Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    A "Just God?" Whose standard of Justice are you using? Its as if you are making a claim on Universal Laws of Morality and Justice even as you yourself reject them.

    • a year ago

      How did I not see this before? Oh well, better late than never.

      I think Con does a good job trying to worm his way out of some sketchy looking verses. The problem is, he's never able to get around the "faith is not a default" problem.

      If we're looking at whether or not to put faith in something, we need to be reasonably sure that it's actually correct. Pro correctly points out that we don't start with faith, we have to choose it.

      When you have these verses, there are two equally plausible ways of interpreting them. It's cool that Con has ways of interpreting those verses that aren't totally scary, but that doesn't justify faith. If someone is on trial for murder and there are two equally plausible explanations that either he did it, or maybe his roommate did it! Well you can't justify putting faith in the idea that he did it. For that reason I think Pro wins this one.