accountable for their sin.

9. God hates violence of mankind so he violently destroys all life Gen 6:11-13, Ezek 8:17
God hates unnecessary violence. God will, of course, use violence on people who are abusing others. If another person was attacking a friend of yours would you sit idly by and allow them to do it?

10. God rejoices in the destruction of sinners Deut 28:63, Ps 37:13, Pr 1:26
God is rich in love(Psalm 145:8), but there are those who are saturated with evil and will not stop terrorizing others. Looking at the contexts of the verses you provided, the "sinners" in them are referring to thoroughly wicked people. God delights in their death only because they will never repent from evil and their destruction will bring peace and rescue to other humans. Remember God is also the one who doesn't wish for any person to perish(2 Peter 3:9).
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

When you state "My friend, what standard are you even pointing to when you cast this judgement?" You do realize fully that its a debate ending statement/ question - correct and the "why" also? I mean what a completely and totally, and no offense, but 100% ignorant and arrogant and shows total and utter lack of intelligence on your part to even ask that. What do you think RD1 comprehensively showed? In other words, you completely ignored it. So why shouldn"t I completely ignore you?

OK now we are going to skip a lot. You mention you use the NIV version. Wow. See, that"s especially why your god would ---never--- rely on text, the worst form of communication possible, to god.
Here"s some more information to help you out even though this debate is not about text, but it should be because you are clearly using a fraudulent version. But who"s to say that the KJV version is a correct version? Actually neither are because there"s no possible way to trace any of them back to the original, so yep, you guessed it, ---everybody--- is misinterpreting. Here"s more brief info on that. Again from The Dossier of Reason and its not wrong" Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation

Now we"re going to jump to "Evil is a result of human doing wrong." The hell its not. Its your god doing wrong all the time, no exceptions, none. Because if not true, then it means that your god is not in control of something - this person doing evil as an example, doesn"t know everything, is not all knowing and all powerful, is not in charge of everything, which shows that this god of YOURS is in no possible way omnipotent, is in no possible way perfect and most certainly not a god.

"When humans do not love,(as God commanded to do)," Well that"s a joke. Did you even at all look at the verses in RD1? Why no of course not. ALL OF THEM ARE YOUR GOD"S DOING. Many of them he killed babies, children and pregnant mothers for absolutely no reason. So don"t tell me that this is in any possible way "love". It is so apparent that you have absolutely no comprehension of the meaning as to what the definition of what the word "love" is.

Here"s a morality test for you to take. * Do you think you should die if you work on the sabbath? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Exodus 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.", Numbers 15: 32-36 " And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." Notice jesus worked on the sabbath, he was not put to death. Strange? That supposed "law" that christians use is in ill effect and does not work.
* Do you think you should die for merely cursing at your parents? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death., Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.", Mark 7:10 "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:, Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
* Do you think you should die if you commit adultery? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
* Do you think you should die if you are a homosexual? Y___? N____? Your god thinks so. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
* Do you think you should die if you worship other gods? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 "9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." AND 17: 2-5 "2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

"and instead hate, it caused all sorts of problems in the world. Relationships are broken, things are stolen, people are murdered, racism, and rape occurs." That was caused ONLY by your god. Strange isn"t it that Buddhists, Hindus, the aborigines,pretty near ALL native American Indian tribes until YOUR christian white man brethren wiped them out, Gaia Mother Earth, etc etc etc, they live(d) in near perfect peace without YOUR bankrupt completely immoral god. Now why is that?

"Now God gave us the freedom to choose right and wrong. We"re totally free to choose." Oh absolutely 100% false. You show me anywhere in YOUR bible where it says anywhere close to something like "I the lord thy god grants man free will" or anything like that. In fact it doesn"t exist. Here also are some videos to help you out.
https://www.youtube.com... - Video 1. All Knowing god verses Free Will: The Greatest Religious Contradiction
https://www.youtube.com... - Video 2. Free Will With god
https://www.youtube.com... - Video 3. god Favors Evil
https://www.youtube.com... - Video 4. god allows Free Will?

Tracie Harris: "Your question was regarding free will as an argument for allowing suffering. That's when you get into the problem of evil. Now the problem of evil as we all know is not an argument that demonstrates that no god exists or that god exists. What it demonstrates is that god is your god is an a$$. What she's telling you is she believes in a god, and I assume she worships this god? Its like is she 'happy' about her god?" Caller: "Oh oh yeah everything except for the old testament." Tracie "In other words what she is saying is 'I love this god who believes that the free will of the rapist is more important than the free will of the child being raped. That I think that its worth it to have a child be raped because I really really put a high value on a rapist's free will.""

"When she dies does she get to go to heaven? If she gets to go to heaven will she be happy? And she"ll probably say "yes". And you say "Will you be able to choose and do anything you want while you are in heaven?" And she"ll say "yes." And so you are basically saying "you"ll have free will in heaven?" So you have free will in heaven and no one is being hurt, raped, so you can do anything you want and no one gets hurt. If god has that power in heaven, he must have that power on earth. So he"s chose not to set that condition/ toggle switch which means he"s a dick." Phil Ferguson

"Could god have made the world and not suffering? And if they say "no" then he"s not all powerful. If they say "yes", then why didn"t he? Its a constant thing. There"s multiple ways to come at it." Phil Ferguson

"God can only be the creator of Morality," That"s why I am an atheist. That"s why I am moral. That"s why god, who is an unproven is immoral. BIG DIFFERENCE. I do not believe in killing babies, children or pregnant mothers is a gimme just because YOUR god says so for absolutely no reason. And there is no reason. That is s--t that is completely gone from any moral compass. Now of you don"t know any of this then you have not read your bankrupt corrupt bible and wow does it show.

I"m almost out of space and only have room for a few more sentences. So here"s a few videos on why your god would never use text in closing. So sorry I cannot get anywhere close to the rest of what else was said.

https://www.youtube.com... - Video 1. Christians don't understand the character of God
https://www.youtube.com... -Video 2. The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!"
https://www.youtube.com... - Video 3. Atheist Experience 21:49 with Tracie Harris and Don Baker
CuriousSeeker

Con

"When you state "My friend, what standard are you even pointing to when you cast this judgement?" You do realize fully that its a debate ending statement/ question"

The reason I asked that questions was because I wasn"t sure if you were a "moral relativist" or a "moral absolutist." If you were a relativist then the debate would have pretty much over since we could essentially both be correct since both of our ideas on morality would be equally valid. Since it appears that you hold a moral absolutist view of the world, this debate can proceed further.

"You mention you use the NIV version. Wow. See, that"s especially why your god would ---never--- rely on text, the worst form of communication possible, to god."

This is not a debate about the accuracy or validity of Biblical texts so I do not feel like I need to address this. You seem to bring in a bunch of material that "vaguely" connects with the topic we are discussing. If you want to debate texts, then set up another debate with me or someone else.

"Now we"re going to jump to "Evil is a result of human doing wrong." The hell its not. Its your god doing wrong all the time, no exceptions, none. Because if not true, then it means that your god is not in control of something - this person doing evil as an example, doesn't know everything, is not all knowing and all powerful, is not in charge of everything, which shows that this god of YOURS is in no possible way omnipotent, is in no possible way perfect and most certainly not a god."

First off, you assume that God is omnipotent--that He can do anything He wants. This concept actually, is not found anywhere in the Bible. You will find a jackpot of verses that show God is extremely powerful, and a bunch of verses that strongly suggests that He is the "most powerful being in all of existence," but you will not find one that states or implies that God is omnipotent. He can"t be. Being omnipotent is a condition that is paradoxical and therefore can"t logically exist. For example, God"s is unable to change His nature and still be God. If He altered His nature He wouldn"t Be God anymore. That is one limit on Him. God also can"t make a triangle a circle, and He can"t make the color blue, red, and make it still be blue. He also can"t make a rock that He couldn"t lift. Basically, there are limits on what God can do. God can't violate His nature, and He can't break logic.

Also, when it comes to free will, God purposely ceded his power to allow humans the liberty of choice. That is why people are such a valuable part of God"s creation. We have the ability to make our own decisions. Unfortunately, Free Will can also be a very dangerous ability. It means that while humans can choose to love, and to be charitable, and kind, they also can choose to be wicked, and selfish, and murderous to one another.

"When humans do not love,(as God commanded to do)," Well that"s a joke. Did you even at all look at the verses in RD1? Why no of course not. ALL OF THEM ARE YOUR GOD"S DOING. Many of them he killed babies, children and pregnant mothers for absolutely no reason. So don"t tell me that this is in any possible way "love". It is so apparent that you have absolutely no comprehension of the meaning as to what the definition of what the word "love" is.

One of the rules you set was to refute ten points, which I did. I believe we would need more rounds for me to address every one of your points--which I would gladly do if I had more space to do so.

As for "love", it is a word that is so multifarious and far reaching in its interpretation that the true nature of the virtue could be a topic for a whole another debate. The reason that it is so tough for English speakers to figure out what "Love" means is that we only have one word for it. In Greek, there are four types of love expressible( Ag"pe,"ros,Philia,Storge).
Surely, "Love" means more than being peaceful and gentle. Love can be shown is very violent ways. Each and every one of the police officers who came to the scene of the Parkland Shooting were willing to give their own lives in violent ways for the safety of the students, as well as to take life if it were necessary. Are you saying the police were not showing love by willing to kill a madman, Nikolas Jacob Cruz, to protect students?

Also, God is a god who clearly rescues people, as shown in Psalm 40:1-17.
You say that God hates children. What a second, take a look at Psalm 127:3: "Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring, a reward from Him."
You can't even say that God is apathetic. God clearly sees the world's injustices and even gives His promise that He will one day punish those who do evil to others.

It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them.

--Deuteronomy 32:35

Why doesn"t He punish right away though? Well, It is because He is full of love and is slow to anger(Exodus 34:6).

What you keep doing is accusing God of being violent, but then when He does holds back and shows mercy(which He does a whole lot of--just take a look at the world), you shoot back that He doesn"t care about people. You have locked God into a moral cage and won't allow Him to do anything without being criticized.

"Here"s a morality test for you to take""

This is a super complex concept which whole books have been written on, but here is the basics.

God established the Jewish Nation and gave them certain laws that would separate them from the other nations. The reason was to the show the rest of the world that out of the Nation of Israel there would come The Messiah who would make a way for every human being, no matter how sinful, to have a relationship with God. He wanted Israel to be different, so to speak.
Except for the moral laws(don"t murder, don"t commit adultery etc), none of the other laws(dietary, or national) were required of any other nations.

Case in point, they actually were not universal laws, but were situational and specific to Israel; They don"t even have to be followed anymore. Even God deals in situational ethics sometimes.

This is a really interesting article that deals with this topic quite well.
https://www.desiringgod.org...

As for the Sabbath, you have to keep in mind that God is no legalistic. Even David violated one of God"s laws but was not held accountable as explained by Jesus in Mark 23-28. The purpose of the Sabbath was for rest and regeneration; it wasn't supposed to be burden in people's lives.

As for the example of the man collecting wood, the text does not explain explicitly why God told Moses to stone him, but it is likely that God had the man killed because he was violating the sabbath commands to cause dissent in the community. Again the Old Testament passage does not reveal God"s reason, but when we look at the example of David, and of the Disciples, it is clear that they were working to feed themselves and others. We don"t know why the man in the O.T. passage was working. The disciples, however were doing what God actually wanted people to do on the Sabbath--take care of one"s self and others.

As for Homosexuality, this is a wonderful video that will inform you on the many misconceptions that people--especially Christians --have about the Bible and homosexuality.
https://www.youtube.com...

Adultery is terrible! It means that one or both partners are dissatisfied with each other, and it means that one or both have shared intimacy with another person outside of the marriage union! God didn"t want Israel to be known as a nation that was full of people that were unfaithful to each other. He established strict laws so that people would take marriage seriously.Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment were both participants love each other dearly, and will not allow anything to fissure their affection for one another(Song of Solomon 8:6-7)

Tracie Harris: "Your question was regarding free will as an argument for allowing suffering......"

"Free Will" does not equate with "Free Action." God grants you the ability to make conscious choices, yes, but He does not always allow you to carry out that will. Let's say that I decided one day that I wanted to go murder someone- -I would thus be exercising my Free Will, but if am stopped by the police before I am able to do it, I don't have Free Action.

God certainly allows evil to happen. The only reason that God can allow evil and still be just and good, is that He does possess a plan to bring about good from evil.

If I, as a human, did nothing while someone raped a child in front of me, I would be a moral monster. God, though, understands the outcome and fully realizes that, despite the physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological pain the child faces, He can bring healing and good out of their suffering. God's heart shatters for the child---God viciously hates the act of rape and is disgusted and wrathful every second it is occurring. Yet, He knows that It must take place for His work to be fulfilled.

Joyce Meyer, a Bible teacher, was sexually, and mentally abused as a child by her father, yet God took all that suffering in her life and brought her closer to Him and the true meaning of Love. She is now a speaker who helps thousands of men and woman learn about Love, Grace, God and getting through hard times.
https://www.joycemeyer.org...

Yes, pain is disgusting, but it is sometimes the only way that people can learn. God is not unwilling to use suffering to show people the beauty of Christ's sacrifice and the beauty of the life that He, alone, can offer(1 Timothy 2:3-4).
The Bible says that humans are deceitful above all else(Jer17:9). If people would only love one another we wouldn't have wars, or crime, bigotry, or hate. Fortunately, God has put reigns on evil and will not allow it freedom to run amok.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

OK this debate is now over. I'm not going to even bother continuing another sentence with someone who is completely and totally contradictory and hypocritical such as you. But I will respond in the comments section. Bye.
CuriousSeeker

Con

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it"

--Joseph Joubert

Thanks for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 1 day ago
backwardseden
Your definition for your #2 more than rock solidly proves that. Your statement of you believing that OT passages in you implying that they are somehow worse than OT passages is also quite absurd. The NT has a hell in it. There's also a brutal crucifixion in which somehow YOUR god set up and must have praised which is so completely mind-numbingly immoral and super duper diseased. Really? That's the way to save humanity? Then why is this figure that was sent down the most fought after figure in the history of man's existence with absolutely no worldwide peace as promised in YOUR bible? There's also no stopping slavery. It continued throughout YOUR bible. Then there's your absurd messiah in which in no possible way is he your messiah who delivered ridiculous messages that have been transcribed wrongly by different scribes so no one is interpreting correctly. I get it also that since your god from the OT was an A+ bastard, wow he turned to an A+ super nice dude in the NT? Really? Is that YOUR play and the best you can do? And on and on and on and on. 4. I never said you have to prove god's existence. But you cannot prove YOUR god's existence. So really what do you have? 5. Oh really? That's a good one. Then you prove it. But how can you do this if you cannot prove that god does not exist? See you just cannot come up with your own excuses in attempts to checkerflag the day. 6. Actually you prove that jesus was god in the flesh. Go right ahead please. And I 100% guarantee you that I will burn you. That's yet another reason why your god would ---never--- rely on text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. Sorry, they are two separate entities, and that is according to your bible and christ himself. 7. god is spirit? Really? According to what? So he can communicate with us? OK then why doesn't he? You know lady, you can invent excuse after excuse. It wears awfully thin especially when you cannot even prove that this god even exists.
Posted by CuriousSeeker 1 day ago
CuriousSeeker
I made a few mistakes in my last post.
I meant to say, If morality just means what promotes human flourishing, then seeing the virtues of abortion is equivalent to seeing the benefit it has for humanity. If morality is what OUGHT TO BE, not WHAT IS, it requires there be a pre-existing framework from which we can obtain how we should be behaving.
Posted by CuriousSeeker 1 day ago
CuriousSeeker
Missmedic, I believe that you're confusing MORALITY with what benefits human flourishing--there can be a ton of overlap, but they are not necessarily the same thing. For example, abortion can be a benefiting procedure to human,but whether or not it is RIGHT depends on how you define morality. If morality is what OUGHT TO BE, not WHAT IS, then seeing the virtues of abortion is equivalent to seeing the benefit it has for humanity. Being objective in this sense implies there is a pre-existing framework from which we can obtain how we should be behaving.

If morality is what will bring about human flourishing, then I believe that it is a misnomer to call it morality. It is more biological. Are appeal to morality would be more varied in our species in comparison to others because we have the intelligence to put us into more varied situations. After all, we have super complex civilizations, have discovered numerous scientific principles, and invented incredible technologies and thus our ethics reach into more areas than other creatures.

In the second view, true objectivity can't occur because morality is species-specific and determined by concensus--which is subjective. In the first view, however, objectivity can be mantained due to it being non--species specific and transcendent.
Posted by backwardseden 1 day ago
backwardseden
@CuriousSeeker - 1. OK then you do not believe in the power of your christ and forgiveness as you make up your own rules. 2. You have no idea, none, if "Christ died for the worst of the worst of us too." which is a silly little completely immoral notion. Its a storybook farce and fable. Oh but now you believe your malware texts - right? I get it also that this brutal suffering and pain is something that you would eagerly teach to children - correct? What can children learn from horrific pain and suffering except for absolutely nothing and that its pain and suffering and horribly wrong especially when daddy is smashing their face in and raping them? Oh I get it you PRAISE this christ of YOURS suffering and pain - correct because he died for YOU. Is that really the best you can do? I get it also that Buddhism teaches the end of suffering. Your christ deals with the beginning of suffering. Oh well gosh, I just cannot possibly imagine which one I will choose. "His forgiveness means forgiveness between people and God not magical get-out-of-prison free card." If you commit a horrific crime and then you sudden believe in YOUR christ, you will have a spot saved for you in heaven. The ONLY way one can get to this mythical heaven is belief in christ. It has NOTHING to do with YOUR god. And what good is that suffering because all you are doing is promoting MORE suffering. Constant suffering. There was absolutely no end to the suffering in YOUR bible form YOUR jesus. The solution? Let's eliminate suffering entirely and broaden the gaps of pain and suffering to teach that is simply not a "good" thing as YOUR religion implies.
3. Your're NOT getting it. There can be no debate because you constantly refer to your texts as being truthful and absolute when they suit you best to your wants needs and desires when none of them are valid and are complete storybooks that have no consensus whatsoever in comparison to other versions/ translations/ copies or whatevers.
Posted by CuriousSeeker 2 days ago
CuriousSeeker
(1) I would give him the chair.He still broke the law, and should be punished.
(2) Christ died for the worst of the worst of us too. His forgiveness means forgiveness between people and God not magical get-out-of-prison free card.
(3) The debate wasn't about texts. The fact that you yourself quoted from the Bible to prove your position showed that the Bible was up for grabs for too.
(4) The debate also wasn't about God's existence. I didn't have to prove He exists for the debate.
(5) Actually, text is not the only way. People can communicate through prayer(which is basically just talking) and God can also talk through other people.
(5) God is God. It's not that He has an
inflated ego, it is that He really IS all that.
(6) He did come down. Jesus was God in the flesh. Some rejected Him, some accepted Him.
(7) God is spirit so He actually can't communicate with us in the same way. People assume that He can just show himself willy nilly. Jesus, however will show himself again, according to the last book of the Bible. Now, why would He wait untill then to show Himself again? Well, even if He showed himself earlier would people believe He was God? People are so skptical now( which is usually good), that some would never accept miracles can occur even with the best evidence.
If Jesus decided to roam on the earth again now-a-days, It would be the same story, some people would accept Him some would reject.
Posted by missmedic 2 days ago
missmedic
The claim that we need God to provide morality with objectivity does not withstand analysis. To begin with, God would not be able to provide objectivity, as the argument from Euthyphro demonstrates. Moreover, morality is neither objective nor subjective in the way that statements of fact are said to be objective or subjective; nor is that type of objectivity really our concern. Our legitimate concern is that we don"t want people feeling free "to do their own thing," that is, we don"t want morality to be merely a reflection of someone"s personal desires. It"s not. To the extent that intersubjective validity is required for morality, it is provided by the fact that, in relevant respects, the circumstances under which humans live have remained roughly the same. We have vulnerabilities and needs similar to those of people who lived in ancient times and medieval times, and to those of people who live today in other parts of the world. The obligation to tell the truth will persist as long as humans need to rely on communications from each other. The obligation to assist those who are in need of food and water will persist as long as humans need hydration and nutrition to sustain themselves. The obligation not to maim someone will persist as long as humans cannot spontaneously heal wounds and regrow body parts. The obligation not to kill someone will persist as long as we lack the power of reanimation. In its essentials, the human condition has not changed much, and it is the circumstances under which we live that influence the content of our norms, not "divine commands". Morality is a human institution serving human needs, and the norms of the common morality will persist as long as there are humans around.
Posted by CuriousSeeker 2 days ago
CuriousSeeker
The problems with that though is that (1) it still relies on your perception of reality to interpret facts correctly--which would mean it is still subjective, and (2) the facts of reality don't always show what should be done; the fact of the matter is that people get murdered all the time--what does that fact prove? How does it show me that murder is intrinsictly wrong? Were the Navy Seals that assassinated Osama Bin Laden? How do we even know that 9/11 was an evil event? To show whether something is right or wrong you would have to make your own definition of morality. In which case, what is right is what YOU believe to be right based on the facts. This is no longer an objective approach!
Posted by backwardseden 2 days ago
backwardseden
@CuriousSeeker - Here's why your thinking can't and doesn't work, not ever. If you were to get someone who you were to 100% know has raped, beaten and tortured 6 five year old girls, cut them up into little pieces, murdered them. What would you do with this person? Would you A. Give him the chair or B. according to your religion if he finds christ all is exonerated he is going to go to heaven whereas I who has enough common sense to ---never--- believe in christ will find hell for eternity. Now which is correct? That's according to your bible. So please don't tell me there's "love" in it, especially within your god in which again, you cannot even prove even exists and is completely misconstrued. There is no need for god or gods. Man did just fine long before your god's inception. Man does just fine without gods. Religion is created to explain the unexplained. From there you have power, then fear and then control. That's exactly what the 10 commandments are in which don't agree within its 3 different insertions in your bible. That's why I stopped the debate. If you are willing to debate the something, anything within the texts, and yet it is brought up where there is huge sharp disagreements and it is flatly proved that there are disagreements within them and then you go right on quoting them anyway, how can there possibly be a debate? The only possible way you have communication with this supposed god of yours is through those texts. That's not evidence. Yes, I can use the bible against you because its stories. Its violence. Its hate. Its immorality. Your bible is one big gigantic book of your god spewing out his huge superior ego god complex and nothing but. Everything is centered around this god character - just what a supreme deity would do and properly convey - right? Now if your god were true, he'd come on down here and simply talk to us and show his love and appreciation and never violence not for any reason. That's evidence. He'd never use text.
Posted by missmedic 2 days ago
missmedic
Objectivity is the act of referencing reality in determining the truth. So an objective morality, is based on the facts of reality. All one needs in order to be objective is to refer to some facts of reality as source of moral judgments. Gods are neither required, productive or useful.
Posted by CuriousSeeker 2 days ago
CuriousSeeker
I get what you are saying, and I made a point in the debate that we can't truly know for certain what morality is based solely on divine commands. As you said, how can we ever know if God is being truthful when He relays to us what is good?

The proposition that I stressed in this debate--and believe holds more water, is that God's very character is the absolute standard of morality; that objective morals are contained in God. How God acts is how WE should act.

When you think about it, this view of God erases some of the nets Christians run into when they are confronted by critics about "troubling" Old Testement passages. Nobody says that Morality has to be non--situational. Some things were considered wrong "then" because they impeded the overall plan. Remember, The Judao--Christian God is frequently described as a god of love. How is love expressed though? There is no single way that Love can be shown. It takes on different forms depending on the situation. Likewise, God behaves differently depending on what He is doing. That doesn't mean that moral absolutes don't exist, just that the laws he established had a purpose, and are meant to reveal the character and purpose of God--which is intrinsically moral.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.