Instigator / Pro
0
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#1056

The Christian God Does Not Exist

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 week
Max argument characters
25,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1442
rating
22
debates
34.09%
won
Description

Please provide sources for all claims.

DEFINITIONS
Christian God - the God described in the Bible. He is supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
Exist - To have current and objective reality.

ROUNDS:
1 - Main Argument
2 - Rebuttals
3 - Rebuttals
4 - Rebuttals
5 - Final Argument

Bump Missed this one - I may not have time for an RFD

Come on guys, vote!

-->
@TheAtheist

** Hey, would you like to have another debate on the same topic? **

I thought that that's what we are doing? just kidding. Sure, why not.

-->
@TheAtheist

Can we do this together?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Hey, would you like to have another debate on the same topic?

-->
@TheAtheist

You're right. This isn't a proper discussion given the subject of your debate. We can end this here.

-->
@Athias

Also this is completely unrelated to the topic of my debate, so if you want to have this discussion please message me.

-->
@Athias

The government's purpose is to protect and benefit its citizens.

How limited should the government be? Socially, I think the government should be very limited. I'm for a secular government, almost total free speech, pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-prostitution, completely for gay marriage, etc.

Economically, I think the government should support low taxes, the free market, and economic freedom.

However, the government should still have duties that no one else wants to do: security, military, enforcing laws, preventing scams and monopolies, etc.

-->
@TheAtheist

**Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.**

My response:

1. So? Just because God knows what you are going to say, doesn't mean there is no point. Again, talking with God is meant to help the person, not God. Sometimes when one goes through a difficult time, your friend or family is there for you-- they listen to you. They may already know what you are going through, but they are there for you to listen. When one talks with them, it's helpful. It's the same with God.
2. Ahhhhh, how do you know that. Perhaps God responds, but perhaps one just doesn't recognize or hear Him talking (see what Elijah says about that!).

-->
@TheAtheist

"I still don't understand. Are you trying to ask me how limited the minimal government should be, or what should its goals and purpose be, or what?"

Both.

-->
@Athias

I still don't understand. Are you trying to ask me how limited the minimal government should be, or what should its goals and purpose be, or what?

-->
@TheAtheist

"What do you mean, in which cases? "

I'll rephrase: in what capacity do you envision this minimal government functioning?

-->
@Athias

What do you mean, in which cases?

-->
@TheAtheist

"an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

And in which cases do you believe that minimal state intervention is required in the lives of citizens?

"Also, you're a monarchist? That's interesting. Why are you a monarchist?"

Everything on my profile, with the exception of my speaking French, is hyperbolic to the point of ridicule. I don't actually subscribe to anything listed on my profile except when "IT"S PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!"

-->
@Athias

Also, you're a monarchist? That's interesting. Why are you a monarchist?

-->
@Athias

My definition: an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

-->
@TheAtheist

"Well then I guess I'm not a libertarian, since I don't agree with that definition!"

I'm not the one who defined it; but I'm curious: what is your concept of Libertarianism?

-->
@Athias

Well then I guess I'm not a libertarian, since I don't agree with that definition!

-->
@TheAtheist

"Based on what do you think that autarchism is required to be a libertarian?"

Based on the core priniciple of Libertarianism: liberty. Liberty among individuals cannot be expressed unless they can pursue all avenues in which it can manifest, i.e. autonomy, association, sovereignty, etc. If an individual must subject himself to the authority of another, then he is not "free"; he's merely the object in the pursuit of someone else, and not the subject of his own.

-->
@Athias

Based on what do you think that autarchism is required to be a libertarian?

-->
@TheAtheist

"I don't see anything inconsistent with my beliefs. You don't have to be an absolute. I can lean towards libertarianism but still not be an anarchist."

I would argue otherwise. While true that Libertarianism doesn't necessarily require one to be an "anarchist," it does require one subscribe to autarchism--i.e. each individual is his own final authority. How does one suppose to resolve this conflict with a centralized, hegemonic state?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Please. Don't be rude. Why would you want to kill me for having a different belief?

I said SOME of their economic reasoning is sound. Not tariffs, I disagree with that. Illegal immegration helps the economy? I never saw any credible sources that confirmed that claim.

I don't align with Republicans. I said that I align with Republicans a little more than Democrats. You can dislike both things but still prefer one over the other. I think tariffs are bad, LEGAL immigration is good, and banning gay marriages and abortion is bad. Please, I don't want to argue. Just stay friends. If you want to talk message me privately.

-->
@Athias

I don't see anything inconsistent with my beliefs. You don't have to be an absolute. I can lean towards libertarianism but still not be an anarchist.

-->
@TheAtheist

Last one:

How can you say Republicans have better economy policies when they agree with tariffs where no credible economists agrees with?
How about stopping immigration even though immigration improves the economy?

I actually want to rip your head off. An expression of course.

The Republican atheist position really bothers me. You align with Religious people who dislike homosexuals are bad for the economy and try everything they can to discourage academia. This is under the assumption that you used the very same academia to come to the conclusion of atheism yet don't use the very same academia who say tariffs are bad, immigration is good and conservatives like in Alabama want to regress as in ban depiction of gay marriages and ban abortion.

-->
@TheAtheist

"I'd say that I'm more libertarian then conservative, but I am fiscally conservative."

Unfortunately, like Ben Shapiro, political Libertarianism is more of a meme than it is a sound political/economic/moral philosophy. Most whom I've encountered who claim to be "Libertarian" are just minarchists in disguise. The contexts in which they accept liberty as fundamental to social interaction are almost always arbitrarily selected. It's never about the principles, but it's always about the circumstances. If that were case, then everyone can claim to be libertarian. One either accepts the philosophy in its entirety because it operates on fundamental axioms and consistent logic, or one doesn't accept the philosophy at all. One cannot have one's cake and eat it, too.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Sure. But like I said, there is no point in conversation with God since:
1. God already knows everything you're going to say.
2. God isn't going to reply and talk to you.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I know that you can't rip my head off, it's a form of expression. I just think it's strange to bombard a stranger with so many questions. Maybe if you want to have a discussion you could message me, because this is unrelated to the debate.

I never said that I like Trump. I said I dislike him. I know that he has no experience and that many of his businesses have failed. That's why I said I would only vote for him if someone pointed a gun to my head. I just think he's a lesser evil than Hillary Clinton.

I'm a libertarian, so I think socialism is harmful and doesn't work.

I align with Republicans a bit more. I think some of their economic reasoning is sound. And they're also against big government and high taxes, and I'm a libertarian. But a lot of what they believe is bullshit, like climate change denialism, religious stuff, anti-gay marriage, etc.

-->
@TheAtheist

Prayer is not about changing God, it's about changing us.

What is prayer? Prayer is simply conversation with God. Some people choose to use this conversation as only an opportunity to ask for things.

God, like any good parent, wants his children to come to Him and talk to him, but often, not only when they need something.

I'm pretty sure you don't just talk to folks when you need things, right? It's funny. I have kids. They all talk with me. One child however seems to only come to me when he wants something-- "Dad, I need the car. Dad, I want some new shoes. Dad, I need some money to go out. Dad, I want to download the latest update for Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six" People have observed this and have said "Wow....he seems kinda selfish." (in my mind I think, my God-- he is just like me when I was his age!"

Prayer is not just about asking for thing, it's about conversing with God. If all we do is ask God for things, we are taking a pretty selfish role in the relationship.

It all comes down to the classic prayer we should pray to God, which Jesus repeated as shown in the Bible: "Not my will, but YOUR will be done".

-->
@TheAtheist

Why Trump like you have admitted he has no experience when it comes to public office and if you didn't know he is a failed businessman?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

What do you think of socialism?

Which party do you align with more: Democrats or Republicans?

I can't rip your head off. I don't know where it is.

-->
@TheAtheist

Omnibenevolence.

Your argument on "omnibenevolence" pre-supposes or assumes a very critical point-- that man sees things/events as an infinite or omniscient God sees them. I always tell people that's pretty much the height of arrogance-- to claim to see/perceive events/things as God sees them.

A person can see an event and think "that is TERRIBLE! HORRIFIC! THE WORST! EVIL!", but the person is seeing it from their limited, perhaps im-mature perspective. Have you ever taken a young child to go get a shot at the doctor (I've had to do that many times)? They'll scream and kick and yell and sometimes say things like "NO! PLEASE DON'T! I DON'T WANT A SHOT! IT'S THE WORST! t", etc. as if it's the end of the world. But the young child simply is unable to see it due to his perspective and im-maturity.

I'm sure folks will yell "STRAWMAN!" and argue that "taking a child to get a shot" doesn't compare to the "killing that occurs in the OT". The point is, just because YOU think something is Good or BAd doesn't necessarily mean God views it that way. What is good/bad in YOUR eyes, may not be so in God's eyes, or may have a higher purpose.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

So praying to God is like talking to a therapist in your head? Never thought about that. But still, you must agree that a central concept of Christianity is asking God for forgiveness, hapiness, safety, wealth, etc.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Chill with the questions. It sounds like you want to rip my head off. (:

I don't really like Ben Shapiro. Some of his arguments and beliefs are stupid (He's a theist, he's very anti-Palestian, he's pro-life, etc). I just chose that profile picture because I think it's funny and Ben is kind of a meme.

I dislike both Hillary and Trump. Trump is more authoritarian and I'm a libertarian, Trump has made strange comments towards women, Trump has never held a government/military position, and he ignores nuances on many issues. Hillary has painted her opponents as racist sexist homophobes, lied a lot about many things (such as that she was under sniper fire on a diplomatic visit), said that she would start a war with Russia if elected, and her foundation is just a corruption machine that gives very little to actual charity. I don't like either, but if someone pointed a gun to my head and said "choose" I'd choose Trump.

-->
@TheAtheist

True, a lot of people pray to God to get things. But God isn't a magical Genie arising out of bottle to grant people their wishes.

Again, the point of talking to God is for our benefit. I'm sure you've had moments in your life that were very difficult, and talking about it with someone helped you. You probably didn't get anything materialistically out of it, but simply talking it about helped out. That's how it is with talking to God.

-->
@TheAtheist

Who would vote for if you could back when it was Hillary vs Trump?

Do you like Ben Shapiro?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

A lot of people pray to God to get things.
And what is the point of talking to God if he knows what you're going to say? God doesn't respond to you, it's just you talking to him.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I'd say that I'm more libertarian then conservative, but I am fiscally conservative.

-->
@TheAtheist

Prayer.-- what's the point of praying to God if he already knows about everything?

Prayer is not just about asking God what you want or need, it's about being a relationship and having a conversation with God, and aligning ourselves accordingly. IT's not about changing God and having wave a "magic wand" and give us what we want, it's about changing us.

-->
@TheAtheist

Are you a conservative atheist?

-->
@TheAtheist

Yep. Catholics/Christians believe God is omnipotent, but omnipotent doesn't necessarily mean God going against His nature. I would counter by saying the Christian definition of "omni-potent" does not mean being able to do the "logically impossible" And since you (we) are using the Bible, I would ask you to clarify how you assert that the Bible implies/says that God can do the "logically impossible"?
The Christian Bible does not define or imply "Omnipotence" as being able to do the the "logically impossible".

The "can an omnipotent being create a stone to heavy to lift" argument is pretty much self-refuting and illogical. The critic who uses this argument is using an illogical argument, instead of a logical one, to prove God doesn't exist. Again, it's analogous (not a straw-man, analogous) to the "I define a triangle as having 3 sides, so make me a triangle with 4 sides" challenge. Some other fun Omnipotent Paradoxes: can God create a one-ended stick? Can God beat himself up in a fist-fight? Can God make married bachelors? Can God create square circles? Can God make a woman be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time? Can God make a unicycle with 2 wheels? It's nonsense.

There are simply things God can not do BECAUSE He is omnipotent. This question is basically a clever way of saying "Can a Being of unlimited power produce something to limit Him?" But, His unlimited Power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being can not create limits for himself.

Funny....the Pharisees tried trapping Jesus with a paradoxical challenge when they asked him about if they should pay taxes to the Romans....see how he gets out of that ;-)

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I would have to reasearch more about the New American Bible and then I might make a new debate about the existence of the Christian God. If you want to debate topics like "Is God omnipotent?" or "Is God omnibenevolent?", I would be happy to do so! (:

You still haven't explained why the "stone too heavy to lift" argument is flawed. If you think my definition of omnipotence is different from the Christian one, you can read the sources from my Main Argument to see that you're wrong. However, they're all from the KJV bible, and I haven't researched the Bible you're referring to. But from what I know, Catholics also think that God is omnipotent.

Answers to your questions:
1. Yes. Omnipotence only has one definition - unlimited power.
2. It means that an omnipotent God cannot exist, and an omnipotent God is the definition of the Christian God. Like I said in my Main Argument, this isn't about the existence of a higher power but about specifically the Christian God.

-->
@TheAtheist

Sure,I love a healthy debate, civil discussion, good conversation. A good debate has the potential to do two things:

a) Bolster one in their position/beliefs
b) Or lead one to the Truth it they are in error.

But i would want to have a separate debate over each attribute. There is a lot to unpack and debate with omniscience, omnipotent, etc and it often gets convoluted, when trying to defend/argue for/against all the attributes. In addition, I would want to use the Catholic Bible (NAB version would suffice) and not the Protestant version.

The "stone too heavy to lift" is just another example of the Omnipotent Paradox, just packaged differently. While not exactly the same, it's analogous to "the triangle with 2 sides"

But as I implied before, I think your definition of "omnipotence" is not the same as the Christian's view (or at least my view) of "omnipotence". It's a critical/fundamental difference A critical point. Or put another way (with some questions)

1. Is your definition of "Omnipotence" consistent with the Christian's understanding of "Omnipotence"?
2. If God CAN'T make a stone so heavy even He can't lift (or make a triangle with 2 sides, etc), does that mean he doesn't exist? Or does it mean He simply doesn't fit into your definition of omnipotence (which may or may not be consistent with the Christian's definition of "omnipotence" or what is implied in the Bible")

-->
@GuitarSlinger

That is true. But that doesn't contradict what I said. "The Christian God" is the God most Christians believe in, and how the Bible describes God. Just because you think he's not omnipotent doesn't change the definition of the Christian God.

If that's what you meant, because I'm not sure why you commented that.

-->
@TheAtheist

Just because something is widespread and in use by a lot of people, doesn't make it the authority or correct text to use. Just sayin'. "Popular vote" is not necessarily the best means to determine is true and authoritative.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

If you want, you can debate me! I can make another debate and use the same argument.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

The only problem with your "rebuttal" is, that's not my argument. My argument is that God could not make a stone that he himself would not be able to lift, which means that he is not omnipotent. Also, you can't just ignore the Bible and claim that God can't do things that "go against his nature". It doesn't matter whether you believe God is omnipotent or not. The Bible says that he is omnipotent, and there is only one version of omnipotence - all powerful.

-->
@TheAtheist

Eh, no. What is a paradox or impossible in your mind might not necessarily be binding to God. Here's a fun little thought exercise:

Atheist: "God, if you are all-powerful, I want you to make a triangle with 2 sides."
God: "Ok. Before I begin, I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you. Please define "triangle". What exactly is a 'triangle' in your opinion"
Atheist: "Sheesh, if you were God, you'd know that already. But here goes, a triangle is an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles."
God: "Ok. Let me get this straight. You've just defined "triangle" as an enclosed shape that has 3 sides and 3 angles. But then now you want me to make one that has 2 sides. According to your definition, that would not be a triangle."

The classic "Omnipotence Paradox" leaves out one crucial element-- God's nature. There are certain things that God can not do, such as go against His
That's why definitions are important, especially omnipotent. I'm willing to bet most Christians and Atheists differ on what it means to be "Omnipotent". An atheist claims that if God is omnipotent, He should be able to do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, including illogical possibilities, falsehoods etc, and then use this as a claim that God doesn't exist. Whereas most Christians I know don't hold that belief of "omnipotence". And I would argue that the Christian Bible (either Protestant or Catholic) doesn't claim or imply this version of omnipotence.

And my comment about "beating chest, etc" was simply for effect ;-) lol. Point remains though, that Atheists will use the "Omnipotence Paradox" as a reason God doesn't exist.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I'm using the King James version because it's one of the most widespread and also in English.
I have defined the four characteristics of God.
Saying "God cannot create a triangle with only two sides" is a legitimate argument. It shows that God is not omnipotent as there is something cannot do. Also, you have never seen an atheist beat their chest and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful". Stop lying.

-->
@TheAtheist

Why are using the King James version? Or perhaps, a better question is, why are you using a "Protestant" Bible and not the "Catholic" Bible?

Both the Catholic and Protestant Bible have 27 books in the New Testament. But the Old Testament versions differ greatly. The Catholic Bible has 46 books in the OT, whereas the Protestant Bible has only 39 books in the OT.

There's much debate as to why they differ, but many theologians agree that the "Catholic" version was in use ever since the Canon of the Bible was affirmed, and it wasn't until the Reformation some 400-500 years ago that the Protestants decided the Catholic version was wrong and opted for "their Canon".

Anyway, it may seem inconsequential, but I think it's a very important point. You want to make sure you are using the "correct" texts and your opponent agrees . Otherwise, that would be like debating Shakespeare based on his sonnets, but leaving out some of his 154 sonnets....

-->
@TheAtheist

You should probably also define "supernatural", "omniscient", "omnipotent", and "omnibenevolent".

I've seen folks try to rebut God's omnipotence by saying "Well, can God create a stone so heavy even He can't lift it", which is akin to saying something like "Can God create a triangle with only 2 sides?".....and then when you say "No", they beat their chests and proclaim "SEE! Your God is not all-powerful!". lol

-->
@Barney

You bet!