The Instigator
jackintosh
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Koheleth
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

if the Abrahamic god exists, that being is evil.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 7 votes the winner is...
jackintosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,133 times Debate No: 32280
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (7)

 

jackintosh

Pro

First round is acceptance. I will argue in the affirmative; if there is a god that being is evil. We will stick to the Abrahamic god in this debate, and will proceed as if the being exists.
Second Arguments in favor of your stance and evidence toward your BoP
Third Rebuttal
Fourth closing statements

Rules:
God=Abrahamic God
God does exist

This is not a debate about the existence of god, as that is another debate. For the sake of this argument, we will assume that being does exist. I am not limiting to the god of the Jews or Islamic god vs god of the Christians. These gods will all be deemed an example of the Abrahamic god and treated as one entity. This leaves open more options and sources to cite.

My opponent will need to prove that the being is a good and decent being just as I will need to prove that the being is an evil one.

Definition of evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent. Displays viciousness, malign intent and sinister.

Definition of good: Morally righteous, just and fair, benevolent and kind.
Koheleth

Con

Introduction

I'll start by thanking Pro for starting a debate on such an important topic. However, I must say that I find it strange to have clumped three traditional conceptions of the divine under the generic term 'Abrahamic God', when these conceptions diverge in many essential ways. I assume the debate will concern those aspects of 'God' on which all three religions agree on, and though I am a Christian, I will do my best to leave aside what is unique to Christianity, or restrain myself to use the latter as an example if necessary.


I. The Universal Game-Maker

The issue is whether we would be right to call God 'evil'. Oddly enough, in his first post, Pro seems to ignore the possibility of God being neither good nor evil. I find this oversight very significant: in a world created and sustained by a personal God, concepts of good and evil are unavoidable. God is not merely Creator, he is also Legislator. Both the Laws of Physics and of Morality come from him. I believe Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike could conceive of Life as a game, free and rational human beings as its players, and God as the universal Game-Maker (though, interestingly, Christianity alone posits that the game is unwinnable) . Thus good is defined by playing the game according to the Game-Maker's rules, while evil is playing without regard for the rules.

And there's the rub: if we accept the latter as true in a theistic universe, good and evil are respectively success and failure to follow God's eternal law. Therefore, it would seem nonsensical to affirm that God is evil, since he alone determines what is good and what is evil. In any board game, a player who changes the rules (usually to his own benefit) is a cheater, since the only one who has that right is the one who designed the game. And since cheating itself is an affront to the rules, the cheater, by definition, is a loser.
So it is for the one who calls God evil and establishes himself as a Game Maker, which is nothing more than claiming divinity. He cannot escape being called evil himself.
Important: It is not that God forbids his creatures to determine good and evil, because that is simply impossible (it would be akin to God commanding humans not to draw a square circle). Pretending to determine good and evil is what is really forbidden.

II. The Role of Conscience

Now, this is not to say that God does not provide some sort of conscience to his free and rational creatures. Yet it is important to note that such a conscience does not tell us what is good and what is evil. This can only be told by God Himself, through Scripture or direct revelation. It would be absurdly naive to state that every human being, regardless of culture, approves and disapproves of the same things as everyone else.
All conscience gives us is a sense of the existence of right and wrong, which is an essential prerequisite to discerning right from wrong. Cultures may disagree on what is evil, but we would be hard pressed to find one that denies the concept of evil altogether.
All this to say that it is impossible to denounce God as evil in the name of conscience. A feeling of outrage before an action by no means renders it evil. After all, it is perfectly possible for someone to be angered by the sight of a beggar being fed ('the lazy bum doesn't deserve it!') or of a neighbor winning at the lottery ('why wasn't it me?').

III. Does God break his own rules?

A possible objection can be made by pointing at instances where God seems to violate the laws he has given to his people (when God kills etc). While it is true that in earthly kingdoms, even the king is subject to the law, things aren't that simple:

Kings nevertheless do not have the same rights as the average joe, and the same is true for presidents, policemen, teachers, and anyone who holds a position of authority over a group of people. Hence a command not to kill does not necessarily bind the one who issued the command.

Not one religion denies that there is a degree of subjectivity in any conception of right and wrong. For example, the Torah commands for every house to have railings on its rooftop (Deuteronomy 22:8). In this case, the reason for the command is clear: 'that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if anyone fall from thence'. In the Ancient Near East, rooftops were generally flat, and people would perform a number of activities on them, which falls likely. This is a good example of how objectivity and subjectivity work hand in hand: the specifics of morality depend on the situation, but the principles behind the specifics (that life should be protected) are left unchanged.

I'm sure Pro has heard the saying, 'Man was not made for the Law, but the Law for Man'. God's laws to a certain people in a certain time (e.g Ancient Israel) do not necessarily embody absolute moral truths, but constitute a tool for the well-being of the tribe. Thus Jesus was not being immoral when he he allowed his disciples to the Sabbath, and stated that 'the Sabbath was made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath' (Mark 2:27).


From these three points we may gather that 'goodness' is not a set of laws, but God's will. I'm afraid I cannot elaborate too much on what God's ultimate will is, since this varies depending on which religion we're talking about. As an example, however, the Christian God's will is the salvation of his creatures. Such a will is only the consequence of his Nature, which is essentially Love ('God is Love' 1 John). With this in mind, 'good' flows from Love, while evil runs against it: evil is not merely a disagreement with God's will, but an offense against God's very Nature.
For God to be evil would require of him to deny this Nature, which is absurd.


IV. Should and should not

If Pro will allow me, I will suggest alternate definitions for good and evil, which I believe to be simpler and more complete.
Let 'good' be specified as what ought to be and evil as what ought not to be. In the theistic worldview, the universe is contingent (as opposed to the pantheistic worldview, in which it is necessitous). In other words, though it exists, it could have not existed at all. It follows that everything inside the universe is contingent as well, including our decisions and actions. It could have been that I would not have decided to write this post. This leaves room for a moral judgment: 'should the universe exist?' 'Should I be writing this post?'. The answer to that question determines whether anything is 'good' or not: the creation of the universe was 'good' (cf Genesis) because it allowed for a relationship between God and Man (which ought to take place) while my writing of this post is 'evil' because I have an exam in two weeks and I'll fail if I don't revise (which ought not to take place).

The existence of God, however, is not contingent. By definition, it does not depend on anything other than itself, since God is uncreated, which makes hum necessitous. To state that God 'ought not to exist' is therefore nonsensical. God can only ought to be, since there is no other option. It becomes inescapable that God can only be good.

Thanks to Pro for his attention. I am eager to read his response.

Peace :)
Debate Round No. 1
jackintosh

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing to the challenge. I did read the comments and realize that the argument CON posted in Round 1 was a mistake, no harm no foul. I will avoid in this round my rebuttal to his arguments, and post my arguments as originally intended. In round 2, I will expect my opponent, as he mentioned, "forfeit the round" by simply posting as his argument his agreement to move on to round three for rebuttals.
My Argument:
The god of Abraham, father of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, has in his existence acted as an evil being of supernatural authority. His awesome powers of creation and destruction have wrought on humanity the most tremendous of cruel intentions. I will begin as I should at the beginning:
Genesis (Creation):
In the beginning god created man. To the first being god gave the intelligence to hold dominion over the beast and to work and keep the land of the earth, even so far as being able to give everything a name. Yet, he deprived that being of comprehension of good and evil (defined in round 1). If this was a flaw in the design of man, and god did not have control over this flaw, he should not have attempted the feat of creating humanity. Had he created life without knowing how to do it right? Very reckless and shows poor character on the part of god to do something without first doing his homework. For something so important to accidentally make the mistake of making the man less than perfect in mental capacity is cruel. Were it intentional, it is indeed a malicious joke to give man slight intelligence, knowledge, ability and power, but then to keep from that man perfection in his cerebral ability.
However, god continued and had created Eden, and in it put a tree of knowledge of good and evil. His instructions to the man were to not eat from it since he would die, implying that knowledge is deadly to humans, another flaw. Let"s take it that since god created the laws of physics, biology and chemistry (as well as all sciences, known to us and not) he"s a decent command of the comprehension of these laws. So either go did do the best he can, and made something very imperfect, or he didn"t do his best and created a lesser being intentionally. If it was intentional, he in essence created the universe, the earth and all its life, and made man his less than equal slave to take care of it.
Further he also created a tree that bore fruit that could kill him in the garden that was his home. That is a significant error on his part, for one creating the element that could wrought the power of death on the first being that was made in the image of god himself. Second, for making humanity so easy to fool that a snake a lesser beat that the man has dominion over could trick. The only option is that he had built fault into the man, the flaws being he could succumb to gullibility and die from knowledge.
To conclude Genesis (Creation), God made man; he maliciously made him imperfect either on purpose or by accident. If it was on purpose, he essentially created a slave to take care of the earth and made that slave mentally inferior to keep them docile workers and tempted that being by making and placing an element that would enlighten, thus make them more like god (Gen 3:22) and kill (Gen3:3), then god banished his creations from Eden so they could not eat from the tree of life thus making sure they would surely die.
Genesis (The First Eugenics)
Eugenics a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits. (American Sociological Review 389"397)
Noah, a descendant of the first man Adam, was a lone "righteous" man I the eyes of god. God"s initial flaw in humanity had by now spread through the generations and created a hostile environment and corrupt earth. Noah was instructed to build an ark to house the last of humanity (Noah"s family) and 2 of each creature. He then flooded the earth, killing every living creature he deemed was corrupted by his initial flaw, as well as other beasts, in favor of the few he saw as fitting to repopulate the earth. God killed every being he deemed having less desirable traits to promote the reproduction of those he saw as having more desirable traits, the first act of Eugenics.
We can see parallel in the actions of god with a familiar being of recent history:
God believed the earth had become violent, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. (An interpretation of Genesis 6:13 through the lens of eugenics.)
Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream. These had to be removed quickly. Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power.
These two beings committed the same atrocities (granted different reasons) and we deem Hitler and his NAZI eugenics program evil, we must label the former the same as well by comparison.
It is unfortunate that I cannot in this forum depict every atrocity committed by god to appease my BoP. I will list a few here to make the point that throughout the history of god he has acted in an evil nature.
God commits genocide in the destruction (bombing of) Sodom and Gomorrah.
God turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. (Another act of haltered for human curiosity, all she did was look and see what happened)
Joshua, with god"s approval, kills Amalek and his people. But he doesn"t make it easy on Joshua or Moses who has to keep his arms up. It"s like a game of really cruel red light/ green light, hands up Joshua wins, ands down Amalek wins. People lives depend on this and god is toying with them all for genocide!
I could go on but I am sure the readers and my opponent can clearly see the path I am taking. (As one commenter said look at Job!) If you follow through the Torah, then later the New Testament and the Qu"ran you will see ever increasing numbers of atrocities similar to the above" if not worse!
The powers of god are ultimate, he is the creator of all and master of all. He proceeds to grant the breath of life in all of those among his earth and yet, he allows for atrocities to continue. God himself, refuses to forgive humanity after thousands of years of punishment on the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve for the original sin. Even after (in Christianity) his own son died for the sins of man, the all powerful being still hunts humans" souls one after another as if a collector waiting for the relic to age just enough to be of value.
This being to this day allows for death, destruction, mutilation and continuously presents utter temptation he knows we will succumb to, as he built it into us, having such weak mental prowess and will. I will sum up his evil:
Profoundly immoral: God is profoundly immoral for making humanity so frail, for holding the sins of the father on the children and for causing death, literally inventing the process of death into the human race.
Malevolence/ malign intent: God shows his malevolent nature every time he personally takes a life. He murdered the people of earth once in the great flood, scrambles the words of Noah"s descendants just for trying to reach to the heavens! This lead to the lack of understandings between cultures and I would go as far as to say prompting the creation of war between nations!
Viciousness: God is vicious in how he helps Joshua attack Jericho because it was a city that stood in his way of the conquest of all Canaan. A city in its own right defending itself from would be terrorists and he helps Joshua to rip apart its stone walls, just to move toward conquering land.
Sinister: Sinister means "giving the impression that something harmful or evil is happening or will happen." God said that Adam will die from eating from the tree of knowledge; I would say that is pretty darn sinister, especially since he put it there!

I'd go on, but character # limits!
Koheleth

Con

Thanks to Pro for his passionate post, and for bearing with my glaring lack of experience on debate.org^^ As I have already posted my argument, I will wait until Pro presents his rebuttal to the latter before I add anything else. Looking forward to!
Debate Round No. 2
jackintosh

Pro

The Universal Game-Maker

IN his argument, Con posts the position that because God is the legislature/ rule maker that simply following his rules are the designation of evil or not. Simply, following gods rules means that we are good, not doing so means we are not good.

The argument I would like to bring to light is, since god did create the rules, and if those rules are immoral by judgement of the people, doesn't that imply an immoral god? Before the argument of "we are not to know gods will/ we cannot pass judgement on the ultimate judge" come up. I would like to nip that in the bud by first saying that is simply a conveniences in the rules that the god laid out isn't it? Why disable the peoples ability to judge righteously, unless of course you are an unrighteous being?

In regard to conscience, why can't ours be as sufficient as the lords? why would he make us so inferior in capabilities to not be able to achieve the same level of moral supremacy, and thus be in our rights to find morality without his intervention. Seems a bit sinister to hold someone to the rules of law, without expressing the rational to its follower. And then use the excuse that you are simply incapable of understanding... which of course was his intent to begin with.

Allowing god to break his own rules and still claim that good flows from love and evil runs against it is another happy incident for the god!! It completely relinquishes his responsibility for the actions he has brought on humanity. How can we judge a god if his rules (as the game maker) makes it so he cannot be put to blame for any of his actions. That is a sinister basis forcing the masses to obey commands. If god tells us to kill, we are immoral for saying no? the morality and judgement of that incident escapes me. When Abraham attempted to kill his son simply for it was gods will, I feel is immoral on behalf of Abraham, and on god for even asking such a sacrifice. I ask con, please explain the morality of murdering in the name of god?

I feel the redefinition of good and evil is not needed. God should not be based on the ideas of one being but on the collective free thoughts, as goes with evil. Binding the definition of good to the will of a god that we are incapable of judging is not good at all, simply a set of edicts one should follow if one hopes to receive reward (heaven).
Koheleth

Con


Thanks to Pro for his answer. My post will also be a bit rushed, since my I'm ridiculously busy these days..Even so, I will do my best to respond to Pro's claims concerning God's allegedly 'evil' actions in the Bible.



The Garden of Eden



First of all, and with all due respect, I'm afraid the first part of Pro's argument displays major misunderstandings concerning the Genesis account. The first of these is a misreading of the expression 'knowledge of good and evil', which he comprehends as an inability to conceive of morality. In other words, according to Pro, God created mankind without a conscience. As discussed in my first post, this would mean that, much like animals, mankind's understanding would be devoid of any notion of good and evil.


Such an assertion is impossible, because it removes the need for temptation. Think about it: if Adam and Eve didn't know that it was 'good' to follow God's command, would they really need Satan to lure them into disobeying? No, their God-given conscience was precisely the reason why Satan had to entice them with false promises of becoming their own gods.


Naturally, this leaves us with the question of what exactly is 'knowledge of good and evil'. The word 'knowledge' can be taken at two levels: the intellectual level and the personal level. As an example, though I (luckily) am not diabetic, I 'know' that it would do me much harm, because I have been taught so at home and at school—I know of diabetes, intellectually. If however, I go against my parents' advice and eat too much sugar, there's a good chance I'll become diabetic—I'll know diabetes personally.


In the same way, though God gave Adam and Eve the knowledge of the existence of good and evil, and the means to avoid it, he did not give them the experience of evil. The latter was incurred by the man's choice to eat from the forbidden fruit, which brought separation from God (basically death, in Christian theology). If Pro deems it malevolent to deprive mankind from the personal knowledge of evil, without removing his free will (since man could, and did, choose evil), it is his morality that should be questioned, not God's.


To summarize, no, God did not create man with a fatal flaw, unless one considers free will to be a flaw, which I am sure Pro does not. It was man who, out of selfish pride rebelled against God and left the Garden, becoming their own 'gods' (or so he believed..)




Noah



This one will be shorter. To be honest, this is the first time I hear a comparison of the Flood with eugenics. Let's make this clear: the Great Flood in Genesis has strictly nothing to do with eugenics. God didn't destroy his 'bad' creatures in order to preserve the purity of the 'good' ones. The Flood was sent as a PUNISHMENT of the evil men. As we have seen previously, God is not simply Creator, he is also Legislator, and it follows that his response to severe and unrepentant deviations from his law leads to punishment.


In relating the Flood to Hitler's 'Final Solution', Pro speaks of evil as some sort of genetic mutation which must be eliminated at all cost. These men had a choice of whether to follow God or not, and their choice lead to their destruction, as expected. If one applies Pro's argument to secular justice, we would have to conclude that inflicting the death penalty on murderers amounts to eugenics! The issue isn't whether capital punishment is desirable or not. But even an opponent of the practice such as I find it plainly mad to reach such a conclusion!


In fact, Noah himself was far from perfect (for those who don't know, he got drunk before his own sons), not to mention his descendents. If God had indeed planned to wipe out the 'evil genes' from planet earth, he certainly has failed!




Other 'Atrocities'





  • The Sodom and Gomorrha incident wasn't genocide.






  1. The punishment was inflicted on the basis of righteousness, not on race or ethnicity. Great cities like these two probably sheltered people from all over the Ancient Near East.




  2. Not everyone was sentenced to death, since Lot and his family were spared.






  • Lot's wife was not 'turned into a pillar of salt' (probably covered by saline fumes from the volcanic eruption) because of curiosity. It was her regret for her former life and disobedience to God, who had warned them of the dangers of such reluctance to trust him.




  • Amalek had attacked Israel in the first place..this was a battle, not a genocide. As for 'toying with them all for genocide', this was another test of faith, which are very frequent in the Bible.




  • Job's trial was an allegorical honor challenge to humanity, which Satan had accused of weakness and unfaithfulness (Job 1). Hardly an 'atrocity'..




  • God punishes his creatures for their own sins, NOT for those of Adam and Eve. Pro provides no Scripture suggesting the opposite.




  • 'all powerful being still hunts humans" souls one after another as if a collector waiting for the relic to age just enough to be of value.' Emotional and not supported.





'Profoundly Immoral': Since God is the Giver and Source of Life, the 'process of death' is a natural consequence of separation from God. I fail to see the immorality here.



'Malevolence/ malign intent ' : God is malevolent 'every time he takes a life'?? As previously stated, God is Giver of Life, he alone has the right to take it. Righteous punishment is not an expression of malevolence, but of perfect justice.



Malevolence/ malign intent : Yet again, Pro misses God's clearly stated intentions. Deuteronomy says it better than me:


After the Lord your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, “The Lord has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness.” No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you. 5 It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the Lord your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 9:4-5



Sinister: Erm...so God was 'sinister' for warning Adam and Eve of the consequences??? If I tell you your house is burning and you better get out, am I being sinister?



That's all for today. Your turn, Pro :)


Debate Round No. 3
jackintosh

Pro

Knowledge of good and evil: Knowledge of good and evil is not a lack of ability to interpret morality, no idea where that came from… You must have read that wrong as I specified lack of comprehension of good and evil which is, to borrow your worlds, knowledge on a personal level of good and evil. God himself, being all knowing, must have had this knowledge. I guess I failed to get across that god made us unequal to him in at the very least our ability to have knowledge of/ comprehension of good and evil.


He made subpar beings intentionally. If you do not seem angry that god made humanity to be a lesser being than himself then I cannot debate with you, as you have clearly succumb, and are complacent with the stature of being a sub-capable compared to your creator. God put a governor on our cognitive abilities by limiting our ability to understand his will. He gave us basic intelligence, why would he deprive us of more if not for his intention to create sub-par beings?


I will try to relate this again. Every engineer/ programmer I know wants to create the top notch program. We programmers do not want to make something sub-par, or not able to in every way be able to thrive in its environment and fulfill every task we give it. Sometimes we fail, but we are imperfect beings after all. In the field of artificial intelligence, the programmers (much better than me) are constantly trying to make the artificial brains’ level of intelligence at least as powerful, as high performing as our own brains. We even have tests to determine how close we are to at least mimicking that level, Turing tests. Our goal here is not to simply mimic however, it’s to create an equal intelligence to our own. This would be a scientists’\ engineers’\ programmers 9th symphony! God, on the other hand, chose not to aspire to such lofty goals and instead chose to make intelligence less than that of his own. If the scientists were doing the same and stop at making a sub-par unequal intellect, that is an injustice to the intelligence they create and would hold that to be as immoral as gods choice to create a half baked intelligent being.


The flaw here that I am trying to point out is that, although god made us with free will, he made us with less than his own ability to comprehend, to hold personal and intellectual knowledge of good and evil just as he does and to be able cognitively to understand his will. We know that he never intended us to have this ability in the first place when he says “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.” We are imperfect by design. How is this not immoral and evil to make us less than as perfect when he had the ability to do so?


Noah: God punishes humanity by destroying/ killing off the most evil/ corrupt of beings, but chooses one family to repopulate the earth; a family he knows will be more submissive to his commands than the rest of humanity which he had punished through destruction. I do not see how this is not exactly improvement of human traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people (a family that went so far as to build and collect all animals at gods command has to be desirable to corruption) and reduce reproduction of the less desirables (the destruction of all humanity that was so deeply seeded with corruption that everything they did was an abomination).


As Con points out God himself did not do a very good job with choosing Noah There are many interpretations Noah’s post flood story, one being that Ham sodomized or castrated Noah. It’s inferred from the fact that Noah had no children after the Flood. I will let readers delve into others. God chose Noah the “most righteous man on earth” (Genesis 7:1) (Ezekiel 14:14) (Genesis 6:9) (2 Peter 2:5) (Hebrews 11:7). Is it not evil that god would choose a man he considers righteous, that would punish his own grandson (Canaan), and his descendants, for the supposed “sin” of the father (his son) Ham? Punishing the sons for the sins of the father, explain how this is moral/ righteous by any stretch of the imagination?


Sodom and Gomorrah: Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of genocide: the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. [1] God deliberately and systematically killed/ destroyed a large national group of people that live in Sodom and Gomorrah. How is this NOT genocide? North Korea sees South Korea as an abomination for its support of democracy would not be immoral of them to completely destroy S. Korea and sink it into the ocean (figure of speech) and kill every citizen they could manage?


Lots Wife: My mistake, curiosity is neither written nor suspected by scholars that that was the reason for her punishment. However scriptures don’t say whether her death was a punishment for valuing her old life so much that she hesitated in obeying, or if it was a simple consequence of her reluctance to leave her life quickly.


Amalek: It appears my point was overlooked again. I am not saying that it would be righteous of the Israelites to attack the Amalekites. They attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation at Rephidim as they were traveling during the Exodus (Ex 17:8). Attacking them back was Justice in those times. Gods intention when it is said "Blot out the memory of Amalek" is referring to the extinction of the descendents of Amalek, then that is by definition genocide!


However, this is NOT the point I was making. God was toying with an old man to decide the battle! Forcing Moses to keep his arms up, and every time they went down Amalek would have advantage. God could lend hand to Joshua as he did to David later for the justice of the Israelites instead he was cruel to force an old man to keep his arms up with a staff the whole battle that just and deserved.


Job: To prove a point, God gave Satan permission to torment Job. Job’s children were killed. Job’s possessions were destroyed. Job tore his clothes and shaved his head from grief. God allows Satan to smite Job’s body with horrible boils "from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head." I am sure the Geneva Convention would allow for satans brand of torment, which god expressly consented to.


Punishing us for Adams & Eves sin: We are still suffering death! You yourself admit that the “‘process of death' is a natural consequence of separation from God.” Separation of god happened because of Adam and Eves original sin, we like they, are being punished with death. In Christianity, God sent his son Jesus to die for our sins, so that we could be forgiven and go to be with the Lord. But the forgiveness never came. We never reverted to what we as humanity were before Adam and Eve committed their original sin, immortal and given access to the tree of life again.


Hunting souls: That was meant for emphasis, I am not saying that god is taking a bow and arrow and trying to find some nice souls to add the heavenly collection. It was meant to emphasize the cruelty for still imposing the punishment of death on the descendants of A&E for their original sin, especially since Jesus died so that we could be forgiven.


“God is Giver of Life, he alone has the right to take it. “How is that sentence, that sentiment, that belief, that logic not in every way immoral?


Sinister: No you would not be sinister if you told me by house was burning, I should get out. But it would be sinister if:






















You put the gasoline in front of the house



God put the tree of knowledge of good/ evil in eden



You showed a kid what a lit match is



God showed A&E the tree exists



You told kid the house would burn it you light the gas



God told A&E they would die from eating the fruit of the tree



You neglect to teach the kid what the implications of a burned house are.



God neglected to teach A&E what the implications of death are.




[1] Funk, T. Marcus (2010). Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court









Koheleth

Con


Alrighty, now for a conclusion :D



The bulk of Pro's argument consists of criticisms of supposedly 'immoral' actions committed by God, as recorded in the Abrahamic Scriptures. It should be noted much of these attacks reflect a severely misguided reading of the Bible, the most blatant examples of which are the following:





  1. Pro compares God's punishment on the wicked in Noah's day to eugenics. I fear my rebuttal, and particularly my claim that this would be akin to comparing the death penalty to eugenics, was not properly addressed, if at all. The initial argument is simply repeated: God destroyed them because they were 'undesirable', which is absurd, since we know from the Scriptures that God desires all men to come to repentance, as stated in Ezekiel 18:32 'For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!'







  1. Pro asserts that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah amounts to genocide. He provides a useful definition; "the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". There is no indication in the Biblical text that these two cities constituted either of these groups. In fact, like pretty much all great cities of a time, they probably sheltered a myriad of races, religions, and ethnic groups. As for the 'national', Sodom and Gomorrah were no more nations than Paris and London are.







  1. Pro accuses God of toying with a poor old man, Moses, who was forced to keep his arms up during a battle. Aside from calling Moses a wimp, he forgets that Aaron and Hur helped him keep his arms in the air (Exodus 17:8-16)







  1. Job is essentially an allegorical text about the Problem of Evil. The style makes it quite obvious (long, poetic tirades etc), so no Geneva Conventions here, thanks.







  1. Regarding Adam an Eve, I wonder what makes Pro think that they didn't know 'the implications of death'? Were they that stupid to fail to realize that autoproclaming yourself as God is a rebellion against God? I doubt it.


    As for placing the tree in the garden, it was about as immoral as building a house and including an exit. It couldn't possibly have been a trap: as we have said, Adam and Eve were fully aware of the consequences (which, by the way, is why the image provided by Pro is flawed, because a child, unlike Adam and Eve, is unconscious of danger). But once again, a truly righteous God could not force his creatures to stay with him.




Moreover, Pro makes the interesting assertion that because God did not create humans equal to him, he is immoral. I'd point out that virtually everything we make is inferior to us...and no one drags us to court for this.


More importantly, I'm sure Pro agrees that God creating someone equal to him in every way would mean creating another God. Any theology student who quickly remind Pro that God is by definition uncreated..and it follows that creating another God is a logical impossibility. 'Hard to blame anyone from failing to be logical...



In any case, Bible verses set aside, I strongly suspect that Pro has not taken the central assumption of this debate—that the biblical God exists--seriously enough. As I have demonstrated in my first post, in the biblical worldview (and, I'd argue, in any worldview) God cannot possibly be evil, because evil is simply defined as going against his Nature (which is Love, in Christianity).


And Pro's contention that good and evil can be discerned by the “judgment of the people” is simply untenable, because the 'people' in question, unlike God, are not the Game-Makers of the 'Game of Life', (see my first post). Granted, they can establish laws to govern societies. But these are and remain subjective, since they depend on the society. This is certainly NOT the 'good' and 'evil' Pro was thinking about, which I have assumed to be objective since he hasn't stated otherwise (see his definitions, they make no mention of cultural norms).



Had we considered God as a character from literature (as Pro does himself, I suppose), Pro's case wouldn't have been as desperate. Though the accusations he brings have been dealt with hundreds of times by theologians of every breed, he would at least have a right to state an opinion against a fictitious character. But in this debate, he agreed to set aside his atheism and pretend to be a believer. And the existence of God precludes God's immorality.



Morality: before you start a debate; always make sure you double check your assumptions, or they will stab you in the back.



Peace,


Koheleth



(and now, back to revising for genetics -_-)


Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
@ franhoeffer Thanks for the honest view of the debate. If you want, I can discuss the one point you mentioned regarding free will, or any other points. Again, thanks a million for being objective with this debate and Please vote!
Posted by franhoeffer 4 years ago
franhoeffer
Well, I'll start by saying that I'm a Christian (really, a moot point), but I have to say that Jackintosh had better better arguments, or at the very least, the most "eye catching ones." I still don't agree with the Abrahamic God being evil, but Jackintosh definitely caught my attention in pointing out some very interesting ideas and I can honestly say that I enjoyed reading his arguments (especially about Noah; never heard that one before), even agreed with some (within context of this debate). I do disagree with your argument of "creating a being sub-par." Your point about engineers desiring to make something perfect does not truly convey the inverse of wanting to create something imperfect. The act of creating itself, is on a totally different level. When one creates something, it's usually created with a purpose that is perfect in and of itself in its own right. But that created thing is never equal to the one who created it, neither in mind, body, or soul (whatever it may be). So, I can kind of see your point about the intentional creating with insufficient moral judgment, but that does not explain the implications of freewill, let alone freewill and a creator. That's a whole 'nother can of worms. So unless you clearly say the Abrahamic God created people without free will, then you cannot say He created us sub-par.
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
TN05

I would like to learn from my mistakes. Please tell me where exactly I failed. If you can show me the logical hole in the argument from the debate, shown below, I will accept the total failure to prove that god is evil.

Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction was an act of genocide, the definition was accepted. The main defense, in this debate, was that it wasn"t genocide because it was righteous punishment and that Sodom and Gomorrah were not nations.
According to the accepted definition, genocide has occurred when such conditions are met; reason is not one of the conditions for an act to be genocide. The definition of nation is: a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history. [World Book Dictionary]. Sodom and Gomorrah citizens shared at least culture (since the whole of the people, save for the Sodomite Lot, had been corrupt, a corrupt culture is still a culture), & more than likely since this was a large permanent settlement, the majority shared descent and a history, making them a national group.
My opponent"s whole argument on this one point is moot since the definition of nation clearly grants Sodom and Gomorrah the title. The destruction, as proposed in my debate was a punishment, still resulted in the total annihilation and thus genocide of the citizens, save Lot and his children, who were only Sodomites. If nothing else the act of genocide on Gomorrah alone (where no one was spared) is reason enough to call god evil, and if not please explain how it does not.
I reflect again on my analogy of N. Korea and S. Korea; would it not be genocide & evil if N. Korea were to annihilate and kill every citizen in S. Korea even if N. Korea believed it was righteous to destroy S. Korea and its people? The analogy holds with god as well; would it not be genocide & evil if god were to annihilate and kill every citizen in Sodom and Gomorrah even if God believed it was righteous to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and its peopl
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
TN05 wrote:
: Rangar - My vote had nothing to do with sides. Where did I say anything as such in my vote? My vote
: had to do with arguments, and I felt that Pro failed to prove his case.

So you voted arguments because of arguments, conduct because of arguments, spelling because of arguments, and sources because of arguments. That makes you a votebomber.
Posted by TN05 4 years ago
TN05
Rangar - My vote had nothing to do with sides. Where did I say anything as such in my vote? My vote had to do with arguments, and I felt that Pro failed to prove his case.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
TN05: It doesn't matter how strongly you agree with one side, a better argument is only one thing you rate. Disliking that a question was asked at all does not count for conduct ( for that find fallacies they commit, false votebomb claims, forfeited rounds), spelling, or sources. I suggest re-voting explaining your reason for more than argument, or simply revote leaving the other areas as ties.

"votebombing: Is a practice on DDO where a member puts all of his votes towards one member either because he agrees with that member or because he wants that member to win. Never, ever votebomb, and if you feel it is necessary to put all 7 votes towards one member, make sure to leave a Reason For Decision (RFD) that explains your reasoning."
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
TN05 wrote:
: The counter-voting here is ridiculous.

Votebombing is ridiculous. Countering votebombs is necessary for the integrity of the site.

: Give an actual reason, will you?

Pot, meet Kettle.

: People seem to think that because a voter is Christian he can't judge this honestly. Well guess what,
: you're biased too because you are an atheist.

You votebombed, so you got countered. It's nothing to do with your religion.
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
Decent enough. Your debate my friend!
Posted by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
Logical enough??
Posted by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
Wolfman4711, vote and leave a responce. If its logical ill debate you on this exact topic you make the debate.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
jackintoshKohelethTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was very good on both sides, pro made good points on job and Noah but cons arguments were decently good rebuttals I think pro did a good job. But for me it was to close to call. I thought cons argument was a little bit more organized tho so I give him conduct.
Vote Placed by 4saken 4 years ago
4saken
jackintoshKohelethTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter TN05
Vote Placed by TN05 4 years ago
TN05
jackintoshKohelethTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins here because Pro failed to prove his point. Con created significant proofs that, according to Arbrahamic texts, God could not be evil. Pro failed to disprove them.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
jackintoshKohelethTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro defined "evil," and gave examples of god being evil according to that definition. Con tried accepted the debate, thereby accepting that definition of evil. Then Con tried to argue that god would not be evil if we used other definitions. That rebuttal is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Vote Placed by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
jackintoshKohelethTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
jackintoshKohelethTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB SBC
Vote Placed by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
jackintoshKohelethTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: YHWH isn't evil, every verse the Pro gave was an Interpolation, not even The Bible claims to be without error. "they didn't know 'the implications of death'?" Duh, that isn't the point, the point is that deep down they knew to do that is to go against YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit), who JUST created them and gave them everything, how can you do that? Genesis doesn't explain the full details of what happened, even Adam didn't repent, Adam didn't feel sorry, read Job 31:33 - ?Have I covered my transgressions like [v]Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom," Adam knew he did wrong. YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit) isn't evil, and any verse claiming that He did anything evil is a false interpolation, as Inerrancy is Unbiblical.