The Instigator
omar2345
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Pyyrate
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Re re-upload: God cannot be morally good while giving humans free will

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Pyyrate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 684 times Debate No: 119276
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

omar2345

Pro

Copy of the same debate I did twice before. Hopefully this time Against would stay until it is over either by not forfeiting or deleting his/her account (or whatever having a not active account means).

I am going by the basis that God does exist. I want the other side to show me how God is morally good while also giving us free will. There are inconsistencies with free will that I can mention but I did think about that it but I will narrow it down to morals to keep it simple. Wanting someone who believes God is morally good not someone who is playing devil's advocate. Arguments starts the round you start.

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

I'll leave the definition of morally good to Against since it will give them more room to give counter arguments and starting arguments.

Premise:

1. By God giving free will to humans It has given the power to humans to do wrong.

2. For God to be morally good It must do what is right.

3. By God giving free will to humans It is not morally good.


May both of us learn something new.
Pyyrate

Con

Thank you Pro for providing this great topic to debate.

Let me begin by attempting to define 'morally good' as it pertains to this discussion:

'Morally good' is a term I find difficult to fit into a clear-cut, Denotative box. The reason for this is that it depends entirely on what kind of God you are referring to. The many different religious beliefs in this world hinge on their own versions of what they consider to be 'good' and 'bad'. Since you elected not to make this distinction in the first place, However, I will base my definition of 'morally good' on your own definition of God. I define 'morally good', Insofar as it pertains to human beings, As a set of choices and actions that lead a being toward a self-actualized, Purpose-driven life--a satisfaction of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, If you will. I also believe--and this is key--that if God exists and is the source of all moral authority, It follows that our moral code was specifically bestowed upon us by him. Herein lies the crux of my argument.

I do not believe your argument is valid because I do not believe that God is bound by the morality he set for human beings. This is because God is our creator. He imposes the rules upon his creation, And his creation must follow accordingly; by no means, However, Is he required to do the same. To put this in another light, When we create things, We tend to also impose our own rules upon our creation; programmers will write programs with a long list of instructions, Scientists will conduct experiments with a detailed set of steps. Even when creating an imaginary world, An author or illustrator will adhere to whatever imaginary laws and standards exist in said world when telling its story. At no point, However, Are these creators required to follow these same rules that they impose upon their world. One may argue that these examples are not valid because the creator is so far removed from their creation that it is impossible for them to follow said rules in the first place; an author cannot, After all, Enter his or her own world and become an inhabitant bound by its laws. It is here that I present my second point.

Much in the same way that it is completely pointless to even consider a creator attempting to enter the world of his or her creation, So too do I find it equally pointless to perform the same cognitive exercise with God. I believe that God exists in a dimension of existence that is on such a higher order of magnitude than ours that to even attempt to understand what morality he abides by--if even at all--would be futile.

To conclude, And to clearly address your premises:

1. I believe that your first premise is valid. God has given us free will, And in doing so has given us the power to do 'wrong' (according to his moral guidelines).

2. I believe that your second premise is invalid. God has no need to do what is 'right' because our notion of 'right' does not even apply to him. Therefore, Our human perceptions of 'morally good' are inapplicable to God.

3. I believe that your third premise is invalid because it builds on your second premise, Which I believe in turn to be invalid.

(Also, I think your third premise would be considered the actual argument. )

Even though this is a debate, I am excited to read your rebuttal, In the hopes of seeing a different perspective and in turn helping me think better. May both of us indeed learn something new.
Debate Round No. 1
omar2345

Pro

Sorry about that. I am speaking about the Abrahamic God (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). If you want to speak about other Gods then okay. The reason why I choose this God is because It is all-knowing. This important in my premise which I should have made clear that if God knows that the person's life would be more negative then positive as whole and still allowed that person to live God is partly to blame. The reason is God had the power to do something but did not. You might say how do we know when someone does more harm then good in their life? I would say Hitler did not get his just punishment for one of the worst people to live. You might say in the afterlife but that is not anything to work with in this life so in this reality he did not recieve a just punishment.

I do not believe your argument is valid because I do not believe that God is bound by the morality he set for human beings.
I am basing on what the Abrahamic religion has given titles to their God. I am not saying God is bound by our morality. I am stating from my perception with the power God has God is evil. The reason is It has the power do something and does not. You can bring up that their God is Just and Merciful. To me you cannot be both, Either you are one or the other. Just requires to do what is morally right and being merciful does come in the way of that. Either God is a pushover or delivers fair moral authority. I would say It is a pushover simply based on what It does not do.

This is because God is our creator. He imposes the rules upon his creation, And his creation must follow accordingly; by no means, However, Is he required to do the same.
What if the text It used cannot be verified with our current tools? Shouldn't It's job be to update the religious book of his choice to make sure It's will is being carried out. All 3 of them do not hold up to scrutiny but are based on belief. My argument would be if you base everything on belief then it is not difficult to say everything was created by God. Reason helps us understand in an objective what happened or occurred.

To put this in another light, When we create things, We tend to also impose our own rules upon our creation; programmers will write programs with a long list of instructions, Scientists will conduct experiments with a detailed set of steps. Even when creating an imaginary world, An author or illustrator will adhere to whatever imaginary laws and standards exist in said world when telling its story. At no point, However, Are these creators required to follow these same rules that they impose upon their world.
The example you have given would be that humans would still be alive for the experiments right? I think a better analogy would be if scientist have found a way to make robots sentient. They would be more efficient in doing the correct thing if programmed correctly so why wouldn't we abide by their morals since they are working like us but at a faster rate. From my point of view God has not been clear with what It wants and expects us to follow a religious documents that do not hold up to our standards of science. Yes who are we to ask God to based on our morality but how are we meant to comprehend if not with our sense of morality? Just take it upon belief I am guessing that God is right.

I believe that God exists in a dimension of existence that is on such a higher order of magnitude than ours that to even attempt to understand what morality he abides by--if even at all--would be futile.
My question would be if we cannot comprehend what It wants then how are we supposed to fulfill his wishes? I did base it on the Abrahamic God but even that the 3 religions do not agree on the same one. Am I supposed to believe this one over the other based on belief? I am sure if I believe all these religions on belief then they would all be right (comparing alternative realities where I was born and believed in Christianity, Jeudaism, Islam) but that cannot be if they all claim to be the one true telling of God.

2. I believe that your second premise is invalid. God has no need to do what is 'right' because our notion of 'right' does not even apply to him. Therefore, Our human perceptions of 'morally good' are inapplicable to God.
If we cannot comprehend him why do we choose to believe him?

One point I would like to add to this discussion: God can still be God without being morally good. Even with the Abrahamic God, God in their instance is illogical. Meaning God can do bad and still be perceived good by us because it is based on belief. I would like you to answer why is God morally good or objectively morally good?
If you say something similar to It is God then I would say this is a might makes right argument. That does not make God right but the most powerful so we must abide by him.

Now if you want to speak about God in General state it in your Round 2. Make sure to define God so that I know the God you are speaking about.

May we still learn something new
Pyyrate

Con

I will briefly state my position on God and religion in order to clear up any potential misunderstandings. I believe in the Christian God. My understanding of God is owed almost entirely to my parents who raised me as a Christian. Though I believe in God, I have doubts as to the legitimacy and indisputability of the Bible, For reasons that I will delve into in depth later on in this rebuttal. I do, However, Confidently accept your definition of God as "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being". As such (and also because I am not educated enough in the Islamic or Judaic God to make sound arguments on their behalves), I will make my argument based on the Christian God as I know him.

There are a few points you make in your rebuttal that I wish to address:

[b]1. "I am not saying God is bound by our morality. I am stating from my perception with the power God has God is evil. The reason is It has the power do something and does not. "[/b]
And. . . [b]"Yes who are we to ask God to based on our morality but how are we meant to comprehend if not with our sense of morality? "[/b]

If I am understanding your point correctly, It appears to me as though the reason we are unable to see eye to eye on this issue is that you are attempting to view God and his actions through a rational, Humanistic lens, While I am attempting to view the same through a sort of transcendental lens, For lack of a better term (I don't know how else to say that I'm trying to see it from God's point of view, More or less). To expand on the matter, You seem to be trying to explain the actions of God using reason and logic. By allowing us to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to ourselves and others around us, And seemingly turning a blind eye, God is failing to uphold the moral standards he dictated to us in the first place, And thus must be considered morally evil. I argue that there is a "bigger picture" in play that none of us are capable of perceiving. I think that there are situations and events that we witness and consider to be tragic, But that in the long run actually turn out be for the greater good. Pain and pleasure go hand in hand, And in order to truly understand and appreciate the mountainous joys of life, We must endure the valleys of suffering. To put it in yet another light, I would liken the journey of humanity to the journey of life on Earth. Our planet has existed for approximately four and a half billion years, Over the course of which it has been ceaselessly bombarded with cataclysmic and catastrophic events. On more than one occasion, The various forms of life on Earth have suffered unimaginable setbacks, From the extinction of species to the obliteration of entire ecosystems. Tragic as it may be, It is this endless cycle of peaks and troughs that has given rise to the highly advanced lifeforms that thrive today. Similarly, Our own cycle of ordeal and blessing is leading to an existence in which we will all be able to reap the fruits of our labors. This goal-oriented suffering--this odyssey destined to the fulfillment of the bigger picture--is why I believe that God is morally good.

[b]2. "If we cannot comprehend him why do we choose to believe him? "[/b]

I think that faith in a God who has a plan for us is an incredibly powerful motivator. To reject the existence of a higher order (Christian or not) would be to accept that there is no plan--no purpose for our existence. There would be no reason not to do whatever we want, Whenever we want to, Regardless of the consequences. An argument could perhaps be made as to the benefits of civil and moral conduct in order to better the life of the individual. Maybe an argument could even be made as to the benefits of an ethical code in order to further our species. But in the grandest of schemes--in relation to the eternal ticking of the universe--would anything we do actually matter? What would be the point of spending our meager 80 years in the universe worrying about the well-being of others? This nihilistic, Entropic state of the universe is what we would have to come to terms with if we chose not to believe in a God.

[b]3. "What if the text It used cannot be verified with our current tools? Shouldn't It's job be to update the religious book of his choice to make sure It's will is being carried out. All 3 of them do not hold up to scrutiny but are based on belief. "[/b]

This is the greatest issue I currently have with the Christian faith. Just as you stated, There is no definitive way to prove that the Bible was, In fact written by men inspired directly by God. Furthermore, There is no way to know that it was passed down through centuries unaltered. I believe a number of concepts in the Old Testament to be antiquated and in dire need of an update. Though my knowledge of the Bible is limited (I have never read it from start to finish), If I am to understand what I have been told by friends and family in the faith correctly, It appears as though the arrival of Jesus Christ superseded the teachings of the Old Testament. This would, In fact, Fall in perfectly in line with my argument that God is not bound by our understanding of morality, Because in order for God to help us understand what he expects of us, He would either have to put it in writing, Or enter our world and dimension through a vessel in order to show us--to tell us that Jesus is the example which we must follow. The benefit to having a person whom we should strive to emulate is that it is a much more flexible way of conveying morality; regardless of the era in which we live, We can always consider Jesus to be a shining example of the best that man has to offer. The drawback, However--and I find this to be a massive one--is that it does not provide a concrete, Written ethical framework in which to ground our societal laws and regulations. However, I believe this would be a discussion for another time, Because while it is vital that we address how we would have to translate a belief in God into the rules and regulations that govern man, The issue at hand is, To some extent, Whether or not God should even be considered as the moral foundation in the first place.
Debate Round No. 2
omar2345

Pro

Thank you for being honest with your position. If I had to pick what best categorises me it would be Nihilism. Purpose is subjective and morals are different from a serial killer and the average person.

I argue that there is a "bigger picture" in play that none of us are capable of perceiving.
What if the "bigger picture" is that God is evil? Christianity cannot prove God being all good so I can assume the "bigger picture" is him using us as guinea pigs or maybe God created us but has not impacted the word the day God created it. I think it is difficult to believe that the pain and suffering was required for people to be good. What we do require if I was God would be using logic over our instincts. This will allow us to primarily use logic that can help improve our situations without it getting worse.

Our planet has existed for approximately four and a half billion years
I highly doubt Christians believe that to be the case.

Tragic as it may be, It is this endless cycle of peaks and troughs that has given rise to the highly advanced life forms that thrive today.
Way of life has been drastically increased over the past 20 years. To say we are still having the same pain and suffering I think would be a lie. The longer humans continue the better we can make peoples lives. It is not history is doomed to repeat itself. It is: history, If we have not improved, Is doomed to repeat itself. We have improved and our lives are better. We live longer, Less risk of illness and have multiple ways to live a prosperous life.

This goal-oriented suffering--this odyssey destined to the fulfillment of the bigger picture--is why I believe that God is morally good.
I would believe that would be the case but some people all have suffering their life or if we could have measurements on the balance of good and bad in someone's life I would say not everyone has an equal balance and some do have worse life's. The people living under Kim in North Korea. Saudi Arabia having women as objects. Children who have cancer for the entirety of their life until they die. If those 3 examples are true then you would be wrong. God cannot be morally good by having these people have bad lives.

would be to accept that there is no plan--no purpose for our existence.
I think the only objective purpose we can have is to survive. People are different and they want different things. Which is Why I am different to you. By saying we have objective purpose people end up eventually ending up at the same outcomes. Objective purpose can be to die but that is not what Christianity says. It say to follow God. I would say if it was objective why isn't everyone following the religion like how everyone requires food to fuel him/herself? To me God can easily show everyone proof but God does not. Maybe Christianity is false because not everyone is following it. They even have assumptions that Christians should follow with non-believers. This can be to convert with what the Americans did with Manifest Destiny or believe them to be liars. I am assuming this but the Bible does imply Christians are good and non-believers are bad so I do not think what I said was a stretch. If what I said is true then the Bible is also wrong in that part. The argument matters more then the person saying it. Example: A serial killer says the Earth is spherical like. Looking at evidence we can believe the serial killer to be telling the truth but if the Bible does imply non-believers are liars or do not tell the truth then we do not believe the serial killer.

argument could perhaps be made as to the benefits of civil and moral conduct in order to better the life of the individual
Yes it puts more emphasis on the individual. We cannot prove what happened before humans existed or what will happen after we die so why not only care about the thing we assume we know. We exist in this reality and why not make the most of it? Since as far science knows this is the only life we have.

What would be the point of spending our meager 80 years in the universe worrying about the well-being of others?

Because love is a mix of chemicals and hormones. It does irrational things. A man can run into a burning to save his child. Why did he do that? Because of the irrational feeling of love.

would anything we do actually matter?
You can say to 5 different people something and they can say 5 different answers. I don't care, Heard of it didn't watch it, I can't believe that happened since I was supporting the opposing side, That was amazing since we won and it was a great match. Different things matter to different people. Nothing apart from survival is objective matter so this is already the case.

What would be the point of spending our meager 80 years in the universe worrying about the well-being of others?
To enjoy it since as far as I know we are not going to have another 80 years in this reality. Quoted you again since I had something else to say.

I believe a number of concepts in the Old Testament to be antiquated and in dire need of an update.
Did like you being honest before what you said hear. Appreciate it. By saying it requires update then the Bible does not transcend time. Going against its traces to God since if humans change a Godly inspired book it ceases to be so since humans are flaws and the book would be was divinely inspired until someone changed it.

Or enter our world and dimension through a vessel in order to show us--to tell us that Jesus is the example which we must follow.
I think we both know this is the best option. Jesus has not lived on with everyone following Christianity.

The benefit to having a person whom we should strive to emulate is that it is a much more flexible way of conveying morality; regardless of the era in which we live, We can always consider Jesus to be a shining example of the best that man has to offer.
By having someone perfect we have nothing more to work for. By saying this is perfection we do not allow other perfections or necessary improvements to be perfect. The perfect cannot be followed because he does not relate to the average person who is not perfect and would look at them with envy. They would say why wasn't I the son of God? Why have you made us flawed so that we can use envy to be jealous of what Jesus is?

Whether or not God should even be considered as the moral foundation in the first place.
Closing argument would be we do not know we are all his guinea pigs any more then God loves us. The 3 examples above points that God is evil since not everyone has a balance of pain and pleasure. Someone have more pain then pleasure. You can say God has a plan or something but then that would logically follow that we should not do anything until something happens. Example: We should not cure cancer victims because it is part of God's plan. We should not invade North Korea or Saudi Arabia because it is apart of God's plan. I should not do something with my live because I should wait until God makes me part of God's plan. Everything I said here can be brushed off as God's plan but that is stopping us figuring out improvements to our life and giving every action to God gives no room to argue whether it was wrong that the person raped someone. If I follow you correctly that would be part of God's plan.

Pyyrate

Con

I am going to be as honest as I possibly can. When reading your rebuttal, I felt that after some significant pondering I would be able to address most of your points in a manner I would find satisfactory, But there was one point that had me completely stumped for two and a half days. So, After a whole lot of thinking, Watching videos, Talking to other people, And occasionally wondering if I should just forfeit cause it was hurting my brain to think so much, I have come to a point where I am comfortable attempting to answer this argument.

But before that, A brief address to a couple of the points you made:

I think the only objective purpose we can have is to survive.

While this would be the logical direction in which to go in the absence of a higher being, I believe that this purpose can only be valid if we as a species are able to perpetuate ourselves for eternity. The only way in which it would matter for us to survive is if we do so forever. Otherwise, We will have been nothing more than a blip in the universe. Even if we manage to defy the universe and survive for thousands, Millions, Even billions of years, If we die out--and I strongly believe that we will eventually, Because I think it is impossible for us to continue existing for eternity--or if the universe dies out and us with it, Then at the end of the day we will still, In the grandest of schemes, Have been nothing but a simple blip. Therefore I do not believe survival, Or indeed anything, Would be a valid purpose for which to strive if there were no God.

By having someone perfect we have nothing more to work for. By saying this is perfection we do not allow other perfections or necessary improvements to be perfect. The perfect cannot be followed because he does not relate to the average person who is not perfect and would look at them with envy. They would say why wasn't I the son of God? Why have you made us flawed so that we can use envy to be jealous of what Jesus is?

Though I agree with you that perfection can never be attained, I don't think that that was the point of Jesus' appearance in the first place. He didn't walk among us so that we could strive for and reach perfection, He walked among us so that we can we can strive for perfection even though we will never be perfect--not in this lifetime, Nor in this world. As our penchant for good and our penchant for evil battle for supremacy inside of us, Jesus is the beacon that guides us on the path to moral enlightenment.

Now, Onto the part that took me forever to think about. . . The most important point I wish to address:

I would believe that would be the case but some people all have suffering their life or if we could have measurements on the balance of good and bad in someone's life I would say not everyone has an equal balance and some do have worse life's. The people living under Kim in North Korea. Saudi Arabia having women as objects. Children who have cancer for the entirety of their life until they die. If those 3 examples are true then you would be wrong. God cannot be morally good by having these people have bad lives.

I think that people experience pain and suffering in various degrees at various points in their lives. It is difficult for me to say that one's life is objectively worse than the life of another, Because our lives mould us; our lives are intertwined and interconnected, For better or for worse. There are innumerable examples in history of a person who came up from the dredges of society only to make a name for themselves, Or a person who experienced heart-breaking loss after loss only to go on to impact the lives of countless many in a positive manner. Similarly, There is an abundance of examples of people who were seemingly given "everything"--only to squander it all and end up miserable and alone. A child is born with cancer and dies at a young age, But not before completely changing the lives of her parents who were on the verge of divorce. A woman is regularly beaten by her husband and escapes, After which she makes it her life's calling to help countless other women in similar situations. An enslaved man demonstrates unbelieveable compassion when he saves the life of his master out of love, Changing his life completely. . . The master goes on to free all of his slaves and fight for the abolishment of slavery entirely. A man journeys for hundreds of miles, Helping those in need and preaching the importance of a life of good deeds before being unjustly branded a blasphemer, Ridiculed and executed. . . And in doing so inspires billions of people to strive for a life of service and kindness. What we consider to be a life of suffering is sometimes simply but a means to an end; it is a valley of darkness we go through, Without truly realizing the massive amount of light we exude that touches others in the process.

The incredible advantage that free will affords us is that even though all of our stories are different, They are also the same in that we all have obstacles to overcome. What this unlocks for us is one of the most magnificent emotions of all: hope. We are all faced with the suffering of this world. We are all placed in it, Like fish in an ocean. We must all swim, Or sink. And when we falter and it feels as though we will be swallowed up, We need only look around us at our friends, Our family, The strangers whose stories we see and read about every day on the web and in our books. We need only share in the grand narrative of struggle and overcoming, And know through the victories of others that we too may one day vanquish the misery in the world. This hope that is always in and around us, That always keeps us going forward, Is why I believe that God is a morally good being.

Thank you very much for this debate. It was an honor conversing with you, And I daresay I learned quite a bit.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Pyyrate 3 years ago
Pyyrate
Nice, Thanks!
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Pyyrate

Click the Rich text (blue writing) above the rectangle where you are writing your response. A menu should be on top of rectangle comment box. The rest should be self-explanatory.
Posted by Pyyrate 3 years ago
Pyyrate
Wait how do I make letters bold and italic and stuff? It seems I failed in that regard
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
omar2345PyyrateTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Omar has challenged me to a vote off, apparently. If at any time he wishes this to stop, he should let me know

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