Instigator / Pro
0
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#4941
Is god real? Continuation with Best.Korea
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Im going to copy and paste my argument from our previous debate since you didn't address that.
Hello Korea, I would first like to thank you for coming for this civil discussion and I hope it is productive and may perhaps change your mind.
The burden of proof of the atheist
First of all, I would like to point out the burden of proof that Korea has. I'm going to give 5 arguments for the existence of God, and Korea has to tear down each argument and then build an argument against God to prove that God does not exist, otherwise we are left with agnosticism, which neither proves nor disproves God. During the arguments I provide, I ask Korea to identify which premises he/she might disagree with and why he/she disagrees with them.
Argument 1: The cosmological argument
1 - Everything that exists has a cause, either found in a external cause or by the necessity of its own nature
2 - If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
3 - The universe exists
Therefore:
4 - the cause of the universe is God
5 - God exists
So this argument is extremely simple, yet powerful and problematic for atheism. I feel the need to support premise 2 and why it would point to God. When we speak of the universe, we speak of space, time, and matter. And when the universe was created, so was space, time, and matter. So it follows that whatever caused the universe to come into existence is space-less, timeless, non-physical, and immaterial. This cause must also be immensely powerful because it must have been powerful enough to create space and time, a 4D construct.
Argument 2: The improbability of atheism
This argument does not follow any premises, but rather shows how improbable atheism is. There are several events that had to happen to create the universe as we know it that were extremely unlikely, yet they happened. This points to an intelligent & personal cause. [2]
1: If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 10^60, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.
2: Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible.
3: Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10^40, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.
4: If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons, or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and thus life would not be possible.
5: The chances of evolution resulting in humans were 1 in 10 to the power of 40000. That's a 1 followed by 40,000 0s, yet it happened; isn't that miraculous? [2]
quote for the evolution number:
"...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court....The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly...There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup, as we ourselves hoped might be possible a year or two ago."
Believing that the universe happened by pure chance is quite irrational and can be reasonably dismissed with the principle of parsimony.
I would also like to build on the previous descriptors of the cause that I provided earlier. It must be intelligent as well as personal because it must have chosen to create, it's unreasonable to say this happened by accident. So this is the cause of the universe:
non-physical
immaterial
space-less
time-less
immensely powerful
intelligent
personal creator of the universe.
This is the traditional understanding of god & god is the only thing that can fit this description.
Argument 3: The transcendental cause of the laws of thought
1 - The cause of the laws of logic existing is God
2 - The laws of logic exist
3 -God is the cause of the laws of logic.
In order to think rationally you must use the laws of thought. [3] In order for your world view to be rational you must be able to account for the laws of logic, otherwise how did you come to that conclusion? Well science pre-supposes the laws of logic so to use science to prove the laws of logic would be circular reasoning. Therefore its impossible to prove the laws of logic empirically so therefore it must be transcendental, which is what a god is.. Think of it as arguing against the existence of air, you must use air to argue against the existence of air, which is absolutely absurd. Similarly the atheist must be wrong because he's using a principle of God to disprove God
Argument 4: The ontological argument
1 - Its possible that a Maximally Great Being, namely god exists
2 - Actually existing makes something greater than if that same something existed in the mind
3 - A Maximally Great Being posses all the properties that are considered great
4 - A Maximally Great Being therefore posses the quality of existing
5 - A Maximally Great being exists, therefore god exists.
The ontological argument attempts to prove God based on the premise that God is maximally great. For example, the only thing greater than a "maximally great" island in your mind is a "maximally great" island that is real. Therefore, if God is maximally great, He would exist because He is maximally great., therefore posses the all the qualities of being great.
Argument 5: The resurrection of Jesus.
1) If the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth happened, then it must have been from God.
2) The resurrection happened.
3) God is real.
I first feel the need to justify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth; there are multiple writers from the time of Jesus who talk of him and Christians.
The first non-Christian author to mention Jesus is thought to be the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism in about the year 93, the famous Antiquities of the Jews
In the Antiquities, Josephus writes: [4]
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned
Scholars point to the Roman historian Tacitus for confirmation that the crucifixion of Jesus actually took place. In his Annals, he records the death of Jesus at the hands of Pontius Pilate: [5]
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
It is also worth mentioning what Tacitus wrote about the torture of Christians. [5]
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
My point is, why would you lie about a resurrection if you got tortured for it and got nothing in return? This isn't some ill-conceived spaghetti monster; this suggests that the people who claimed to see the resurrection, genuinely believed in it. If these people were mistaken they would've been easily corrected by being shown the body of Christ.
sources:
[1] - THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT By Robin Collins From Reason for the Hope Within
[2] - Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space [Aldine House, 33 Welbeck Street, London W1M 8LX: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), p. 148, 24,150,30,31).
[3] - The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1998, July 19). Laws of thought | Definition, Theories, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought
[4] - The Antiquities of the Jews, by Flavius Josephus. (n.d.). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm#link182HCH0003
[5] - Wikipedia contributors. (2023). Tacitus on Jesus. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus
Con
#2
Perfect being such as God would create everything perfect.
This world is not perfect.
Therefore, perfect being such as God doesnt exist.
Round 2
Pro
#3
God did create a perfect world in genesis (genesis 1-2) called the garden of Eden. And man got kicked out of it because Adam sinned (genesis 3)
I’ll also point out that just because god is perfect doesn’t mean he has to make a perfect world. Just because your a perfect carpenter -if such a thing existed- doesn’t mean you have to make a perfect table.
Con
#4
Perfect being such as God would create everything perfect.
So not just Eden, but this world too.
This has nothing to do with carpenter.
Perfect being is morally perfect, therefore cannot do things that are immoral.
If he did any amount of things that are immoral, he wouldnt be morally perfect anymore.
We see that this world is mostly immoral, with animals and children suffering everywhere.
Therefore, a perfect being would not create this world.
The existence of this world and the existence of perfect creator exclude each other.
Round 3
Pro
#5
So not just Eden, but this world too.
The garden of Eden is perfect
This has nothing to do with carpenter.
It’s a analogy my friend
Perfect being is morally perfect, therefore cannot do things that are immoral.
He has done nothing immoral
If he did any amount of things that are immoral, he wouldnt be morally perfect anymore.
Sure. Where do you get this sense of objective morality tho?
We see that this world is mostly immoral, with animals and children suffering everywhere.
God isn’t doing that, I already pointed out how god intended a world without all of that
Therefore, a perfect being would not create this world.
He didn’t create the evil, man created the evil as we see in genesis 3-4
The existence of this world and the existence of perfect creator exclude each other.
I don’t think you pointed out valid reasons as to why.
Now please address my opening argument, this means nothing if you don’t address that.
Con
#6
The garden of Eden is perfect
Everything perfect = this world perfect
This world not perfect = not everything is perfect.
Not everything is perfect = there is no perfect creator, the one who makes everything perfect
It’s a analogy my friend
Yet irrelevant, since moral perfection excludes immorality, just as perfection excludes imperfection, and morally imperfect creation excludes morally perfect creator.
He has done nothing immoral
He literally created the world full of suffering, famine, murder and rape.
God isn’t doing that, I already pointed out how god intended a world without all of that
God is doing that. If I open a cage with wild dog in it, and wild dog bites someone, it would be my fault.
Same applies to your God who brings rapists, murderers and sadists into existence knowing what they will do.
He didn’t create the evil, man created the evil as we see in genesis 3-4
God created man. Man created evil. Therefore, God created evil. Same way I dont get to shoot people and blame it on the bullet.
God could have simply created only good and perfect humans. Thats what a morally perfect creator would do.
Now please address my opening argument, this means nothing if you don’t address that.
Oh, yeah.
If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
This is an assumption, not an argument. Cause can also be a supernatural being that is not all powerful nor morally perfect.
Argument 2: The improbability of atheism
In this part, you went on talking about big bang and evolution. That has nothing to do with atheism.
The cause of the laws of logic existing is God
Another assumption. The cause can be another supernatural being that is not God.
A Maximally Great Being posses all the properties that are considered great
This is circular reasoning. You assume that something exists by assuming that something posseses properties, which would require it to exist in the first place in order to posses them.
The resurrection happened
Yeah, how about not making your main premise an assumption?
People got tortured throughout history for all kinds of things, for nacism, for satanic rituals, for witchcraft.
So obviously, logic doesnt follow.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Everything perfect = this world perfectThis world not perfect = not everything is perfect.Not everything is perfect = there is no perfect creator, the one who makes everything perfect
I didnt say everything was perfect, I said the garden of Eden was perfect. And I pointed out why just because the world isn't perfect doesn't mean the creator isnt perfect and how the creator did in fact create something perfect.
Yet irrelevant, since moral perfection excludes immorality, just as perfection excludes imperfection, and morally imperfect creation excludes morally perfect creator.
Well that's not what the analogy was addressing, it was addressing that a perfect creator doesn't have to create something perfect.
He literally created the world full of suffering, famine, murder and rape.
But did he do the murder and the raping? No he didn't, that is caused by man kind. And I also pointed out how he created a world without all of that yet humans caused that to come into existence.
God is doing that. If I open a cage with wild dog in it, and wild dog bites someone, it would be my fault.Same applies to your God who brings rapists, murderers and sadists into existence knowing what they will do.
Well I dont think thats a good analogy for 2 reasons.
1 - That wouldnt make the person that let the dog out immoral
2 - People werent just wild animals, it'd be more similar to just a normal dog
3 - God allows free-moral agency, it'd be immoral to keep a dog locked up all his life because he might bite someone.
God created man. Man created evil. Therefore, God created evil. Same way I dont get to shoot people and blame it on the bullet.God could have simply created only good and perfect humans. Thats what a morally perfect creator would do.
Well the man that created the ak didn't kill millions of people. I mean you wouldnt say the mother of Jeffery Dahmer killed & ate 20 or so people.
This is an assumption, not an argument. Cause can also be a supernatural being that is not all powerful nor morally perfect.
Well if you read a paragraph further I explained why its god. I also covered in the next argument why its all powerful & another one where its morally perfect. This isnt rebutting the argument, its just beating around the bush.
In this part, you went on talking about big bang and evolution. That has nothing to do with atheism.
I think you misunderstand the argument. I was pointing out how these things point to a intelligent creator, in atheism there cant be a intelligent creator and therefore it would disprove atheism.
Another assumption. The cause can be another supernatural being that is not God.
Well if it was supernatural then that would disprove atheism since that wouldn't fit into a naturalistic world.
This is circular reasoning. You assume that something exists by assuming that something possesses properties, which would require it to exist in the first place in order to posses them.
This doesnt respond to the argument. There's no denying that if a maximally great being existed it would be all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral, etc. I then show how existing makes something great therefore it exists. Your assuming it doesn't exist, therefore begging the question, arguing in a circle.
Yeah, how about not making your main premise an assumption?
Well I show my reasons for it most likely being true. People who claimed to have saw it were tortured, so why would they lie for it? Humans tend to value their life's so this points to genuine belief. To take a side that has actual evidence supported by scholars, Gary R. Habermas has done the leg work for me. He surveyed more than 1,400 sources from scholars (both atheist, agnostic, and theist) and came to a conclusion that the majority agreed on 6 facts. [1] [2]
these facts go as follows:
1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
2. The disciples had experiences they believed to be of the risen Jesus.
3. Some among the disciples died for their belief.
4. James, a skeptic, was converted.
5. Paul, a skeptic and persecutor of Christians, was converted.
6. The earliness of the proclamation of the risen Jesus.
Why would you die for a thing that wasn't true, and you knew it wasn't true? You wouldn't, its that simple.
People got tortured throughout history for all kinds of things, for nacism, for satanic rituals, for witchcraft.So obviously, logic doesnt follow.
Well point out a example that's nearly perfectly parallel to early Christians. Muslim martyrs for example aren't parallel because they didn't claim to see a act of god in person, their martyring is different.
sources:
[1] - Lowder, J. J. (2015, September 15). Gary Habermas Shows Why the ‘Minimal Facts’ of Jesus’ Death Can’t Establish the Resurrection. The Secular Frontier. https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2015/09/gary-habermas-shows-why-the-minimal-facts-of-jesus-death-cant-establish-the-resurrection/
[2] - The risen Jesus & future hope. (n.d.). Colorado Christian University. https://ccu.marmot.org/ExternalEContent/.b35193098?searchId=198378474&recordIndex=1&page=1
Con
#8
I didnt say everything was perfect, I said the garden of Eden was perfect. And I pointed out why just because the world isn't perfect doesn't mean the creator isnt perfect and how the creator did in fact create something perfect.
And again, you miss the point.
Morally perfect being means that every action of that being is morally perfect.
Therefore, since creating this world was an immoral action, and morally perfect being cannot do an immoral action, it follows that the being who created this world was not morally perfect, therefore was not God.
Well that's not what the analogy was addressing, it was addressing that a perfect creator doesn't have to create something perfect.
Analogy was invalid because it does not deal with moral perfection.
Moral perfection by definition requires that all actions of that being are morally perfect.
But did he do the murder and the raping? No he didn't, that is caused by man kind. And I also pointed out how he created a world without all of that yet humans caused that to come into existence
Have you ever heard of indirect cause?
If you let the murderer out of cage and give him a gun, you are responsible for all the killings he does.
It was God who created bad humans, knew they would be bad and do bad things, gave them ability to do bad things, and as a result is responsible for all the bad things they do.
To say otherwise would not only be nonsense, but no one in real life would agree with such logic.
No one would say that I am not guilty if I release a wild dog knowing he will attack people.
1 - That wouldnt make the person that let the dog out immoral
Yes, it would. If I know that dog will bite someone's face off, it would be immoral for me to release that dog.
2 - People werent just wild animals, it'd be more similar to just a normal dog
Wrong again. God knows exactly who will be cannibal, who will be murderer, who will be rapist. He chooses to bring those into existence.
3 - God allows free-moral agency, it'd be immoral to keep a dog locked up all his life because he might bite someone.
Wrong, again.
"He might bite someone" is not an accurate description.
"He will bite someone" is an accurate description.
Lets see, would you agree to keep cannibal murderer locked up for life, knowing that he will, if released, repeat crime? Yes? Well, most people would say yes to that one.
Yet your God releases canninals, rapists and murderers into existence, and you consider him morally perfect.
So how is "not creating a rapist" worse than "creating a rapist and letting him rape"?
Do you agree to let all rapists out of prison so that we could respect their free-moral agency? No?
And yet your God does that and worse, since in case of God, rapist is not in the cage and suffering, but in the peaceful state of non-existence.
To bring him into existence is literally bad for everyone, including being bad for rapist too.
Yet your God does that which no moral human on Earth would do.
He brings murderers, rapists and cannibals into existence, instead of just bringing good people into existence.
What is a free-moral agency? And how come God chose to respect murderer's agency over good person's agency?
And respecting rapist's agency is immoral thing to do. Do you agree to let all rapists out of prison? Why not, I thought we are supposed to respect their agency?
Also, last time I checked, we dont choose our choices, because the source of our choices cannot be a choice.
Therefore, if God was real, he would also be responsible for creating our choices or the source of our choices.
Well the man that created the ak didn't kill millions of people. I mean you wouldnt say the mother of Jeffery Dahmer killed & ate 20 or so people.
Fake analogy. The man that created ak obviously helped in killing people. To say that he had no responsibility in that is nonsense. To say that he didnt kill people is also nonsense. If I give a gun to a murderer, and enable him to kill people, I would be just as guilty as that murderer.
The mother of Jeffery Dahmer is another fake analogy.
If the mother knew her son would be like that, she would have moral duty to not give birth to him.
God, being all knowing, would have exact knowledge of who will be murderer. Therefore, would have moral duty not to bring that murderer into existence.
Well if you read a paragraph further I explained why its god. I also covered in the next argument why its all powerful & another one where its morally perfect.
No, you just said it has to be very powerful being, not all powerful being. And nowhere did you provide an actual reason for God being morally perfect.
I was pointing out how these things point to a intelligent creator, in atheism there cant be a intelligent creator and therefore it would disprove atheism.
This debate has nothing to do with atheism.
Intelligent creator doesnt have to be God. It can be any supernatural being that is not morally perfect..
This debate is about existence of God, not about existence of some other intelligent creator.
As long as there is a possibility of intelligent, but immoral or powerful but not all powerful creator existing, it follows that God is not proven to exist.
To make things worse for you, even if you proved that God did create the world, it still wouldnt prove that God exists right now in the present.
Maybe God chose to destroy himself and no longer exists. So the topic "God exists" would still be false, since it deals with present.
God being defined as both all powerful and morally perfect being, it follows that you must prove that there is a being right now that is:
1. All powerful
2. Morally perfect.
It is not enough to prove just one of these. You must prove both.
Well if it was supernatural then that would disprove atheism since that wouldn't fit into a naturalistic world
Okay, how many times I need to say that this debate has nothing to do with atheism?
This debate deals specifically with your, Christian God, who is morally perfect and all powerful.
There's no denying that if a maximally great being existed it would be all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral, etc. I then show how existing makes something great therefore it exists.
Oh great, more circular reasoning.
"Existing makes something great" - you assume it exists.
"Therefore it exists" - you conclude it exists.
Well point out a example that's nearly perfectly parallel to early Christians.
Oh,sorry, I didnt realize that being unique in some way makes something true. So by your logic Quran is true because there was no book like it before it. And Bible is false because its a copy of ancient legends, and Jesus is fake because his teachings are just copied from ancient philosophers.
Muslim martyrs for example aren't parallel because they didn't claim to see a act of god in person, their martyring is different
You mean, they didnt lie as much? Hey, some witches claimed to see Gods and got burned, so I guess your fallacy of choice is "original story = true story". I assume you think Harry Potter is true too. The writer of Harry Potter endured lots of suffering and abuse.
So yes, the real truth is that Harry Potter created this world and God doesnt exist.
Round 5
Pro
#9
And again, you miss the point.Morally perfect being means that every action of that being is morally perfect.Therefore, since creating this world was an immoral action, and morally perfect being cannot do an immoral action, it follows that the being who created this world was not morally perfect, therefore was not God.
How was it immoral to create this earth? God didn't cause the immoral stuff, that's caused by humans.
Analogy was invalid because it does not deal with moral perfection.Moral perfection by definition requires that all actions of that being are morally perfect.
Again, thats not what it was addressing. It was addressing that just because your perfect doesn't mean you have to create something perfect.
Have you ever heard of indirect cause?If you let the murderer out of cage and give him a gun, you are responsible for all the killings he does.
Well thats not analogous, the humans god created werent murderers, at that time they were sinless. More parallel to letting a innocent man out of a cage & he goes and buys a gun and kills someone.
It was God who created bad humans, knew they would be bad and do bad things, gave them ability to do bad things, and as a result is responsible for all the bad things they do.To say otherwise would not only be nonsense, but no one in real life would agree with such logic.
He didnt create bad humans, he didnt create good humans. He just created humans and they went down the path of bad.
No one would say that I am not guilty if I release a wild dog knowing he will attack people.
I would say your cruel if you kept a innocent dog locked up all his life because he might bite someone. Which would be more analogous to this, yet your proposing god should've done this
Yes, it would. If I know that dog will bite someone's face off, it would be immoral for me to release that dog.
Did you release him with the intent of biting someone's face off? If no then your not immoral (which god didn't intend for them to sin, although they did)
Wrong again. God knows exactly who will be cannibal, who will be murderer, who will be rapist. He chooses to bring those into existence.
He gave them free moral agency tho, he didnt create bad or good humans. Again your proposing he locks or should kill someone because they might commit a crime.
Wrong, again."He might bite someone" is not an accurate description."He will bite someone" is an accurate description.
Your mistaken, god gave them free moral agency so they can make that choice on what to do (he doesnt control if they will or wont)
Lets see, would you agree to keep cannibal murderer locked up for life, knowing that he will, if released, repeat crime? Yes? Well, most people would say yes to that one.
Would you lock up a innocent man because he would commit a crime in the future? This logic could go for locking black males aged 20-25 locked up, yet im sure you wouldn't want that, no one would.
Yet your God releases canninals, rapists and murderers into existence, and you consider him morally perfect.So how is "not creating a rapist" worse than "creating a rapist and letting him rape"?Do you agree to let all rapists out of prison so that we could respect their free-moral agency? No?And yet your God does that and worse, since in case of God, rapist is not in the cage and suffering, but in the peaceful state of non-existence.To bring him into existence is literally bad for everyone, including being bad for rapist too.Yet your God does that which no moral human on Earth would do.He brings murderers, rapists and cannibals into existence, instead of just bringing good people into existence.What is a free-moral agency? And how come God chose to respect murderer's agency over good person's agency?And respecting rapist's agency is immoral thing to do. Do you agree to let all rapists out of prison? Why not, I thought we are supposed to respect their agency?Also, last time I checked, we dont choose our choices, because the source of our choices cannot be a choice.Therefore, if God was real, he would also be responsible for creating our choices or the source of our choices.
He doesn't release them, he lets them just be born since its a natural process and lets them have free-moral choice. You see your mistaken because your not understanding what im saying. Your proposing he should kill everyone, because everyone has done something wrong at one point. Should god kill everyone? No. If you said no then he cant kill a baby rapist. Means dont justify ends sure you prevented rape, yet you killed a baby practically. Ezekiel 33:11 points this out. god does not want sinners to die, this is because they are children of god despite of what they may do. Or read the parable jesus provides of the farmer and his son, and the lady and 10 silver coins. He gives them the chance to repent.
Fake analogy. The man that created ak obviously helped in killing people. To say that he had no responsibility in that is nonsense. To say that he didnt kill people is also nonsense. If I give a gun to a murderer, and enable him to kill people, I would be just as guilty as that murderer.The mother of Jeffery Dahmer is another fake analogy.
no, no, no its relevant. Man created ak, ak kills millions
god creates man, man kills millions. Whats not analogous here? The man that created the ak created it. Unless you want to argue that the guy that created the ak was directly responsible for millions
If the mother knew her son would be like that, she would have moral duty to not give birth to him.God, being all knowing, would have exact knowledge of who will be murderer. Therefore, would have moral duty not to bring that murderer into existence.
okay so god allowing sinners to exist, morally wrong.
killing a baby because he would've committed a crime, okay.
thats pretty twisted, and if thats the hill you want to die on I wont stop you.
Ill also point out should a mother be forced to get a abortion because her child would commit a crime? Even if she doesnt want one? After all god is like a father to these sinners.
No, you just said it has to be very powerful being, not all powerful being. And nowhere did you provide an actual reason for God being morally perfect.
It would be very powerful because it caused the universe & time to come into existence, thats a 4d concept (infinitely beyond us). And I didnt say it was morally perfect. I dont necessarily need to prove its morally perfect, I proved its spaceless, timeless, non-material, non-physical, immensely powerful. Thats god my friend. There is 1 things that fit this description, a unembodied mind who's will in omnipotent
This debate has nothing to do with atheism.
No, it does. The belief in no god is atheism, you argue there is no god, hence atheism.
Intelligent creator doesnt have to be God. It can be any supernatural being that is not morally perfect..
Your just ascribing this characteristics to this supernatural being, well if this supernatural being had these descriptors, it would be called god, no?
This debate is about existence of God, not about existence of some other intelligent creator.
God is a intelligent creator, if someone created the universe and had the characteristics of god, he would be called god.
As long as there is a possibility of intelligent, but immoral or powerful but not all powerful creator existing, it follows that God is not proven to exist.
I pointed out why he's powerful and intelligent, and you've yet to reasonably prove he's immoral. Even if we did assume he was immoral why would that mean he wasnt god? Some religions don't claim their god is all moral. (although do note as a Christian I believe god is moral)
To make things worse for you, even if you proved that God did create the world, it still wouldnt prove that God exists right now in the present.
Your burden of proof to prove that. That wouldn't even leave you without a god, that'd leave you with deism which I point to the resurrection of jesus to prove thats false.
Maybe God chose to destroy himself and no longer exists. So the topic "God exists" would still be false, since it deals with present.
Prove he did that.
God being defined as both all powerful and morally perfect being, it follows that you must prove that there is a being right now that is:1. All powerful2. Morally perfect.
He's all powerful because he created time & matter, which is 4d, and a 4d object is infinitely more dense and infinitely bigger than us and infinitely stronger than us.
And I think its your burden of proof to prove he isnt morally perfect. Just because there is no proof he is morally perfect (although there is the moral argument but I dont have enough posts to cover that.) doesnt mean he isnt, going off of what I proved there is a god.
It is not enough to prove just one of these. You must prove both.
You dont decide who has the burden of proof and what they must do.
Okay, how many times I need to say that this debate has nothing to do with atheism?
Im not sure if you realized but I cant read what your wrote before you even typed it.
This debate deals specifically with your, Christian God, who is morally perfect and all powerful.
I dont feel the need to point out why this has to do with atheism, since I pointed it out earlier
Oh great, more circular reasoning."Existing makes something great" - you assume it exists."Therefore it exists" - you conclude it exists.
You didn't address the argument.
Oh,sorry, I didnt realize that being unique in some way makes something true. So by your logic Quran is true because there was no book like it before it. And Bible is false because its a copy of ancient legends, and Jesus is fake because his teachings are just copied from ancient philosophers.
Well it'd make no sense to compare a big foot believer to early Christians. Early Christians were tortured and big foot believers arent.
It'd also make no sense to believe a suicide bomber and their religion since they didnt claim to see god or that someone was resurrected
As for your final pointI find it convenient you didnt provide evidence for it, especially since this is my last argument. So instead of attacking strawmen ill point out this is commits the genetic fallacy.
You mean, they didnt lie as much? Hey, some witches claimed to see Gods and got burned, so I guess your fallacy of choice is "original story = true story". I assume you think Harry Potter is true too. The writer of Harry Potter endured lots of suffering and abuse.So yes, the real truth is that Harry Potter created this world and God doesn't exist.
Is there evidence they claimed to see god? Ill also point out this is begging the question since your assuming that the resurrection didnt happen. And the writer didnt endure abuse because she claimed harry potter was real.
Ill also point out how you didn't address one of my arguments. How is a naturalistic world rational? Where do you get your laws of thought?
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
I forgot to say it but I thank you for the debate as well Korea, I wish you a pleasant evening.