The Instigator
fireninja1029
Con (against)
The Contender
DoulosChristos
Pro (for)

The Existence of God Can Be Proven

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
fireninja1029 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: 4/17/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,012 times Debate No: 112918
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

fireninja1029

Con

Can you prove the existence of God? For the purposes of this debate I will be arguing that you cannot prove or back up with sufficient evidence the claim that god(s) exist.
  • 'Prove' will mean that the contender has backed up the claim that god(s) exist with enough evidence that the need for a creator has become a logical necessity. It will not be my job to prove to the contender that god(s) do not exist because the claim that god(s) exist is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that can only be supported by the pro/for.
  • If the contender also wishes to support the God of his/her specific religion then be my guest. We can turn the debate that direction if you wish. The default however will be arguing from a deist perspective.
DoulosChristos

Pro

Hello and thank you for the debate challenge. Allow me to introduce myself, I am an amateur Christian blogger with a special slant towards Christian apologetics, I am a pretty avid enthusiast when it comes to philosophical meanderings about God and religions, so I would like to take a moment and say thanks to my opponent for the debate. I today, will be debating from the side of the pro, that yes, the existence of God can, and indeed has been proven. I would like to make clear however, my terms and definitions.

Firstly, proof and persuasion are not the same. One could have something proven to their satisfaction, yet still not be persuaded. I do not therefore equate proof or sufficient evidence with what people choose to believe

Secondly, I will, as a Christian, be defending the God of the Bible, who I define as having the "Omni" qualities. Do you accept these terms? If so, let us begin.

My opponent has stated that the claim "God exists" cannot be proven or even backed up with sufficient evidence.

I will be presenting my case of why this is not so. I will make my case not by presenting specific individual nuggets of evidence, I will however, be looking at the very foundations of what makes evidence intelligible in the first place, and from there, show that God, specifically the God of the Bible is the necessary precondition of that intelligibility.

Let us begin:

I am certain that in this debate, my opponent has very specific expectations. I am to use logic in my responses, I am to appeal to some type of evidence, which my opponent assumes is intelligible, and discernable through the use of human senses, and I am to do so in an ethical and kind manner, thus following a moral standard

My opponent, and the very idea of debating presupposes the following:

Logic exists, and not only exists, but does not and will not change suddenly from different rounds.

The human senses and reasoning are functioning correctly, and are to be trusted to gain knowledge of truth.

Truth exists and can be known.

Moral standards exist and will not change from round to round.

This entire debate rests upon unchanging moral, logical, and epistemic truths, and these truths I will show are only justified through the existence of the God of the Bible.

In discussing evidence, we assume that the human senses can discern evidence, and that what we see is actually real, and corresponds to truth. I believe, as a Christian, that what I am seeing in the physical world is real because I know I can trust my senses. I know I can trust my senses because I know that a Truthful and Benevolent God has created me to accurately sense and reason, and discern the world around me.

Without this God, what justification is there for presupposing my sense to be adequately telling me the truth? If I sense my senses are working properly, this is circular reasoning. There must be some justification given outside of myself.

In discussing evidence, I know that there are unchanging laws of logic, that cannot be the conventions of mankind, because they are applicable everywhere and at all times. I know that logic exists and follows orderly unchanging laws because they are rooted in the Mind of my Unchanging God, and are a reflection of His very logical nature.

Without an Immaterial and Unchanging God, what justification do we have to claim that logic is uniform and universal?

I know that I must be friendly in this debate because I have an obligation to do so to my fellow man. Why? Because I trust there are unchanging moral standards that I must abide by. I do not expect morality to suddenly change, and therefore lying in my debate is all the sudden right. I am expected to be truthful at all times. This unchanging moral code is not something we have simply decided upon, these laws exist and are unchanging because they are rooted in and decreed by my Moral Lawgiver who is only truthful and benevolent.

Without God, whose moral standards must I abide by? And what would make them unchanging?

So you see, the very idea of debating requires unchanging immaterial logical laws, a firm faith in the human senses and reason, and an obligation to abide by unchanging moral laws.

Apart from my Unchanging, Immaterial, Moral God, who created human senses and reasoning to work properly, I argue there are no ways to justify the existence of these things that we so take for granted.

God is the necessary precondition of intelligibility, therefore without God we have no intelligibility.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
fireninja1029

Con

Thank you to DoulosChristos for accepting my debate. Yes, I do accept those terms. (and when I say proof I mean proof not persuasion)

First off, my opponent argues that the existence of unchanging logic somehow proves that the God of the bible exists. Logical absolutes do exist. We also have methods for obtaining knowledge and truth which are well tested such as the scientific method. Logic is simply a way for humans to describe the world around us. As a society, we can agree on most of this logic (which your God seems to break all the time). Even if logic was 'created' (which it isn't) it still wouldn't be evidence for God.

"unchanging laws of logic, that cannot be the conventions of mankind" Let's put that claim to the test.

Logic is a method for finding truth. Truth is simply that which is in accordance with fact or reality. To understand this better let's take a look at the Three Laws of Logic
  1. The law of identity: P is P.
  2. The law of non contradiction: P is not non-P.
  3. The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.
By definition these are conventions of mankind. We use these Three Laws to better understand the world around us and therefore they are our conventions. They were not given to us by God. If you look at them you will see that these are simply statements regarding the way things are. The laws of logic are descriptive not prescriptive. These weren't handed to us by God. The universe does not need a creator for these to be true.

By arguing this, are you are implying that God is somehow out of the realms of logic himself? Can God make something not be itself? Can God make something the opposite of itself? Can God make something both itself and not itself? An omnipotent God should be able to do these things. (e.g. create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift)

Even so, if I were to accept your premise, the main argument you are posing is still "We don't know how these laws came to be so it must be god" If we are going to talk about logic, then it should be mentioned that God of the gaps (or divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when 'Goddidit' is invoked to explain natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain.

I find it ironic that my opponent chooses to bring up morality. Objective morality does not exist. I don't know if you've noticed but often times not everybody can agree on what exactly is moral. A moral dilemma is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for choosing each action. Not even Christians would agree on most of these problems.

Take this one for example:

A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who will be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. Molly is on a footbridge over the tracks, in between the approaching trolley and the five workmen. Next to her on this footbridge is a stranger who happens to be very large.

If she does nothing the trolley will proceed, causing the deaths of the five workmen. The only way to save the lives of these workmen is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks below, where his large body will stop the trolley, causing his death.

Should Molly push the stranger onto the tracks in order to save the five workmen?

So should she? Pushing the stranger onto the tracks might be considered murder. But on the other hand, which is worth more one life or five lives? Morality is not black or white. It's more like a lot of gray. The only kind of morality that exists is subjective morality. Yes, I do realize that this is an extreme example, but the fact that people would answer different ways proves morality is not always clear.

While objective morality does not exist, we can as a society agree on certain rules. Take for example murder, we know that it's wrong. But how? Well, as a society we can conclude that murder is not good and has negative consequences. We don't need a God to tell us this.

The feeling however of murder being wrong comes from evolutionary pressures. Think about it for a second. How long would a tribe who didn't feel murder was wrong last? The Answer: Not very long. Natural selection made it to where those people died off and societies where murder was wrong therefore prospered.

I urge you to look at the site you are on right now. If all of these things were crystal clear there would be no need for debating. We could just ask God for all of the answers.

Subjective morality is not dangerous. It simply means that everything is up for debate. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. (Stoning homosexuals is wrong)

I would like to finish this round off with a little side comment. The God of the Bible is not the only God that possesses those traits. From your argument it is impossible to discern your God from the God of Islam or Zeus. Morality is from God in other religions too.

(Thank you to DoulosChristos for giving me something to respond to that isn't "It says so in the Bible" or "We're here". While your arguments are still inherently flawed they are at least interesting to respond to.)



DoulosChristos

Pro

Thanks again to everyone who commented and found this debating interesting. I certainly did. And thanks to my opponent for his well thought out response.

My opponent has made the statement that the three laws of logic are both:

1. The conventions of mankind
2. Descriptions of reality

As well as stating that

"Logical absolutes do exist."

Well, I am not sure if I am understanding correctly, but how can there be logical absolutes if they are merely mankind's conventions? My opponent has stated that morality is what is agreed upon, thus there is no objective morality, my opponent has stated that the laws of logic are conventions (what is agreed upon). So how can there be logical absolutes?

Ultimately, I do not think my opponent, or anyone for that matter would be willing to accept the consequences if logic was mankind's convention; if logic was the conventions of mankind, what exactly is stopping us from changing those conventions? For the sake of this discussion, I could, in all honesty, gather a group of people and we could agree upon our own set of logic. Or better yet, I could "not agree" with the conventional logic and adapt something entirely different.

For example, suppose in this debate my next argument was:

"My opponent is wrong because the sound of Friday is just as spicy as the speed of lightning"

If logic is not immutable, I can mutate it, and this would apply to math, language, and pretty much every other thing that requires logic. What is stopping me from doing this? And what is stopping my statement from being valid?

If logic is merely a description of the world around us, I might ask, does the world around us ever change? If so, why not logic?

"By arguing this, are you are implying that God is somehow out of the realms of logic himself? Can God make something not be itself? Can God make something the opposite of itself? Can God make something both itself and not itself? An omnipotent God should be able to do these things. (e.g. create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift"

Actually I was arguing the opposite. God did not create logic, nor is He outside of logic. Logic is a reflection of His Mind and His very nature. It is because God cannot do contradictory things that we have the laws of logic. I was not arguing we did not know where they came from, I argue that we do know, that without God they would be relative.

As touching the example of morality my opponent gave, the existence of absolute morality does not exclude the possibilities of gray areas. What it does say are that there are things that are certainly and absolutely wrong no matter. what. I will ask my opponent this in response:

Suppose Molly decided to push the man in front of the train, not to save anyone, not as a choice between two tragedies, but simply because she felt like it.

Would this be absolutely morally wrong at all times and in all places? If so, what moral standard are you appealing to? I say yes and appeal to Thou shalt not murder.

"But how? Well, as a society we can conclude that murder is not good and has negative consequences. We don't need a God to tell us this."

This presupposes that negative consequences are truly and objectively negative does this not?

" The Answer: Not very long. Natural selection made it to where those people died off and societies where murder was wrong therefore prospered"

So murder is not truly wrong, just not beneficial to our primitive survival?

**Subjective morality is not dangerous. It simply means that everything is up for debate. Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. Stealing is wrong. (Stoning homosexuals is wrong)**

Are these up for debate?

" From your argument it is impossible to discern your God from the God of Islam or Zeus. Morality is from God in other religions too."

I am no Greek mythology expert but I do not think Zeus shared any characteristics of the God of Scripture accept for maybe being the highest in position, but JHVH is not a part of a pantheon so I don't see a parallel. Again I am not certain. However, in order to run with this claim, it would need to be proven that these gods or any share identical characteristics with the God of the Bible, (immutability, being immaterial, being all good , which Zeus was not)

As far as Islam I am quite certain Islam shares some ideologies that are not very in line with the Christian moral ethos.
I would like to bring up one final point, the presupposition that our sense are working properly was not adressed. Do you have any thoughts on this?

And I appreciate your side note. I am enjoying this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
fireninja1029

Con

"Well, I am not sure if I am understanding correctly, but how can there be logical absolutes if they are merely mankind's conventions?"

convention - a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity

"My opponent has stated that morality is what is agreed upon, thus there is no objective morality"

That is true.


"My opponent has stated that the laws of logic are conventions (what is agreed upon). So how can there be logical absolutes?"

You have completely misunderstood my point. It's not like people just made up these rules. We just use them to describe what we observe.

"If logic is not immutable, I can mutate it, and this would apply to math, language, and pretty much every other thing that requires logic. What is stopping me from doing this? And what is stopping my statement from being valid?"

Wrong, logic is immutable. I never said that it wasn't.

"If logic is merely a description of the world around us, I might ask, does the world around us ever change? If so, why not logic?"

Logic is what never changes. That's what makes it logic. Logic is what stays the same. It's a constant. Just like gravity.

"Would this be absolutely morally wrong at all times and in all places? If so, what moral standard are you appealing to? I say yes and appeal to Thou shalt not murder."


Is slavery acceptable? I say yes and appeal to Exodus 21. (Right after Exodus 20 where the ten commandments are listed.)


"This presupposes that negative consequences are truly and objectively negative does this not?"

By definition negative consequences are negative. How about you use the laws of logic we were just talking about?

"Are these up for debate?"
.
Well sure, the debate just might not last very long.


"As far as Islam I am quite certain Islam shares some ideologies that are not very in line with the Christian moral ethos."

You are right in saying that, but the God of Islam still shares omnipotent and omniscient characteristics.

"I would like to bring up one final point, the presupposition that our sense are working properly was not addressed. Do you have any thoughts on this?"

Yes, if you can't trust your own 5 senses then what the hell can you trust? (An interesting thought though)






DoulosChristos

Pro

"You have completely misunderstood my point. It's not like people just made up these rules. We just use them to describe what we observe."

I shall rephrase the question. Does the world around us change? Is the physical world immutable?

" I never said that it wasn't."

Indeed, you haven't directly stated this, but this was my original point, that logic wouldn't be immutable unless we fix it to Someone that is.

"Is slavery acceptable? I say yes and appeal to Exodus 21. (Right after Exodus 20 where the ten commandments are listed.)"

Well for starters the type of slavery found in Scripture is no where near the type of slavery found in early America. The two simply do no compare. That is a debate for another time however. In truth, this does not in anyway answer my question.

You have said absolute morality does not exist. Would the act of pushing someone in front of a train for pleasure be absolutely morally wrong? Again, I ask the question.

"Well sure, the debate just might not last very long."

And why is that? If these things are not absolutely and objectively wrong (again I don't include gray areas) then why could we not debate the option that they may be right?

"You are right in saying that, but the God of Islam still shares omnipotent and omniscient characteristics."

Perhaps, but Islamic theology would need to come up with a comprehensive philosophy explaining how their god is the foundation for intelligibility, as opposed to the God of the Bible (Christianity is older so the responsibility is on them), Until then, neither of us are Muslim so I do not see the merit in debating this.

"Yes, if you can't trust your own 5 senses then what the hell can you trust? (An interesting thought though)

I wasn't just asking if you trust your five senses, I was asking more or less, what justification do you have for trusting them. I gave mine in my first round, however, since you have stated that you do indeed trust your senses, I will again ask, why do you take for granted that they function correctly? Perhaps, for all you know, the world around us could be quite different than what your senses are telling you. You might even live in a dream world. What leads you to believe you do not?

Again, just to summarize, my argument is the following:

1. Logic is immutable because it is a reflection of God who is immutable.
2. Same with absolute morality
3. I trust my senses because they are a gift from the God of Truth and Reason

To summarize my response:

1. Is the physical world immutable? If not then how can logic be immutable?
2. Is the train scenario absolutely morally wrong?
3. And why do you trust your senses

To understand evidence and the debate on God's existence, is to use the presuppositions that we have discussed. I hope in all fairness I have articulated clearly how that God is the only foundation for these presuppositions which make evidence intelligible.

My argument was not:

Evidence, therefore God.

My argument was

God therefore evidence.

I am of the persuasion that Christ is the Lord, not just of our doctrines, our churches, and us, but of all. And that because Christ is the Lord of all, He is Lord over our reasoning, our truth, and our logic, as such He owns them and they would not be without Him. That really was my argument. I hope my opponent and the readers of this debate will forgive any mistakes I have made in my reasoning, they are on my account, not on Christ's. Although I represent Christianity, I am but a man and subject to error.

Thank you to all, I believe this was my last round, so I will finish with a sincere thank you to Fireninja1029 for this debate.

-Doulos Christou Iesous
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fireninja1029 3 years ago
fireninja1029
Yes, IDontKno you would be correct in saying that is the point in faith. I am not denying that. Many religious people would disagree with you however and many indeed have tried to prove God's existence. The stance is flawed but that is the point and therefore why I am against it.
Posted by IDontKno 3 years ago
IDontKno
Well I think the topic of debate isn't a great one tbh. There is no proof for God, at least I thought that was the point of faith, it's just some being that people look up to and model some of their values and such off of it. Having a lack of proof isn't a disproof so this argument doesn't really like it serves much purpose or point.
Posted by DoulosChristos 3 years ago
DoulosChristos
The premise. It was my pleasure reading your comments, and I appreciate your criticism, thank you for reading my response to fireninja.
Posted by DoulosChristos 3 years ago
DoulosChristos
Hello Makaveli, in response to the concerns you raise:

"Evil still exists in the world, and omnibenevolent god would not allow this."

I do not accept this premise . And frankly it cannot be proven. What would be your answer to the problem of evil? In other words, what would a Benevolent God do to eradicate evil? I'm sure you and I would both agree that humans can indeed be the primary source of evil, God would therefore necessarily have to eradicate humanity in order to solve the problem of evil in a method that was consistent with our desired timeframe. Instead an Benevolent God could alternatively temporarily allow evil in order to achieve the greater good of allowing His creatures to repent. Therefore evil would be eradicated and human beings can still exist.

"Can we really trust the human senses?"
I know I certainly trust mine. If you're arguing against the validity of human senses then essentially what that does is undermine the entire scientific process, thereby making all scientific knowledge merely conjecture.

"God has a logical nature? Can he create a square circle? After all he is Omniscient, Right? Can he create a boulder that is so heavy that he himself cannot lift? He is omnipotent right? Clearly, he is OUTSIDE the boundaries of logic."

God cannot do things that are contrary to His nature. Creating contradictions is contrary to His nature, because God is truthful and orderly, and contradictions are essentially untruths. So no, God cannot contradict, that does not undermine His Omnipotence, because contradictions are untruths and therefore a weakness.

"Evolution has created us with a desire to remain alive."
According to evolution, we are also created with a desire to reproduce. I cannot justify rape as morally acceptable however beneficial it may be to my species. Evolution and morality are therefore not intertwined. Just as a side note, Descartes "I think therefore I am" was proven to be quite circular. The conclusion is stated in
Posted by tanner_1230 3 years ago
tanner_1230
Hmm MakaveliDon omnibenevolent isn't a contradiction. Rule of contradiction an entity cannot be A and non A in the same time in the same way. The entity of God is all good and evil exists in the world are not natural opposites. You could argue that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent being would not allow pointless evil. However all the theist would have to do to side step this approach is saying the existing evil is not pointless.

Now to take a step into my own views, and easy way to argue against this line of thinking is to say that God is going correct his creation (in the Christian worldview the second coming of Christ). How important is a few million years to an immortal being (this isn't a perfect argument just some food for thought).

To nail the hammer home for the theist' point they could argue that the atheist cannot even raise this objection since that would require objective morality to begin with. The atheist cannot believe in objective morality prove by Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason.

2nd Point
I do agree that it may be circular reasoning to assume that there is logic and say that proves God's essence ( I will not go into detail unless someone requests it). However the fact that you're saying that God cannot solely exist in an aspect of his immaterial creation is not grounded. Another example is that the theist would say God is always wise, however God made wisdom. There is no inherent fault in logic simply by the fact that he is immortal being.

3rd Point
This is a quite simple distinction that needs to be made between evolutionarily derived morality and a deity derived morality. The distinction is in meaningfulness. Evolution based morality fails to be of any meaning but simply something that humans created, so if our evolution (or we claim it does) than the idea of murder is not truly wrong we just think it is. But if God says morality says that murder is wrong it is justly and eternally enforced.
Posted by MakaveliDon 3 years ago
MakaveliDon
You say you define a god as having "omni" qualities yet you say "benevolent". Don't you mean Omni Benevolent? If you do so, then you contradict yourself because god is not omni benevolent. Evil still exists in the world, and omnibenevolent god would not allow this.

"The human senses and reasoning are functioning correctly, and are to be trusted to gain knowledge of truth"
Can we really trust the human senses? We can only say that we trust them because they are all that we have. For Example the wavelength of the sky would actually tell us that it in fact purple, however our eyes see blue. The only possible truth is that we exist. From Descartes " I think therefore i am"
if you are to use logic in your argument, then there should be no inconsistencies, since a logical approach is one that naturally makes sense and cannot be defied against.
you also say "His very logical nature." This is interesting. God has a logical nature? Can he create a square circle? After all he is Omniscient, Right? Can he create a boulder that is so heavy that he himself cannot lift? He is omnipotent right? Clearly, he is OUTSIDE the boundaries of logic.
My final criticism : "Without God, whose moral standards must I abide by? And what would make them unchanging?"
First of all, why do you talk as if god is the only way morality could be introduced? I could probably argue that it was evolutionary pressure that created them. Evolution has created us with a desire to remain alive. Maybe at first it was survival of the fittest amongst humans, but then evolution suggested that we should stick together and not harm each other since we look like each other. Primitive yet effective. Also, who says morality is unchanging? Slavery was seen as ethical and a kind, compassionate way of preserving defeated tribal groups. However society has changed and therefore their standpoint of that morality has changed.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, I happily wait any response.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Gods exists on belief not proof, otherwise we would all believe. You are talking about belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. The more you know the less you believe.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
http://www.youtube.com... - Burden of Proof
http://www.youtube.com... - Testing for god

Tracie Harris "When somebody tells me that they believe a thing, they are telling me that they have assets that this as true. So they have examined this and they have come to the conclusion that it does align with reality. My problem with god exists is I don"t know what reality I"m examining."
Caller: "Yeah the one you live in."
Tracie: " What god are we examining here? And how are we examining it?"
Caller: "Your"re looking for a definition of god."
Tracie: "No I"m looking for the god in reality that corresponds to the god that you are talking about."
Caller: "The god I am talking about is the god of the bible."
Tracie: "OK but in reality the bible is talking about a god. I"m saying where is that god so I can set these bible"s claims, so I can set your claim, so I can set whatever claim about god. I---have---to---see---god to see if it aligns with the claim. Where do I do that?"
Caller: "How do I know he exists?"
Tracie" THAT WOULD BE THE WHOLE POINT OF THE SHOW!!!"

http://www.youtube.com... - World must have a creator
http://www.youtube.com... - How do you know god isn't real?
---------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com... - Reasons for accepting atheism
http://www.youtube.com... - Bill Maher - Idiots must stop claiming atheism is a religion
http://www.youtube.com... - Atheism a religion?
http://www.youtube.com... - The case for Atheism (Richard Carrier)
http://www.youtube.com... - The Gospel According to Carrier
http://www.youtube.com... - A believers guide to Atheism in 9 minutes
http://www.youtube.com... - Is Atheism a Dogmatic Religion?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
* god hates women in his bible LM 4 9-11 sick and disgusting, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, JD 21:10, 2 SAM 12 11-14 sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31 17:18, LV 26 21:22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, DT 2 32-34, 2 KS 8: 9-15, 2 KS 15:16 sick and disgusting, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, 2 KS 6: 28-29 sick and disgusting, JD 19: 24-29, LM 2 20-22 sick and disgusting, 1 COR 14:34,1 TY 2:12
* god commits abortions who knows how many times within several verses in his bible, so that means that christians do not follow their god which is extremely hypocritical and contradictory from his bible HS 13:16 sick and disgusting, 2 KS 8: 9-15 sick and disgusting, 2 HS 15:16 sick and disgusting, HS 9: 11-16, and perhaps the biggest acts of abortions were committed in the great flood according to this so-called god of the bible in the great flood (which never happened btw) so who knows how many pregnant mothers died there
* Indeed god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan, all serial killers, all rapists, all tortures, all pedophiles, all sadomasochists etc etc etc combined. After all god knowingly created them which means that he is ultimately responsible for them. Its either that or god is not a god and lets them off the hook with nothing but a tap on the shoulder for their horrific, disgusting, repugnant crimes and simply god---does---not---care. Now here's some examples of god"s sickened, diseased, abominable atrocities for absolutely no reason at all... the great flood (which never happened btw) so who knows what the body count was there? 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc etc
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Pro is right. He is an amateur. He claims that morality proves a god when morality proves nothing especially when his god is completely immoral.
* god hates gays in his bible and wants them stoned to death LV 20:13
* god hates anyone that blasphemes and wants to put you to death LV 24:16
* god hates anyone that does not believe in him in his bible 2 CHR 15: 12-13, ESPECIALLY if someone worships another god/ idols other than himself, thus wants to kill them DT 13: 9-10 and 17: 2-5
* god endorses slavery in his bible EX 21 the entire chapter especially 20-21 which is truly sick and disgusting, LV 25:39, LV 25:42, LV 25: 44-46, DT 15: 12-15, DT 23: 14-16, MT 18:25,
* god gets jealous in his bible EX 20: 3-5, EX 34:14, DT 4: 23-24, DT 32: 16-17, DT 5:9, DT 6:15, JH 24:19, PS 79:5, PS 78:58, 2 COR 1:2,
* god wants you to die in his bible if you break the sabbath EX 31:14, NU 15: 32-36
* god wants to put you to death in his bible if you commit adultery LV 20:10
* god has freely admitted in his bible numerous times that he IS evil IS 45:7, 2 SAM 12: 11-14 sick and disgusting, EX 32:14, 1 KS 1 22: 22-23, 2 CR 18:22, JM 19:3, JM 19:15, JM 23:12, AM 3:6, DT 30:15, 2 KS 22:16, JU 9:23
* god in his bible knowingly and truly hates children through numerous passages such as LM4: 9-11, MT 10:37, MT 2:16, JG 21:10, 2 SAM 12:11-14 which is truly sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16, 2 KS 15:16, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, EX 12: 29-30, IS 13: 15-18, MT 2:16, (EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4, MT 10:21), JG 11: 30-33, PS 137: 8-9, 2 KS 6: 28-29, DT 21: 18-21, DT 32:25, DT 2: 32-34, DT 3: 3-6, JG 19: 24-29, EX 12:29, 2 HS 2: 23-24, LV 26:29, JM 11: 22-23, JM 19: 7-9, JM 51: 22-26, 2 KS 8: 9-15,LM 2: 20-22, RV 2: 18-23
god loves rape in his bible NU 31: 17-18, 2 SAM 12: 11-18 sick and disgusting, JD 19:24-29, JD 21: 10-24, DT 20: 10-14, DT 22: 28-29, DT 21: 10-14, JD 5:30, EX 21 7-11, ZE 14: 1-2
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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