Which side makes a better case?
avatar
27 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 2 years ago

    Nothing like watching two atheist's debating Christianity :D :P

    • 2 years ago

      A/T Daniels first argument:

      The argument you make is entirely predicated on you playing God. Your argument at best is "Well if I were God I wouldnt do this" and then from there you assert that since you wouldnt do it, an omniscient being would also not do it. There isnt really a contradiction in terms its more of a conjecturing argument that asks a why question and doesnt actually prove the claim.

      You use phrases like "That would seem like the natural thing to do if you were God"

      Additionally any claims regarding good or evil and justice all assume a standard exists. I'd like to see what your standards are as an atheist and also how you can justify those standards.

      • 2 years ago

        @metant3 Because that's all I have. Had God made me infinite it would be easier, but if I want to verify things I only have the powers he gave me. And according to those powers, it is obvious that the actions he chose were irrational.

    • 2 years ago

      Well, better internet than I expected. But a very interesting discussion which I did expect. It was great to explore the topic with you @debateme13 . I hope the true believers out there did not find my apologetics too painful or heretical. I tried to give what I think is the most internally consistent representation of doctrine and scripture. Though admittedly, I'm not a scholar, not even close.

      I'd like to think that because I wasn't rasied in any given Christian tradition, I at least have an unbiased reading of scripture at a surface level.

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried same to you sir, as always it's a delight to hear your thoughts and your golden voice XD. I think the Christian's would be perfectly happy with your arguments, since they're essentially the ones I heard from my most rational Christian friends, and they do establish the possibility of the creator's motives. I'd still say that an explainable contradiction remains a contradiction (at least as far as humans can reason), but still one that could justify faith, if there is first logic to place a belief on.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 Some of my defenses are based on some of my critiques. The whole "perfect" argument for instance. It always strikes me as a bad word to use. Perfect compared to what? I ask. Smacks of Plato more than the bible. It's such a loaded word I tend to reject it utterly as an attribute.

    • 2 years ago

      Ohhhh Hiiiii! @debateme13

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13 hahahahaha, the women argument!! I'm with you
      @sigfried Why do women have to go through the suffer??

      • 2 years ago

        @gigi (speaking as an apologist in the spirit of the debate) Eve was the first to disobey and eat of the fruit, and she led Adam to do the same. So she takes the greatest responsibility and thus faces the most challenging consequences. (especially when you consider that childbirth was inherently dangerous in the past). Without access to the tree of life, humans were mortal and thus there was a need to reproduce. That becomes her primary burden and responsibility. That process comes with the consequence of suffering and challenge.

        (as myself) I think the story of Adam and Eve is a story created to explain the state of man and woman, and specifically coming of age and sexual maturity within the context of the Jewish faith. It takes a strange set of complicated circumstances and puts them into a moral context. Considering how short it is, it packs in a really huge amount of meaning which is why its one of my favorite stories in the bible.

      • 2 years ago

        @sigfried The question remains.. why was Eve who got the apple???! Why it had to be her responsibility? Sex discrimination that's all I'm saying :-)

    • 2 years ago

      @debateme13: You stated in your first argument. God created all the people who are going to go to hell. He could have chosen to make them better. He could’ve chosen to make the standard different, but he didn’t. He could’ve not made Lucifer, but he did. He could’ve not put the apple in the garden, but he did.

      Nothing you just named was a contradiction at all. What it seems to me (@metant3 might feel differently) you are complaining about is that God gave us a choice and too much freedom. God created Adam and Eve who begat the rest of civilization. The only standard he created to not go to hell is to love and trust him. That is hardly a high hurdle to jump.

      God did not make anyone do evil, he left it up to them to choose. He didn’t make Adam and Eve listen to Lucifer, he spoke to them directly asking them not to, and they did anyway. You are basically saying God should have given man no moral obligation in the world.

      You should think about the dynamic of having children vs. having pets. With children, you allow them the free will an opportunity to learn what’s right and wrong. With pets, you lock them in a cage or in your house or you put a leash on them. Restricting their every move to do only what you want them to do. Essentially, you’re saying God should have made us pets.

      But once again back to my beginning, nothing you offered was a contradiction.

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ that clearly is a contradiction. One cannot create a being you know will suffer eternal torment and then act like you have no moral culpability for the actions you didn't take.

        To use your example of parents, if you see your kid wandering into the street to be hit by a bus, and just go "oh well let it be" you are responsible for what happens. With God it's even worse since he literally forms the minds we have to work with so he chose how likely we would be to do good or evil.

        Sigfried and Michael have a much better answer to that point, which is to admit that it's a contradiction, but it's a contradiction the human mind. It's entirely possible that the infinite being knows something we don't know about justice, and there's no way our finite minds could know. But we do know that according to our human minds, it's a really obvious contradiction.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13
        “One cannot create a being you know will suffer eternal torment and then act like you have no moral culpability for the actions you didn't take”.
        Where you and I will never agree is the fact that you insist on taking out the choice that man has to not go to hell. You make it seem like God created “Person A” just so that person could suffer and go to hell. While in actuality “Person A” was given choices. The same choices that anyone who is going to heaven had. God gave each and every person an “Get out of Hell Free Card”. At what point is “Person A” responsible for his/her own choices?

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ I'm looking at this from the perspective of God. Take yourself out of just looking at man. Imagine that you have infinite power and you are God.

        If you create a being who you know will suffer eternal torture for all of time, you've done that being a grave injustice, especially if you had the capability to make that being better, or just not create the being.

        This line of reasoning is conclusive. However, this is also where Sigfried and Michael's argument comes in. We can't fully answer this question because we can't fully put ourselves in the mindset of an infinite being. With everything we know as humans, the actions of God are clearly problematic, but what we know as humans is limited to our finite knowledge. Perhaps the infinite being would have higher standards beyond what we know.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 let me ask you this Daniel. Simple question and don't read to deep into it.

        Why is it when President Bush declared war on Osama Bin Laden and sent American Troops to kill him it was applauded by some. Why was this seen as a "just cause"?

        My thinking is because a lot of things to us are subjective. What are your thoughts?

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ indeed, I would say this is because humans by nature are subjective creatures.

        Rabbit trail: this is because humans are just slightly more intelligent animals. I often prefer animals to humans because animals don't have any pretensions of importance. They don't think they rule the earth, or have special rights, just because of their species. Humans do, and we have no reason for it. /rabbit trail

        Yes humans are subjective, emotional creatures. We can maximize our rationality, which is mainly done by approaching all issues through a lense of objectivity. This is incredibly difficult since most humans by nature are informed by our bias', but some objective standards can still be pursued, which is why I debate. Edit: this is not to say that I have reached objectivity. I, like all humans, often fail. But I'm just saying objectivity is the goal I strive for.

        The problem is, even if we were to become fully objective, we still would have a cap on the amount of answers we can know. Even if the human mind was to reach it's max capacity for objective reason, we will still be limited by our finite nature.

        Edit 2: oh you said not to read too deep into it. Lol but it's me.

    • 2 years ago

      15:38 – @debateme13 you say why wouldn’t God reveal himself to us immediately and be right in our faces “that seems like the natural thing to do”. Once again that is not a contradiction of any sort.
      The Hebrews had been brought out of Egypt. God parted the Red Sea, Manna rained from the heavens to feed them all of this were pretty up in their face. Yet and still when Moses went up in the Mountain to get the 10 commandments they decided they needed an idol.
      Adam talked to God directly and still decided to eat the apple which God asked them not to.
      So in fact he did do exactly what you deemed as the “natural thing to do” yet still some CHOSE to listen to other things and worship other things.

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ I didn't get into it in this debate since we went a different direction, but I could have gone into how God hasn't happened for 2,000 years and how 99.9% of the world never had such Godly intervention. If our eternal happiness or eternal suffering is dependent on our belief in this deity, the lack of clear visitation from this deity is downright criminal.

    • 2 years ago

      20:07 – @debateme13 If God is perfect then this world should not exist. If God is perfect then nothing can make him better. A perfect being has no needs or wants. So why would this perfect being create something when they do no need it.

      This seems to be a huge logical fallacy. I’m not sure how you tie those together. How does God choosing to make man mean that he was incomplete, and needed to make man in order to be complete?

      Does the term “Fallacy of Equivocation” mean anything to you. It seems like you’re mixing definitions of perfect a little. Like you’re asking: “If God is perfect (without fault or defect) why did he need to create man. Since he needed man he is therefore not perfect (complete or mature).

      Maybe that example was completely off, let me give you another one. “Practice makes perfect. Doctors practice medicine. Therefore, doctors must be perfect”. The argument is a fallacy because the word perfect is used two different ways.

      But regardless….Where does it ever say that God needed man??

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ why does an artist paint? Desire, need, expectation.

        Why does a debater argue? Competitive nature, desire for change, desire to inform others.

        Why does a filmmaker create? Desire for respect, beauty, legitimacy.

        What do all these have in common? In each case, the creator wants something. There's a reason to create. But a perfect being would have no needs or wants. There is nothing that would lead the perfect being to creating our universe. It doesn't fill any need, or improve his essence in any way.

        This is a well known philosophical qualm with the concept of a perfect being. There is no reason a perfect being would have created the earth or anything else because there is no advantage it could bring him.

        Sigfried basically backs away and redefines what it means to be perfect, (since an infinite being probably would have a different interpretation) and I agree with him. According to the human definition of perfection (cannot be improved), the Christian God would be impossible.

      • 2 years ago

        @debateme13 - “cannot be improved” is not the definition of perfect in any dictionary I have found. Just throwing that out there. That seems more the definition of complete.

    • 2 years ago

      21:08 - @debateme13 asks why do women have periods. I am not even touching that question.

    • 2 years ago

      To my Resident Debater brothers (@debateme13, @sigfried) I want to applaud you two. It was actually a very good debate. Except for some of @debateme13’s comments (What kind of idiotic creator), it was not something I would consider to be offensive to Christians. I am going to post this debate in some of my Apologetic groups for dissection.

      I’m not going to bore you guys with who I voted for, because I’m 100% sure you two guys know which side I voted for. I’m so biased its crazy, lol.

      • 2 years ago

        XD well I actually don't mind you voting for him. The thing is, both he and I proved our side of the resolution. To the human mind, there certainly are contradictions to the nature and actions of the Christian God, but Sigfried is also absolutely correct that there are potential explanations for these actions if we take into account the infinite nature of a deity. Both sides are correct (and I think we both agree) so I don't mind people voting for him.

        That being said, you should do this topic or some religion topic with me again. :D

      • 2 years ago

        @the_peoples_champ Thanks! I'm glad I didn't offend. My apologetics put's God into what I think is a less rosy light. He's only selectively compassionate and a little arbitrary (from our perspective) as to when he chooses to reward and punish mankind or individuals.

        Many Christians I have encountered say God can never do evil as where I say that he can and does, but it is evil of a different kind (destruction) because God cannot sin and he has moral authority over his creation. Some tell me that he is perfectly just from a human perspective and I typically counter with the Exodus story and challenge them to explain to me how, from a human perspective, what he did to the Egyptian firstborn was just. They usually have to back into saying, if God does it then it must be just (a circular argument). I've only very rarely heard a response explaining a different standard of justice due to the different standing of God. Probably because it leaves God as a rather alien and frightening figure. (which in the OT he certainly is by my view)