The God Described in the Bible Cannot Exist
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I will be arguing that it is impossible for the God described in the Bible to exist. My opponent will be arguing that it is possible for that God to exist. Burden of Proof is shared.
=DEFINITIONS=
Exist:
1. To have an objective reality of being
=RULES=
1. No Kritiks of the topic or of the definitions in the description.
2. No new arguments are allowed in the final round.
3. No trolling is allowed.
4. Debate structure must be followed.
5. Plagiarism is not allowed.
6. Citation of sources for quotes, statistics, and definitions is required.
7. We will use the KJV Bible in this debate. If you wish to use another version, DM me before accepting.
8. Any violation of this rule and the rules above merits a loss.
=STRUCTURE=
Round 1: Opening Argument
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Final Statement.
May the best debater win.
"He must rule out any and every possibility of God existing. By definition, “Impossible to exist”, when properly understood or taken literally, means “not at all possible to exist.” He can’t prove this, as there just aren’t enough Rounds or characters in a Round to allow him to rule out or refute every potential possibility of God existing."
"Any interpretation of Scripture by my opponent carries with it the weighty responsibility of proving that that interpretation is Authoritative and Correct (TRUE). In other words, it must be proven that THAT interpretation is the CORRECT one. Failure to do so leave open the door to possibility. Failure to do so makes his interpretation no better than mine, or the guy down the street, the televangelist on TV, or the lady on the street corner, all of which may or may not be true."
It doesn’t matter what you substitute in for X or A, if the argument violates this law it is an illogical argument.
My opponent’s argument is God is responsible for ALL B.
The logic, without additional explanation or proof, doesn’t follow:
Just because something creates A, doesn’t necessarily mean that something creates ALL A. Furthermore, A (woe) and B (evil) are not necessarily the same. So if a being does create A, you can’t automatically conclude that the being also creates all B, without first showing that A (woe) and B (evil) are equal.
“Woe” and “Evil” are not the same. “Woe” is subjective, and is a reaction to an event or circumstance. “Evil” is the opposite of “good”. These are two very different things. When God says “I create woe”, one interpretation is that God is saying he creates the circumstance, but whether or not it’s woe or not depends on the person. This is a valid interpretation and we experience this every day—I tell my son he can’t drive my car for a week, and he’ll exclaim “Woe is me!”. Am I creating the “woe”? No, he is perceiving as “woe.”
However, my opponent is interpreting in a different way, but he is not offering any argument explaining that HIS interpretation is the only interpretation and mine is incorrect. Thus, my interpretation is still a viable (i.e. possible) interpretation.
With that being said, my opponent does state omnibenevolence is a possibility. Therefore, it follows that it is possible for a being to be omnibenevolent.
"By your definition, Omniscient means “all-knowing”, therefore there can’t possibly be things that an omniscient being does not know….yet your question says there are."
"By definition, Omnipotent means “all-powerful”. An Omnipotent Being therefore, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could make any stone it wanted and likewise an Omnipotent Being, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could lift any stone it wanted."
In order for my question to be self-contradictory, it would have to say that omniscience is possible, which it does not. Rather, my question points out that omniscience is impossible. My question points out how the Bible's claim that God knows everything would contradict itself, and yet my opponent twists that into saying that my own question contradicts itself
A: Spotted leopards without spots exist.B: If spotted leopards without spots exist, how can they be both with and without spots at the same time?A: Your question assumes that spotted leopards without spots exist and that is impossible, so you're wrong.
Notice how person B is not saying that spotted leopards without spots exist, he is pointing out that they cannot exist.
Person A is the one who is saying those leopards exist. Can't you see that the person who is wrong is person A and not person B?
By questioning someone's illogical statement, you do not have to believe that that statement is true, but my opponent doesn't seem to understand that.
He is instead arguing against his own religion's position: that God knows absolutely everything.
Same thing as with my "God is omniscient" question. In order for this question to be self-contradicting, it would have to assume that omnipotence is possible, which it does not. Rather, it's my opponent who says that omnipotence is possible, and he is wrong.
"By definition, Omnipotent means “all-powerful”. An Omnipotent Being therefore, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could make any stone it wanted and likewise an Omnipotent Being, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could lift any stone it wanted."It would be impossible to make an unliftable stone and then lift it, and that's why omnipotence cannot exist. Something that is impossible cannot exist by definition, and since omnipotence is impossible, it cannot exist.
Would my opponent agree that God created everything?
If God loves us and does not want us to suffer, and he is omnipotent, why does he let us suffer?It's impossible for a being to not want its creation to suffer, to have the ability to stop its creation from suffering, and yet still to allow its creation to continue suffering.
I fully believe the majority of votes will end up favoring con, but mine does not due to the arguments presented.
Pro gives a case about the bible and what it says about God, and how that would be impossible due to contradiction. Con immediately tried to move the goalpost by arguing that God isn't the being described in the bible and such a being would be logically impossible (an accidental concession, which I would be more willing to forgive were it not for the cheap tactic of trying to toss out the bible which was mentioned in the resolution). The being described in the bible is Omnipotence and Omniscient, to which in his final statement con renews his insistence that such would be impossible
Two rounds of forfeiting vs. one, so conduct to con.
Pro appears to have conceded the debate in Round 4 by forfeiting and then again in Round 5. Con also forfeited in Round 5. Had Con not forfeited in Round 5 I would have given them the better score, but since both sides forfeited ultimately in Round 5, I am casting this Vote as a Tie across the board.
Pro provided the following argument:
"An omniscient being cannot exist. If God is omniscient, is he aware that there are things which he does not know?"
Con refuted this saying:
"This question is self-contradicting, illogical and thus not a sound argument." Con explains that an omniscient being knows all things, therefore there is nothing it cannot know, therefore it knows there is nothing it does not know.
Pro said:
"An omnipotent being cannot exist. If God is omnipotent, could he create a stone which he himself could not lift?"
Con refuted this with an explanation of "X is A" versus "X is not A" and also saying, " If one is not able to prove that something is possible, it just means one can’t prove it—it still may be possible."
Pro argues the Christian God is not omnibenevolent, but this is irrelevant.
Con points out pro must disprove all possibilities of God to exist in order to win the debate ("The God Described In The Bible Cannot Exist") and pro basically just says that isn't true when it clearly is.
Neither had sources that were particularly better than the other.
Both had very good S&G.
Both forfeited at least one round.
You should have argued the ontological argument
Did Pro concede the debate in Round 4? I would like to cast a vote but I want to understand more clearly why Pro forfeited in round 4.
"Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible"
This would make a great debate topic!
That's a great question that many people don't realize or understand. In short, the KJV is a relatively "new" creation, borne out of the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible
1. The canon of the Bible came into existence around the 3rd or 4th century and it had 73 books (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament)
2. This Bible was in use for over 1000 years until the "Protestant Reformation"
3. As a result of the reformation, 7 books from the OT were removed and this "new version" of the Bible began to be used by Protestant demoninations. The KJV is what is often referred to as a "Protestant" Bible, and is "missing" 7 books that are contained in the "Catholic Bible".
The NABRE version has the approval of the Holy See (Catholic Church) for use and retains the 7 books that the Protestant Bible does not contain (which explains many of the disparities between Catholics and Protestants).
So, on the surface KJV may look similar to the NABRE version, but in reality the KJV is lacking 7 books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch)
How and why the books were removed is subject to very lengthy debate as well....
It's all good. And can I ask, why did you want to use the NABRE? I compared its verses to the KJV and they are pretty similar.
Hey I'm sorry for posting Bible Version in the comments and not directly messaging you. It wasn't until after I posted the comment that I realized you specified to DM you. My bad.
Per my opponent's request, we will be using NABRE version of the Bible in this debate.
dammmmmmit, I was going to accpet
Also, can you please provide a definition for what you mean by "objective reality" ?
I'm game. But you never really participated in my debate on the whole "Omnipotence" argument.
Can we use the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm
The KJV is a relatively new invention. Whereas the NABRE has the approval of the Holy See and is true to the version the Holy See has been using for some 1600 years or so.
hmmmm... I've seen many debates over the PROBABILITY of a God existing, but not as many over the POSSIBILITY. It has seemed to me that many don't question the possibility of a God so much as the probability of one. I look forward to hearing your take on this!
...and, perhaps, if no one accepts, I may take you up on this for fun.
I really want to get back up to 7 and 7 and a even win ratio and I think TheAtheist is a worthy opponent I can handle. I will see how things shape up in my gambling debate.
Great job with the no kritiks. Can't challenge assumptions have to work under what you wanted out of the debate.
Good luck on this debate. To predict some counterpoints, you may want to skim through one of my debates on this topic from a few months ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/566/the-existence-of-god-is-impossible
And no, I do not want to debate this right now. I've been hounded by a couple false flag Christians lately, and don't want to imagine how they think.
Done! Thank you for your suggestion.
First, your definition is a bit of an ad lib as the citation states, "to have real being, whether material or spiritual"; if you operate on this definition, then you'll lose this debate in an expedient fashion. A competent debater will use it against you. (So I recommend you edit your description for your own benefit.) If after some time, no one else accepts, I'll consider accepting your challenge.