The Instigator
Rabban
Pro (for)
The Contender
Aspiranti
Con (against)

Is God Everywhere?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Aspiranti has forfeited round #4.
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: 4/27/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 465 times Debate No: 113194
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Rabban

Pro

I will prove with biblical texts that God is everywhere.
Rules for this debate:
-No childish behavior like insults.
-No new arguments in the last round for fairness as a reply wouldn't be able to be made.
-Have fun. There is no point in the debate if we can't have fun with it.
Aspiranti

Con

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Now to begin, I'd like to define terms. "God being everywhere" is very similar, if not synonymous, to the characteristic known as omnipresence. So for the debate, I'll use the term omnipresent to mean physically being in all places at once. Now I intend on using pure logic to attack the structural integrity of the belief that a being can be justifiably stated to be in all places at once. So this means while God is in San Francisco, California, he is also in Tokyo, Japan. While he is behind one corner, he is also across the street. To actually be able to determine if God is everywhere, we must believe he actually exists in reality. Consequently, we must demonstrate that a God exists, so we can prove he is everywhere. After successfully demonstrating this God, we must find out how far does this God reach.

Consider this, if God exists in all places in which we seek, then is God necessarily omnipresent? My answer is no. Although God can be found everywhere we look, how can we be justified in saying that he also exists in the places we do not look?I would assert the characteristic of omnipresence can not be logically and empirically demonstrated, so I am highly interested in how my opponent will demonstrate this phenomenon.
Debate Round No. 1
Rabban

Pro

The Scriptures show that God told Moses "I am that I am" or אהיה אשר אהיה which indicates that He created all things from himself as another way to translate this is "I cause to exist." If He created all things from himself, then He is everywhere as all things existing would be a part of Him. The Scripture that says this is at Exodus 3:14.
Aspiranti

Con

This appears to be a pantheistic notion of God. Your argument appears to assume that because God created all from himself, it means that pieces of himself are in all things;therefore, God is everywhere. So would this mean that by stepping on concrete I'm stepping on God? Or, when I step on a roach, the roach is a part God himself, so I am stepping on God. The issue with my opponent's position is that his own text disagrees with a notion of God being directly present inside of objects. The Bible asserts in Acts 7:48 "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands". If we accept scripture as valid, then we have found a place where God does not exist. If there is a place where God does not exist, then God is not everywhere. I'd also like to mention that my opponent has neglected to demonstrate the existence of his God. Without knowing if the being exists, then we have no way of saying that it exists everywhere. Even if the being existed when Moses existed, does that gives us the room to assert that he acts in the same ways now? The topic asks us to demonstrate God's omnipresence, but the pro has neglected to demonstrate the God. The God's location is contingent upon the God's existence, so we need to demonstrate the latter before we can move onto the former. Obviously, we can assert that imaginary things could hypothetically exist everywhere, but in a discussion about reality, we must demonstrate existence in a way that is both meaningful and logical.
Debate Round No. 2
Rabban

Pro

This isn't a debate of science though. It is regarding the religious beliefs supported by the literary work of the Bible of Judeo-Christian traditions. I just don't want you to further misunderstand the nature of this debate.
Anyway, 2 Chronicles 2:6 says that the heavens cannot contain God. This means that when comparing Acts 7:48 to this and my opening scripture, the Bible shows that in the Judeo-Christian beliefs, God does not only live in houses, but is everywhere and omnipresent. Thus the scripture presented by con proves the point that I am making rather than his own.
Aspiranti

Con

The title of the debate is "Is God Everywhere?" In your opening statement, you did not explain how the con should also use literary arguments to attack the position. You said that you were using scripture to demonstrate God's omnipresence. If you are talking about God's omnipresence in some hypothetical literary universe, then I don't see how we could say God is omnipresent in our reality. So I'm assuming that when you say everywhere, you only mean hypothetically everywhere, or in other words, everywhere inside the context of the Bible (which by the way is a holy book with the intent of detailing events in actual history, in our reality.) So I find it peculiar for you to say science is not involved here when the scripture details actual events that are verifiable. To assert there is a being that is everywhere in this world, then we must have some way of verifying his location in any place. Otherwise, you could just be mistaken about God's omnipresence. Now to your argument in scripture. Although a cup may be unable to contain a gallon of water, that does not mean the water is literally everywhere. Similarly, just because God can not be contained by the heavens, that does not mean he is everywhere. Scripture says he does not live in houses made by men which must mean that God is not in those houses. If that is the case, then God is not everywhere. Furthermore, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 asserts there is yet another place where God is not. "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." Presence, in this sense, would mean
"The state or fact of existing, occurring, or being present in a place or thing."(Google search) If these people are shut off from God's presence, then God is not in the place where they suffer. If God is not in a specific place, then God is necessarily not everywhere. Hell is separation from God and in turn, all things that are good. Even in a literary sense, God is demonstrably not in houses or in hell which are both places. I implore the Pro side to explain if we are only talking about a hypothetical God that was never mentioned in the opening. Also, is the Bible referring to reality or simply a fictitious land parallel to our own? If the Bible is referring to reality, then the topic of this debate is and should be, "Is God everywhere in our reality?" If that's the case, then there should be evidence for this God somewhere and without that evidence, there is no reason to believe the unconfirmed God is everywhere.
Debate Round No. 3
Rabban

Pro

To clarify, what I meant by my earlier statement is that as the debate is about the omnipresence of God, the scope goes beyond scientific knowledge into the metaphysical, heavenly realm. This means that God's omnipresence goes beyond the observable, into what is known only by scripture. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is not talking about a place of hell though. The text plainly says "everlasting destruction." This means that they are "shut out from the presence of the Lord" in that they are completely destroyed from existence forever. This also proves that God is everywhere as it plainly states that destruction is the way that they are "shut out from the Lord." Thus 2 Thessalonians 1:9 shows that the only way to be away from God's omnipresence, is to not exist at all by his almighty power. Once again, the argument of con supports the stance of pro.
Also, the phrase I mentioned earlier also means "I am existence" which also means that God is not everywhere only in the sense discussed by con, but is everywhere meaning that God is existence itself. This means that the earlier arguments of con are proven false. If you step on a bug, you are not stepping on God. God isn't multiple things, but is as the scriptures state at Deuteronomy 6:4, that God is one. One is a significant number in the Bible to show unity, thus further adding to the evidence of God's omnipresence as existence itself.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
As an Israeli the translations known as the Bible turn my stomach. Relying on a translation does not make a 1st rate scholar. How does the Torah define the term: "fear of heaven"?

The oath brit faith: if the bnai brit honor the oath, better than did king Shaul who lost the priviledge to maintain his dynasty, then the Spirit of HaShem lives within our hearts and souls. But if we, to quote Moshe the prophet, choose death, then the Spirit of HaShem departs from living within our hearts and souls.
Posted by Rabban 3 years ago
Rabban
Well it still messed up, so the link is https://www.mechon-mamre.org...
Posted by Rabban 3 years ago
Rabban
The website messed up the Hebrew phrase when it was submitted so I will show it here:
אהיה אשר אהיה
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
RMTheSupreme
Please directly challenge me to it.

"The following exception(s) occurred:
You are already engaged in an open debate with Rabban. You cannot accept another open debate from them until your current debate has concluded."
Posted by Rabban 3 years ago
Rabban
I don't have a specific audience in mind, but it isn't exactly about a disagreement. Debates can be for the purpose of systematic doubt as well which examines the evidence of both sides rather than having the narrow view of one's own point of view. Put simply, the person that accepts doesn't actually have to disagree. It is only for the purpose of proof for examining both sides which is easier and more fun with two people debating rather than just one researching.
Posted by DoulosChristos 3 years ago
DoulosChristos
I think anyone who accepts the authority of the Scripture wouldn't disagree that God is omnipresent... Did you have a specific group of people in mind Rabban?
This debate has 2 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.