The Instigator
omar2345
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
bacchicfrenzy
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Re-upload: God is illogical

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,329 times Debate No: 119492
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (50)
Votes (2)

 

omar2345

Pro

Re-upload because I think my opponent was trolling.

Using Bible sources as evidence. Logic is used for the explanation. Circular arguments cannot be given like you are not God how do you know? I can say the same and the conversation goes nowhere. I also used logic since there is still no evidence for God. This is strictly a logical debate. I will allow any form of logic apart from circular logic that show flaws in my arguments. Best way I would say for Con to set out the rebuttals is with a claim, Evidence and explanation.

I will only be tackling 3 attributes and hope my opponent does not go off topic and stays directly on topic.

God is illogical (Bible version (KJV))

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

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, Sound reasoning.

Omniscience (All-knowing)

Omniscience: the state of knowing everything.

It is illogical for God to do what God does if God is logical.

Evidence of omniscience: Isaiah 46:10 (KJV)
Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times the things that are not yet done, Saying, My counsel shall stand, And I will do all my pleasure

Evidence of wanting to save us: 1 Timothy 2:3-4
(KJV)
This is good, And pleases God our savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.

Evidence of free will: Joshua 24:15 King James Version (KJV)
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, Choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, Or the gods of the Amorites, In whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, We will serve the Lord.

By God knowing everything. God knows free will does not save people and does not allow them to come to the knowledge of truth. If it did why are there so many people following other Religions or do not follow a Religion? God knowing beforehand someone will go their entire life without being saved goes against what God is said to supposed to do in the Bible which is illogical.

Real world examples of this would be kings. Though they are a thing of a past they still used whatever means to keep control of the kingdom they ran. More present example would be a dictatorship. Kim controls everything people do and makes them believe that Kim is God. By doing this Kim controls the country. Kim is not God but is more capable of controlling North Korea then God is saving people even though the massive difference between them.

Omnipotence

Omnipotence: the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

By God having unlimited or very great power God has no purpose.

Evidence of omnipotence: Psalm 147:5 King James Version (KJV)
Great is our Lord, And of great power: his understanding is infinite.

Given that God has unlimited power. God has no purpose. Why does God care about the human race? Since God already knows everything and has unlimited power there is nothing God strives for apart from Its creations happiness? What is the purpose of that? It is illogical to believe that a God for some reason would want to exist even though God has already hit the peak of everything. Meaning God is looking forward to nothing and is what watching us as part of Its amusement (assumption) even though God knows how everything ends.

Real world examples: Science is the pursuit of knowledge. When we have all-knowledge science becomes obsolete. Religion is the pursuit of pleasing of God. When we have pleased God we have little to no use left.

Omnipresence

Omnipresence: the state of being widespread or constantly encountered.

If God is everywhere why can’t we use our five senses to perceive God?

Evidence of omnipresence: Proverbs 15:3 King James Version (KJV)
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Beholding the evil and the good.

God cannot be perceived using our 5 senses so God is illogical yet the Bible States God is everywhere. Everywhere should include inside our 5 senses yet it does not.

Real world examples: I can see water therefore it is water. I heard shouting therefore someone is shouting. I can taste food. I can smell food. I can touch solid and liquid objects.

Would like a Christian to find a way to say God is logical by rebutting claims I made.

May we both learn something new.

bacchicfrenzy

Con

Hi omar2345,

Thanks for your interest in this debate topic. It is a very interesting topic.

On Omniscience: I agree, God is all-knowing, God wants everyone to choose life, And God gives everyone free will. You argue this is illogical. I don"t see why. A parent can want their child to make a good choice, Allow them to make the choice, And know they will not make the good choice. I do not see the formal tension. It sounds like good parenting, Though leading to sad results. The parent is unwilling to take the child"s free will away, But they keep hoping they will make a wise choice.

On Omnipotence: I agree, God is all-powerful, And is at "peak power". But, This doesn"t take away purpose. I agree that the journey to self-actualization gives great purpose. But, Being in a state of self-actualization also brings great purpose. If the destination were purposeless, The journey itself would soon be purposeless, As you would be going nowhere important. So, The destination of 'peak performance' better have purpose itself. The purpose of being in one's ideal state is to live and do as you are now able to do. Consider an analogy: a child is learning to build, First using lego, Then blocks, And finally goes to university and becomes a great architect. He has arrived at perfection. Now he is able to build at peak performance, That is the meaning, Which he obviously takes great joy in, Or he would never have tried to build in the first place. Or, To use your example of science: it is meaningful to try to learn the mysteries of the universe through the scientific method. But, It is also meaningful to simply understand these truths, And to apply these truths to developing technology. Or, Returning to the case of God, Part of God's peak performance is to bestow love on His creation. The creation is not for His amusement, But for God to bestow love onto those who want it.

On omnipresence: I agree, God is "omni-present", But that really just means that God is all-knowing. Perception perceives percepts purportedly caused by an external physical world. God is not physical, So it is no surprise that perception does not perceive God. The mind apprehends abstract objects, Such as numbers, Moral values, Logic, Ideas and God. So, We should expect the mind to apprehend God, Not the senses to perceive God. You may object: if X cannot be perceived, It doesn"t exist. Well, That is an old argument. The external world is not directly perceived, But we assume it exists. Other minds are not directly perceived, But we assume they exist. Numbers, Moral values, Laws of logic, Are all not perceivable by the senses, But we presume they exist. The past, The future cannot be perceived by five senses, But they exist. Our own minds are not perceived by our perceptions, But we presume we exist. So, Presumably that isn't your argument.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing your replies and clarifications, So I can understand you better.
Debate Round No. 1
omar2345

Pro

Thanks for your interest in this debate topic. It is a very interesting topic.
Don't worry about it. Thought about logical flaws in God and made a debate.

On Omniscience: I agree, God is all-knowing, God wants everyone to choose life, And God gives everyone free will. You argue this is illogical. I don"t see why.
You forgot to mention that God wants what is good for us or at the very least save us. Mentioned in the same attribute that you were rebutting. If God allowed us to choose good and bad, God has allowed humans to not be capable of saving. This can be seen with Hitler, Stalin and many other evil people from the past. By God giving free will God has allowed evil to exist knowing full-well the consequences and knowing also some people cannot be saved. Examples would be Hitler and Stalin again. God gave them free will to do bad. Most likely God would send them to hell.

A parent can want their child to make a good choice, Allow them to make the choice, And know they will not make the good choice. I do not see the formal tension. It sounds like good parenting, Though leading to sad results. The parent is unwilling to take the child"s free will away, But they keep hoping they will make a wise choice.
This does not logically follow, Either the parents forces the child to meet their demands or the child will find order in something else. Parents will not allow the free will of the child to be used to do bad. One instance would be if the child is trying to touch fire. A good parent would realise free will matters less then the child's health therefore they will make sure the child does not have the free will to burn him/herself.

This analogy can be used with God. God by not forcing people to meet Its demands has allowed evil to persist. I argue stopping evil matters more then having free will. That doesn't mean I am against freedom but as a civilised society we create laws to be civil with one another.

On Omnipotence: I agree, God is all-powerful, And is at "peak power". But, This doesn"t take away purpose. I agree that the journey to self-actualization gives great purpose. But, Being in a state of self-actualization also brings great purpose. If the destination were purposeless, The journey itself would soon be purposeless, As you would be going nowhere important. So, The destination of 'peak performance' better have purpose itself. The purpose of being in one's ideal state is to live and do as you are now able to do.
I boil it down to few words as possible. Life is a power struggle. Without power to gain life becomes meaningless. Since God is all-powerful God has nothing strive for. Why does God carry on existing? This question was still not addressed. As humans we can never gain full power because we cannot point to every example of power and gain from it. Which is why humans can never truly be fulfilled if the goal of life is ultimate power. God already has it but still exists for some reason to watch us.



Consider an analogy: a child is learning to build, First using Lego, Then blocks, And finally goes to university and becomes a great architect. He has arrived at perfection. Now he is able to build at peak performance, That is the meaning, Which he obviously takes great joy in, Or he would never have tried to build in the first place.
You do understand even the child has room for improvement as well as an architect. I have never known a field where everything has been learnt. God with all Its attributes has already gained perfection therefore I don't see a reason to persist. You do also understand the difference between the peak performance of a human and a God right? One can be considered peak performance and the other is ultimate performance. There is nothing learn, Strive or fulfill by God yet I am supposed to assumed God does care about us.

Or, To use your example of science: it is meaningful to try to learn the mysteries of the universe through the scientific method. But, It is also meaningful to simply understand these truths, And to apply these truths to developing technology. Or, Returning to the case of God, Part of God's peak performance is to bestow love on His creation. The creation is not for His amusement, But for God to bestow love onto those who want it.
To the science example. Humans still have mysteries to be discovered. God has not. All as in everything leaves no room for improvement. God is the perfect being yet God still has purpose. I still do not see how It does. Why does God want to bestow love into us? That is completely useless if God was perfect. If God is sinless God would not need or require affections of humans and God already knows who will or not accept so even if affection does occur God already knew it will happen therefore the acts God commits become redundant. Why did God create life? Why does God want us to love It? Another point to peak performance is that it is relative. It is relative to what the human knows, Capable and can do given the time restrictions. God has none of those affecting It therefore it should be considered ultimate performance. If the architect was at ultimate performance there was nothing to learn therefore purpose in building things has become obsolete. Humans require obstacles to overcome without them there is nothing to learn from. With God knowing everything and is all-powerful in doing so as It wishes becomes redundant if there is no obstacle or something left to learn.

On omnipresence: I agree, God is "omni-present", But that really just means that God is all-knowing. Perception perceives percepts purportedly caused by an external physical world. God is not physical, So it is no surprise that perception does not perceive God.
You accept my definition of omnipresent and yet you change it. All-knowing is different than being everywhere. By your logic the person with the best eyesight knows more then a person who lacks eyesight. That is not how it works. It doesn't matter where the argument came from it matters what the argument is. From what I read it does not logically follow. If God is not physical how does God exist? My argument still stands everywhere does mean in our perception. Everywhere cannot exclude anything that is what it stands for.

The mind apprehends abstract objects, Such as numbers, Moral values, Logic, Ideas and God. So, We should expect the mind to apprehend God, Not the senses to perceive God.
Completely forgetting what omnipresence means. Everywhere. This does include the mind. If it does then God is not omnipresent. What created our mind? God. What also gave us the tools to perceive our world? God therefore I am supposed to assume either God is not capable of being everywhere or does not want to be. If God does not want to be omnipresent then God is not omnipresent.

You may object: if X cannot be perceived, It doesn"t exist. Well, That is an old argument. The external world is not directly perceived, But we assume it exists. Other minds are not directly perceived, But we assume they exist. Numbers, Moral values, Laws of logic, Are all not perceivable by the senses, But we presume they exist. The past, The future cannot be perceived by five senses, But they exist. Our own minds are not perceived by our perceptions, But we presume we exist. So, Presumably that isn't your argument.
I am guessing you are making the argument Creatio Ex Nihilo. No evidence has been given for it to be the case. Creatio Ex Materia on the other hand has evidence. Your argument boils down to faith. It is not logical to have faith since it goes against logic. Faith is illogical. No amount of reason or strict principles of validity was used to have complete trust that there is a God. By you saying That is an old argument. also states absolutely nothing. I can say to the Bible is an old argument therefore it is wrong. Am I wrong in this in saying this proves the Bible wrong? You say no therefore That is an old argument. is a bad argument. Everything is assumed to exist. If that is the case logically following your example God is also assumed to exist? By you saying nothing is fact God is also assumed to exist. I am not saying you argument is wrong but by you making that claim God would also fit into the assumption category you laid out for everything we perceive if not I would say you are being intellectually dishonest. We do not require to see how the past was like instead we can use current tools to identify changes in nature.
Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
bacchicfrenzy

Con

You say: “God has allowed humans to not be capable of saving. ”

Standard theology states everyone can have eternal life, If they want. The ‘eternal life’ option was open to Hitler and Stalin, Though they obviously chose death and destruction rather than life.

You say: “Parents will not allow the free will of the child to be used to do bad”

If a three year old is trying to touch fire, The parent will stop them. But, The parent is training the child to be wise. So, When the child is grown to a 40 year old, If the adult tries to touch fire, The parent cannot stop them. It would be illegal for the parent to chain them down to stop them. All they can do is tell them it is not wise, And hope they choose well.

You say: “I argue stopping evil matters more then having free will. That doesn't mean I am against freedom but as a civilised society we create laws to be civil with one another. ”

The life of a happy automaton is worse than the life of a free person with help/harm in their life. Perhaps you disagree. But then I ask what would you rather: the free will to sleep around, Knowing harm to people will come, Or God forcing sexual ethics onto people? I think most would prefer the free will to develop their own sexual ethics. On the second point, God also made laws so we would be civil. Sometimes people break those laws, As people break the laws of the nation. The nation does not brainwash away free will in order to stop people from harm. Rather, The nation tries to teach wisdom, And exact consequences for rule violation. God does the same.

You say: “Life is a power struggle”

For those without power, That may be important. But, God has power, So that could not be what God is striving for.

You say: “Why does God carry on existing? ”

The fact that God enjoys existing without being in a power struggle shows that the purpose of life is not just a power struggle. I would suggest your view that life is a power struggle only captures a small percentage of the purpose of life. What about apprehension of beauty, Raising a family, Finding love, Intellectual development, Spiritual maturity, Giving one’s life away, Enjoying fine wine, Etc… Most people who strive for power only do so for the sake of a deeper purpose. That is, They want power so they can maximize their freedom, Or their happiness, Or their ability to be charitable. Power is not the end goal.

You say: “God with all Its attributes has already gained perfection therefore I don't see a reason to persist. ”

Yes, God has attained perfection. But, The point is not only the struggle towards perfection, But existing in and acting out perfection as well. This argument dates back to Aristotle. Let us say you want to be a perfect soccer player. Does it make sense to have this attitude: my purpose is to learn to pass, And dribble and shoot, But I never want to play once I’m perfect at it. No. That attitude takes the purpose out of the learning as well: since the end goal is meaningless, The journey there is meaningless as well. Rather, We try to learn soccer so much just so we can play all day on a sunny day, To our peak ability. Acting out perfection is the purpose, And the well-being in our soul while we are doing it is the proof that this is what we were made for.

You say: “If God is sinless God would not need or require affections of humans”.

God doesn’t need affections from humans, That is an Ancient Greek way of thinking about love. The Biblical model says God bestows value onto people. God only wants humans to love Him since God knows the best life for a human is to love God.

You say: “Why did God create life? ”

God made life so there wasn’t something to shine on. Why do humans have babies? So they have something to love for their entire lives.

You say: "You accept my definition of omnipresent and yet you change it”

Imagine that the universe was a computer game that some future teenager is playing on his set top box. The human knows everything that is happening inside the game, But is not inside the game. This is similar to God. God made the universe, And knows everything about it, But is outside the universe.

You say:” If God is not physical how does God exist? ”

Well, You are assuming all that exists is physical. I don’t agree. I have given you a number of other examples of things that exist, But are not physical. If you only believe in the existence of what is physical, You would have to reject the existence of numbers, Logic, Your own consciousness, Other minds, Moral values, Aesthetic properties, Laws of nature, Math, Etc… Or, You can try to show how that is physical, As many have tried. But, Why cut reality in half, Only seeing one part? Reality is clearly not only particles in a void, Why wish it to be that way, Why think it is that way?


You say: “I am supposed to assume either God is not capable of being everywhere”

I agree, God is omnipresent. I’m just defining it in a way that makes sense for God. God’s presence is not ‘physical presence’, But ‘mental presence’, Which just means awareness. For example, If you are ‘present to an emotion you are having’, Then you are aware of it in that moment. If you are absent minded about something, You are not aware of it. Physical presence is being in a place and time. Mental presence means being aware.

You say: “I am guessing you are making the argument Creatio Ex Nihilo. … Creatio Ex Materia on the other hand has evidence. ”

It is the atheist who thinks the universe was created out of nothing, By nothing, From nothing. So, They believe in counter-intuitive creation ex nihilo. The atheist does not typically believe in creation ex materia, Since there was no material before the big bang moment 13. 7 billion years ago.

You say: “Faith is illogical. No amount of reason or strict principles of validity was used to have complete trust that there is a God. ”

We both use reason and evidence to support beliefs. My belief in God is supported by reason and evidence. Your belief that God does not exist is supported by reason and evidence. But, We both come to a point where we do not know for sure who is correct. I don’t know for sure there is a God, And you do not know for sure that there isn’t a God. So, I believe the claim ‘there is a God’ based on evidence and a step of faith that I am right about that, And you believe the claim ‘there is no God’ based on evidence and a step of faith that you are right about that. You could say: ‘you should never take a step of faith’. Well, Good luck with that. Do you know for sure that a career choice will make you happy, That a marriage will end well, That having a child will be good, That eating a McDonalds will not make you sick? No one knows anything for sure. If we insisted on certainty, We would not be able to do anything. That would be illogical. So, We act on beliefs that are based on evidence, But are not certain.

Thanks for the interesting discussion so far.

Debate Round No. 2
omar2345

Pro

Standard theology. . . . . . Want.
What I said in the previous Round that still holds up: By God giving free will God has allowed evil to exist knowing full-well the consequences and knowing also some people cannot be saved.
Since God is all-knowing God knew Hitler would not be able to be saved. If God did not know God is not all-knowing. God the Christianic one is all-knowing therefore knew Hitler would commit the acts he did and allowed it to occur even though God is well within Its power to prevent the acts he committed and send him straight to hell but God allowed him to live only to punish him afterwards. A non-theist would say he did not get the justice he deserved but even if Hitler gets his justice in the afterlife in this reality he did not get his just punishment.

Though they. . . . . Life.
Not everyone gets the choice. Did the cancer patient had the choice of genes or when he/she would die? No but you somehow think Hitler and Stalin had the choice of death and destruction or something less harmful. To me that requires proof that Stalin or Hitler realised the mistakes they made but still carried on. I can say they obviously did not have the choice of death and destruction and my would be as right as yours.

If a three year. . . . . Wise.
From the source below it does seem like Hitler did not get the same training. His mother pampered and his father died but you somehow think they had a choice between doing good or bad. What if all they know is evil? Can that exist? What I said in the previous that still holds up: This does not logically follow, Either the parents forces the child to meet their demands or the child will find order in something else.

When the child. . . . . Them.
If that does occur would God still punish him for making the wrong mistake? Given that the adult knows no better and lacks the understanding. If you had a bad parent but later in their adult life uses their bad lessons for bad would God still punish? If you say no then I have an argument. Most if not all serial killers are not born to be serial killers. Quote from the source below: Not all abused children become serial killers, And not all serial killers are victims of childhood abuse. However, The connection between the two cannot be dismissed as just coincidence. Knowing this God allowed the child, Who cannot comprehend or have the capacity to know right and wrong, To go down the wrong path. That is not the fault of the child but do I am sure you would agree that Ted Bundy would go to hell? If you say yes then I would say that is unfair. Ted Bundy grew up in an abusive household and God punishes him for what his parents made him into. What specific individual person do you think is definitely going to hell because from what I see no one is born evil they are molded into being evil at some times during their childhood when they had no capacity to make an informed decision?

All they can do. . . . . Well.
This is where I can say not everyone has the same opportunities but you still say that they still had the choice of good.

The life of a happy. . . . . . . Disagree.
You wouldn't say that about God would you? But that is what God is. A automaton with perfect powers only capable of doing good. God has no free will if God did that leaves open the chance for evil. You did say God was all-good which means God does not have the free will to do evil. God is a happy automaton but we are humans which can commit evil and good.

But then I. . . . . . People?
Here is an analogy for you. God is our parent and we are God's children. A good parent would stop us from doing harm to ourselves but a bad parent would not. God falls into the bad category. A good parent would remove the free will of the child trying to touch fire but if the child was left without a parent God would not step in to stop the child from burning him/herself. I rather have my parents or wiser people force ethics upon me and also give me the tools to know right from wrong. If that does not occur then I will be committing bad actions without knowing they are bad thus not learning from my mistakes. Your analogy is bad but great for making me think of a point. I changed it since your question was an exaggeration. Besides God already commands people what to do and not to do in bed in the Bible but some people choose not to do it. Some people don't follow the law and they are punished. Some people do not follow the Bible and they would be punished in hell.

I think. . . . . . Ethics.
If God knows everything why doesn't God tell us? It is does not matter that we do not develop or learn from our mistakes since if we had the same knowledge as God we wouldn't be making mistakes.

The nation. . . . . . Same.
Seems like I made the same point as you about God laws and actual laws. I am assuming by nation you mean the government. Not every government gives you choices. 2 examples would be Communism and a dictatorship. Are you allowed to protest the dictator? No. Are you allowed to protest for food? No. Examples would be Kim under his dictatorship and Stalin when he was in charge of Russia. The nation does also brainwash. Did you not know there was war propaganda during the World War 1 and 2? They brainwashed you into thinking they are evil and what we are doing good but the actual fact is both sides are evil but one can be considered the lesser of two evils.

God has power. . . . For.
No logical reason for God's existence hope that you give one in the your Round while also realising that I cannot rebut it.

God enjoys. . . . . Struggle.
You have not seen God or know from the Bible that God enjoys existing. That is an assumption if not I would like proof. Life is a power struggle if we boil it down. It is part of our human nature. Another source below is from Quora but does get my point across and states flaws in your arguments. Power is part of human nature. The purpose of life might not be power but it is part of human nature.

What about apprehension. . . . . Goal.
All that you mentioned here is still a power struggle. Just in a different way. This can be desire of nourishment. Since the definition does include good condition everything that you said is still a power struggle.
Nourishment: the food necessary for growth, Health, And good condition.

To our peak. . . . . . For.
You completely missed the point I made in the last Round as if it wasn't there. I will not say something different instead will copy what I said in the last Round You do understand even the child has room for improvement as well as an architect. I have never known a field where everything has been learnt. God with all Its attributes has already gained perfection therefore I don't see a reason to persist. This argument still stands. Nothing you said states why God still wants to exist.

That is an Ancient. . . . . God.
Was the first sentence I quoted needed? I highly doubt it did besides you are assuming it without knowing it to where I derived that point from. If God does bestow value onto people then where was Hitler's value when he wanted to gas all the Jews? God only wants humans to love Him even though I stated why this is trivial for an all-perfect being. God knows who will show affection or not yet wants us to love him. God knows best but has not told us. God instead allows Hitler to gas Jews even though God is capable of bestowing him with the knowledge that he is doing wrong.

God made life. . . . . . . Lives.
The difference is humans require children to carry on. A human has a short lifespan but with babies the human race can still go on. God is different. Bad analogy.

The human knows. . . . . . Universe.
So God is not all-powerful then since he can't intervene in our world?

Why think. . . . Way?
It matters whether what is right or wrong. If I am wrong where is your evidence or explanation? Was that numbers and laws of nature? I don't see how this is a point for you. Numbers have consistently yielded results even the laws of nature when it is right. God hasn't. For the many years we have been living, And the time that people had to fine tune God yet we still cannot consistently yield results on the Biblical God existing. Wonder why that is?

I agree, God is. . . . . . Aware.
You agree then disagree. If God is everywhere why isn't God in our perception? That is simple you have used mental presence as in argument even though you do not understand that includes everywhere yet God cannot be seen.

It is the atheist. . . . . . Ex materia
I would regard this as slander. Atheists only have one idea in common their lack of disbelief or no belief in God. Everything else you said is misleading. Whereas were I say all this stuff about God I am not wrong. Religion is a set of ideas with a God. Key word set. Atheist is one idea. Religion is many. This statement is misleading at best and at worst a lie.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Religion: a particular system of faith and worship.

But, We both come to a point. . . . . That.
The difference is I am not making a claim. I am making a non-claim. You make an argument of ignorance. I don't know therefore God or the God of gaps since we do not know what caused the universe you are assuming it to be God. The leap of faith is a problem. Anything be true based on faith. Tell a child something they would believe it. They do not have capacity for reason so they can't say otherwise.

We would not. . . . . Illogical
The difference is non-theist do not dedicate there entire life to something they do not even know exists. Yes there are leap of faiths in Science but that ends when providing facts. The leap of faith for theists does not end until they die.

If you agree I would like you to rebut something but I can only mention it in the comments.

Source:
The Rise of Adolf Hitler (BBC)
Why is there a constant power struggle among people? (Quora)
Was Ted Bundy abused as a child? (Quora)
From Abused Child to Serial Killer: Investigating Nature vs Nurture in Methods of Murder (Psychiatryadvisor)

bacchicfrenzy

Con

“God giving free will God has allowed evil to exist knowing full-well the consequences and knowing also some people cannot be saved. ”

If free will exists, It would be better to say ‘some will not choose to be saved’. But, Otherwise, Yes, You are correct, That is the implication of God giving humans free will. God also allowed all the good humans would freely do to each other to exist. We praise the humans for the good they do, And blame the humans for the bad they do. God has nothing to do with our choices … surely an atheist would agree, Since they don’t think God exists, So God cannot be blamed for what humans do.

“God the Christianic one is all-knowing therefore knew Hitler would commit the acts he did and allowed it to occur even though God is well within Its power to prevent the acts”

God gave the earth to humans to ruin or build. God gave humans to each other, To help each other or destroy each other. Blame humans for the destruction they commit. This is our world to ruin or build, And God will not intervene in either case. So, We better do good. That is what free will means. If you think starvation should stop, It is up to humans to stop it, Don’t blame God.

“Not everyone gets the choice. Did the cancer patient had the choice of genes or when he/she would die? Hitler’s mother pampered and his father died but you somehow think they had a choice between doing good or bad. ”

There are social and biological influences, For sure. But they are not exhaustive, Or else we have no free will. And, If we have no free will, Then moral responsibility and the reactive attitudes lack foundation. And, If that is the case, This discussion about whether humans are evil makes no sense. Also, None of the billions of marvelous wonders that happen to humans were our own choice either – I didn’t choose to have a healthy heart, Or eyes that can see, Or legs that walk, Or a mouth that speaks and tastes, Or a body that works. The wonder is not when things fall apart, The wonder is when things come together. We are born deserving no life, No goodness, Yet we have so much. If we balance out all the good that is given to humans, And all the bad that is given to humans, I think more good than bad happens to us. The same is true on social determinism: sure, Some families are messed up, Which raises the chance of a messed up child. But, Some families work well, Which raises the chance or a good child, And the child should just be thankful for that. So, We better be good people. How we act influences other people. But, People also have some degree of choice as well.

You did say God was all-good which means God does not have the free will to do evil”.

God could do evil, But wouldn’t want to. It is sort of like this: think of the worst evil you can imagine. Perhaps torturing an innocent child. Could you do it? Well, In a sense, Yes. Nothing is stopping you. But, The very idea is so repugnant that you couldn’t do it. It is against your nature. It is against God’s nature to do evil, So he wouldn’t.

A good parent would stop us from doing harm to ourselves but a bad parent would not. ”

We are adults. The human race is wise, And growing more capable every generation. Soon we will be geo-engineering the planet, Reaching longevity escape velocity, Creating artificial intelligence that surpasses any intelligence God made, And you want God to treat us like little children? I’m sorry, I don’t get that. The free will view says that God gave this planet to humans, And we can nuke it to extinction or we can build it into paradise. Either way, God will not stop us. I don’t think a parent would treat a child like a child forever.

Not every government gives you choices. 2 examples would be Communism and a dictatorship. ”

Right, And no one thinks those are good. No one wants to live there. Yet, This is what you expect God to be like? This is how you want God to treat us? If you want God to take your freedom away, Why not go live in North Korea, Where a powerful force takes your freedom away already. Or, Just be glad God gave you free will, And you can do what you want on a Friday night.

You have not seen God or know from the Bible that God enjoys existing. ”

If God did not enjoy existing, He would have destroyed Himself. But He hasn’t, So He enjoys existing. What possible reason would there be to not enjoy existing?

“Life is a power struggle if we boil it down. ”

That is a rather boring goal for humanity. The power struggle is part of human nature, Yes. But, Not all of it, And not a good part of it. Ask yourself: would you rather struggle for power, Or have power? I think you would rather have power. Then, The power struggle is of very little consequence, Even within the sphere of power, Which is a small part of the overall human experience.

“God with all Its attributes has already gained perfection therefore I don't see a reason to persist. This argument still stands. ”

Actuality is better than potentiality. This is a basic view, Dating back to Aristotle. If it is correct, Then being perfect is the point of being alive, So God is perfectly flourishing. It is us incomplete striving humans that have not yet reached perfection, That are not yet living a flourishing life. If we gained perfection, Then we would really be living.

“If God does bestow value onto people then where was Hitler's value when he wanted to gas all the Jews? ”

Hitler’s value was in God being willing to forgive him and start the long work of restoring him, If Hitler had wanted, Which he did not.

“So God is not all-powerful then since he can't intervene in our world? ”

God can intervene, But he has decided not to (very often), In order to let humans control their destiny. Why would God want to control the destiny of the planet? That isn’t very hard for God. And, God has many other planets and stars He could control if he wanted to. No, God left this planet up to us.

Numbers have consistently yielded results even the laws of nature when it is right. God hasn't. ”

Yes, Numbers are real, And the laws of nature are real as well. But they are not physical. Have you found a number under a rock? No, They are abstractions from physical objects, Not physical objects. Same with laws of nature. All we see is ‘fire’ then ‘smoke’ happening a hundred times. We abstract the law: fires cause smoke, And always will, And will everywhere. And, Those are right. But, They aren’t in nature. All that exists in nature is the fire and the smoke. Even Hume agreed with this. God yields good results. God has given meaning to people’s lives for eons. God provides a foundation for moral values, Which is pretty important. Just to name a few things.

“Atheists only have one idea in common their lack of disbelief or no belief in God”

While ‘Atheism’ is technically just the view that ‘God does not exist’, Atheists typically adhere to physicalism, Which you have as well in your postings. This is the view that fixing the physical facts fixes every fact. Physicalism suffers from many objections: it cannot account for free will, Mental causation, Agency, Consciousness, Universals, Numbers, Logic, Moral values, Aesthetic values, How the universe began, The design in the universe, Etc… Physicalists cut reality in half, For some reason which is beyond me…as if the other half isn’t beautiful or something. Similarly, ‘Theism’ is technically just the view that ‘God exists’. Theists often add to this view certain theological views, But that is not necessary to be a theist either.

“The difference is I am not making a claim. I am making a non-claim. ”

This is an incorrect understanding of the burden of proof. Anyone making a claim, Whether positive or negative, Should have reasons for the claim, So should provide reasons for the claim. Imagine I say ‘animals do not have emotions so I can torture them for fun’. I then say ‘Well, That isn’t a claim, I am not asserting the existence of anything when I say animals have no emotion, It is a non-claim, So I don’t need to provide support for their non-emotion, It isn’t faith’. That is not good philosophy. Everyone ought to have reasons for their beliefs. So, The theist ought to have reasons for their beliefs. And, The atheist ought to have reasons for their beliefs. Would you really disagree? Do you really want to admit to not having any reasons for your belief that there is no God? I don’t think so. Rather, Acknowledge you are a good philosopher, So you have reasons for your belief, And be willing to share them in a discussion.

The difference is non-theist do not dedicate there entire life to something they do not even know exists. ”

The atheist dedicates their life to the view that a divine being does not exist, Even though they are not sure of that. In addition, I have found many atheists are actually angry at God for a lot of things humans do to each other, Even though they don’t think God exists. And, They often dedicate vast amounts of time arguing about something they do not even believe exists. At least the theist believes God exists, So it makes sense to talk about this being.

Thanks for an interesting debate. I have enjoyed your comments.

Debate Round No. 3
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"was entirely caused by unconscious and uncontrolled microphysical processes in Omar's brain. "
Atheism is still one claim but you decide it is not. Can you not be clear? Use a different word. Atheism is one claim.

"The reasoning is logically valid. Which premise do you dispute in order to get out of the conclusion? "
I don't know what you mean by this.

"But, Atheists typically"
Typical does not mean all so please use a different word because you are misrepresenting the atheists who do not use it.

"But, Most do, Including, From what I've read from this debate, You. "
Most not all therefore pick another word or instead telling what people say why not give my arguments by themselves like what I am doing. I am not saying theists do this and that.

"Do you doubt the existence of the following: numbers, Logic, Objective moral values, Meaning, Hope, Love, Free will, Consciousness, The self, Mental causation. If so (and a physicalist should doubt), I will be happy to show they exist. "
It was a question not the time for you to follow up by another question. Please pick one and make it straight to the point without what atheists, Physicalists say instead just the point in hand.

"I will be happy to show they exist. "
Scrap what I said when I said pick one of the many you pointed out. Instead proof to me how we exist.

"The theist accepts the ideal realm and the physical realm. "
The theists who do not deny the ideal realm and the physical realm accept it. You can be a theist and still deny it therefore the caveat was required to be put in.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"If you think we have limited choice, But still some choice, Then you believe in free will. "
If you have choices but not the free will to choose them how do you have free will? You have not rebutted my claim sufficiently then went on attacking other options. Why not prove my argument wrong instead of going to someone else's?

"The materialist does not use the term materialist"
So what? If it is properly defining the individual. I can say the same for physicalism.

"And what is physical isn't really matter anymore"
Matter: "physical substance in general, As distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, Especially as distinct from energy. "
Atoms are physical so your point is wrong. It is still Creatio Ex Materia. It is not Creatio Ex Nihilo.

"I believe in objective moral values, And logic, And love, And meaning, And numbers and free will, And consciousness and the self"
Instead of us being particles or atoms. We are God's playthings waiting for when It knew we do things. You view is not better because now someone else dictates your life. Even if you say God gave us free will. God is still there and has used Its power if I believe in Christianity. For one divine intervention goes against free will. Another Jesus being born a virgin. So God dictates our life through the Bible but you say we can choose to accept it. But can we choose to go to heaven or hell? You would say no. So why does God punish for faulty evidence in a book based on belief when science has shown consistent results and the ability to change when it is wrong?

"The physicalist does not have the required conceptual resources to believe in these things. "
Is this a bad thing or are you just going to state it?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"If survival is objective (or, Natural), Then the desire to survive is objective"
Desire: a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
Feelings are subjective. Someone can have the feeling of survival and some might. A suicidal person does not have the desire to live. A normal person would. Everything else you stated is debunked if the train of thought does not follow.

"A 'surprise' argument is an argument that evaluates whether a theory predicts that a given event will occur, "
A prediction is not a fact therefore I don't see why you brought this up.

"Atheism does not predict the existence of the universe, Or the design of the universe, Or objective moral values, Numbers, Logic, Life, Consciousness, Meaning, Love, Etc. . . , But this exists, So the atheist has to try to make these things fit with their atheism. "
Atheism this and atheism that. Remember it is only 1 claim not multiple. Atheism is not a way of life. Therefore you are asking atheism more than what it is. It is on you not on the people who associate with the word. "their atheism" I am sorry what are you even saying? I am sure multiple choices requires there to be more than 1 choice. This entire train of thought is wrong.

"I consider the theistic worldview hopeful and optimistic. "
Capable of giving a yes or no answer but not hear. Oh well. Atheism is one claim. Everything else is up to the individual. Including optimism, Hopefulness and world-views. I in earlier rebuttals in this comment and now do not need to rebut any more due to your train of thought being wrong and everything after that is on false premises or conclusions.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Are you done rebutting?
Posted by bacchicfrenzy 3 years ago
bacchicfrenzy
"Berkeley? Specific event or just the place itself? "
A person, George Berkeley, A Christian Idealist philosopher who rejected the existence of a physical world. There aren't many, But he was one. Most do not. To claim that homosexuality is not a choice is not to say that the physial world doesn't exist. Perhaps some Christians who think this deny one true fact about the physical world, But they do not deny the existence of a physical world. It is the atheist that is narrow-minded in claiming only half of the 'physical-ideal' reality exists. The theist accepts the ideal realm and the physical realm.
Posted by bacchicfrenzy 3 years ago
bacchicfrenzy
"You think I cannot use reason to disprove your belief. "

No. The problem is much deeper. I am saying: Omar cannot use reason to prove his own atheism. Here is the argument more formally:
(1) Omar's belief that 'atheism is true' was entirely caused by unconscious and uncontrolled microphysical processes in Omar's brain.
(2) If Omar's belief that 'atheism is true' was entirely caused by unconscious and uncontrolled microphysical processes in Omar's brain, Then his belief that 'atheism is true' was not caused by Omar's reasons for believing 'atheism is true'.
Therefore,
(3) Omar's belief that 'atheism is true' was not caused by Omar's reasons for believing 'atheism is true'.
Add a new premise
(4) If Omar's belief that 'atheism is true' was not caused by Omar's resaons for believing 'atheism is true', Then Omar's belief that 'atheism is true' is not known by Omar as true.
From (3) and (4), (5) follows
(5) Omar's belief that 'atheism is true' is not known by Omar as true.

The reasoning is logically valid. Which premise do you dispute in order to get out of the conclusion?

"strawman. Sam Harris. "
Atheism is, Strictly speaking, A negative assertion, That is true. Atheism is the claim that theism is false. But, Atheists typically have positive assertions as well (as does everyone! ). They typically assert that all that exists is physical, Which is physicalism. Not all do so, That is true. But, Most do, Including, From what I've read from this debate, You.

"Can you prove this or am I meant to accept this as a belief? "
Do you doubt the existence of the following: numbers, Logic, Objective moral values, Meaning, Hope, Love, Free will, Consciousness, The self, Mental causation. If so (and a physicalist should doubt), I will be happy to show they exist. Then I started to focus on logic and mental causation. I claim that if you think logic and mental causation doesn't exist, Then your atheism cannot be known as true, And this debate is futile, Since reasons
Posted by bacchicfrenzy 3 years ago
bacchicfrenzy
"With the limited choices we have and the limited capability we have comparable to the supposed God we found Logic. "

According to the contemporary debate, If you think we have limited choice, But still some choice, Then you believe in free will. The issue is that determinism is pervasive, And no one ever acted or believed anything of their own choosing. The physicalist typically believes in determinism, Since microphysics is complete, So everything you do, And all you believe, Was fated from before you were born, And your willing contributed nothing.

"Can you use materialist? "
The materialist does not use the term materialist as much anymore because they say it conjures up negative moral valence (i. E. , Being materialistic = wanting a bunch of money), And what is physical isn't really matter anymore, Since particles are waves, Atoms are strings, Etc. . . So, I use physicalist as it is current in philosophical discussions.

"If you agree to that then by you believing in God it is also another micro physical process. "
I do not agree to that, But the physicalist does. I believe in objective moral values, And logic, And love, And meaning, And numbers and free will, And consciousness and the self, Since I am a theist, All of that is anticipated by my theism, And aligns with my theism. But, The physicalist does not have the required conceptual resources to believe in these things.
Posted by bacchicfrenzy 3 years ago
bacchicfrenzy
"Okay survival is objective. "

If survival is objective (or, Natural), Then the desire to survive is objective, Hence the desire to live forever is objective, Hence our objective purpose is to live forever, Hence life is ultimately meaningless if we die.

"Are you saying atheists cannot anticipate facts but theists who believe there Religion on faith can? "
No. A 'surprise' argument is an argument that evaluates whether a theory predicts that a given event will occur, Or whether the theory is just rationalizing an event that occurred, But doesn't really make sense within the worldview. Let me give you an example that your background assumptions may help you understand more easily: if God is all loving, All powerful and all good, We would expect there to be no evil. Hence it is a 'surprise' that evil exists. This shows that the theory is not very good, Because it predicts there should be no evil, But there is. The theist can be accused of engaging in post-hoc reasoning when they say 'well, Evil does exist, So we have to find a way to fit this in with our theism, So maybe free will makes sense of evil'. Similarly, Atheism does not predict the existence of the universe, Or the design of the universe, Or objective moral values, Numbers, Logic, Life, Consciousness, Meaning, Love, Etc. . . , But this exists, So the atheist has to try to make these things fit with their atheism.

"Again are you saying atheists cannot be optimistic? "
I consider the theistic worldview hopeful and optimistic. If I say 'Omar do you think you will be alive in a year from now? ' Then you say 'Yes'. I would say you are being hopeful and optimistic. If you say 'No', You are being pessimitic and doubtful. Similarly, If I say 'Omar, Do you think someone will love you forever someday', And you say 'Yes. " That is optimistic and good. Well, The theist answers 'yes' to the question 'will you be alive in 1000 years', So that is similarly optimistic and hopeful. And, The theist says yes to eternal love
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
strawman. Sam Harris. Believes in spirituality and the non-existence of the Gods that we know of. So your argument is a strawman since I found one atheist who thinks differently.

"Reality is clearly not just particles bouncing in a void"
Can you prove this or am I meant to accept this as a belief?

"The ideal stuff is the best stuff that exists. "
Subjective. If you say it is objective then. Imagine having sex physically and having sex non-physically. Which one is objectively better?

"even though they then smuggle in the ideal because life is unlivable without it"
Could you point to an individual? I am getting a straw man vibe from this.

"The theist does not typically deny the existence of the physical world. "
Creationism one example. Homosexuality another (not being a choice). Others but I am sure even saying not typically would be a stretch. I would say some theists deny science and the other approve of it or maybe some people pick and choose.

"Berkeley"
? Specific event or just the place itself?

"The atheist says only the physical world exists, So they are likewise in error when they miss the entire ideal realm. "
I think I am provided enough information to say why this is a straw man. I can say the same for you but that would not be fair on the countless theists who do accept reality and reject many Bible verses that might not know they do.

"Pardon my tone, I am writing in a hurry, So have dispatched with courtesy. "
Pardon mine as well. Might come as not so courteous myself.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
"On physicalism beliefs are completely determined by blind, Microphysical processes. "
If you agree to that then by you believing in God it is also another micro physical process. I am guessing not so you believe in non-physicalism. To that I believe unicorns exist in the non-physical realm. You cannot disprove it and I cannot prove it. See the problem there? Yet you still believe in a God with no evidence and you somehow think by physicalism being so bad on its own that God had to exist for such blind micro physical processes not to be the case. I would say is that so bad?

"So reasons cannot cause beliefs on physicalism. "
What causes belief God? Problem this is the God of gaps argument or the argument of ignorance. I don't know therefore God. I can neither prove it or disprove where beliefs come from yet you are so adamant it is from God.

"The reasons you give against God's existence cannot be why you believe in atheism because reasons are incapable of causing your beliefs on physicalism. "
Don't know what you mean here. I am guessing here. You think I cannot use reason to disprove your belief. I am not I am simply stating when you said evidence, Truth that does not fall into belief. No matter how many people say it a belief is something accepted as truth especially without evidence. When someone puts forth evidence that is touted as fact I am not going against there belief instead disproving there evidence or lack thereof.

"No. I just think they cut reality in half, "
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
From this I gather absolutely nothing about reality from atheism. You are assuming every single atheist thinks like this. A better term to frame your counter is a non-theist materialist. Can you use materialist? I kind of get confused with physicalism. What is the difference between materialism and physicalism? I only need to point to one person who thinks differently from your straw man.

Continues. . . . .
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
omar2345bacchicfrenzyTied
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: Countering dsjpk5 because he is a racist pig piece of cow chirp manure spread who gets his kicks out of simply voting against those who are atheists and for no other reason. It has nothing to do with whether or not omar2345 won the debate or not, in which he did because his opponent bacchicfrenzy did not prove his god exists, thus the belief in his god and the text of his bible is illogical and completely absurd.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
omar2345bacchicfrenzyTied
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.