Instigator / Pro
35
1533
rating
2
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#294

The Christian God Is Not Omnibenevolent(all/infinitely-loving)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
3
Better sources
10
4
Better legibility
5
3
Better conduct
5
1

After 5 votes and with 24 points ahead, the winner is...

BrutalTruth
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Description

In this debate, Pro will attempt to prove that the Christian god is not omnibenevolent(all/infinitely-loving), and Con will attempt to prove that it is.

-->
@BrutalTruth

Seems you have a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of hell. At least the Catholic belief of Hell, anyway. And I don't want ot assume that this is what your whole argument is based on then your whole argument falls....

Hell in short is the absence of God.

God basically says: "I want you to be with me. To be with me, you must obey my commandments-- it's your choice though. I will not force you."

God doesn't send us to hell, we choose to go there by the actions we commit in this life. That is what the Christian faith teaches about God (at least the Catholic faith anyway).

Imagine if you will a train station. At one end of the station is a train that says "To Heaven", and at the end of the other is a station that says "To Hell". If we choose to keep God's commandments and follow his ways, we are stepping foot on the train to heaven. If we choose to disobey his commandments and not follow his ways, we are stepping foot on the train to hell. So, in essence, our whole life is a series of choices, and depending on those choices we are stepping foot on/off either train. At death, our ability to choose is gone. Which ever train we are on when we die, that is where we are headed. God gives you what you want-- if you want to be with him (i.e. you obey his commandments), he'll grant your desire. If you want to not be with him (ie. you disobey his commandments), he gran that as well. He will always honor your free will choice.

TO paraphrase C.S. Lewis, there are those people who look God and say "Thy will be done", and there are those who look at him and say "My will be done." To both folks, God replies "Thy will be done."

On debateart, if there is a tie, both people get the points in that category. If there is a tie on sources, both sides get 2 points. The format is a little different from that of DDO because on DDO, ties result in neither side getting points for that category.

I don't understand how Contender received any points???

-->
@Alec

PGA2.0

-->
@BrutalTruth

"Fortunately, I have a real opponent who has agreed to debate this topic with me." Who?

-->
@BrutalTruth

According to our common source. Merriam-webster....

History and Etymology for gnosis
Greek gnōsis, literally, knowledge, from gignōskein

Gnosis = knowledge

Agnosis = not knowledge

Epignosis = true or correct knowledge

I will happily give you more language lessons if it will help you through your superstitions.

-->
@Mopac

Debate with you really is pointless. I used your own "sworn to be correct" dictionary to show you the real definition of Gnosticism, yet you still deny it. You are a shining example of cognitive dissonance. Go look that one up. From this point forward, aside from our formal debate that has yet to be finished, I will not be responding to you.

-->
@BrutalTruth

Perhaps you shouldn't be as quick to judge.

-->
@BrutalTruth

Gnostic and agnostic are Greek words. You haven't proven anything other than the fact that you have an awful lot of faith in your understanding. I certainly could show you that what I am saying is true, but you aren't really agnostic. You think you know already.

Gnosticism is "knowingism". The defining characteristic of gnosticism is that their faith is in knowledge, not The Truth. There is a difference.

Gnostic = Know

Agnostic = don't know.

I'm telling you the truth.

-->
@Mopac

I've just proven you wrong, showing you to be he uneducated one here, yet you call me uneducated? Do the words "hypocrisy" and "cognitive dissonance" mean nothing to you? Do you have no intellectual integrity? Do you not care to be right at all? Apparently not, as the only thing you apparently care about is having people agree with what you "claim" is true, without you having to actually give them valid reason to. You're a typical blind Christian. It's a pity. I was hoping you would be different.

-->
@BrutalTruth

Even though you are very haughty for an uneducated person, I love you anyway.

I agree with Pro. The bible says most people will burn in hell for an eternity. I believe no one deserves to burn in hell forever.

-->
@Mopac

#1 I'm saying your entire argument relies on a logical fallacy. The fact that that makes you look like an idiot isn't my fault. It's yours.

#2 gnosticism noun, often capitalized
gnos·​ti·​cism | \ˈnä-stə-ˌsi-zəm \
Definition of gnosticism
: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

Taken from your own beloved dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gnosticism

-->
@BrutalTruth

#1 I guess it's all just arbitrary then, right? The brutal truth is that your personal whim dictates reality?

#2 Gnostic means knowing. Agnostic means not knowing.

-->
@Mopac

#1 A dictionary not being academically respected doesn't make it wrong, nor does a dictionary being academically respected make it right. I'm an unknown musician, but I'm very good at what I do. Recognition, in the grand scheme of things, means very little. It commits the logical fallacy "argumentum ad verecundiam" (appeal to authority). This fallacy tries to prove an argument by saying that because an authority figure says it's true, it must be true, which is obviously false.

#2 You broke the word down into parts and tried to define it based on the meaning each individual part has, which is also false. The word "agnostic" is comprised of two parts, yet the word "Gnostic" is not related to the word "agnostic" at all, and has an entirely different meaning. Just because two words make up one word doesn't mean those two words alone go together.

Merriam-webster...

omni-

"all : universally"

Benevolent

"marked by or disposed to doing good"

So all God does is good...

And omnipotence means God did it.

Everything God does is good.

If God is good, and God is The Truth, what does that mean?

The Truth is good.

But besides the dictionary, the etymology of the word "omnibenevolent" literally means "all good will".

Which doesn't mean the same thing as all loving.

The oxford defines omnibenevolent as..

"possessing perfect or unlimited goodness"

Which is in line with what I am saying.

Yourdictionary.com is not an academically respected dictionary. Oxford and Merriam-webster both have very good dictionaries. I like Merriam-webster because I oftentimes can use less definitions to make the same point. Oxford is better for different purposes, like for example, studying the history of the English Language. Oxford has been around for a very long time and their dictionary is massive.

Merriam-webster's Collegiate dictionary is REALLY GOOD though.

-->
@Mopac

Your favorite dictionary doesn't list this word. Go figure. But here's a definition for you:

omnibenevolent. Adjective. (not comparable) All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Its use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

www.yourdictionary.com/omnibenevolent

-->
@BrutalTruth

Ah, OK. I agree with you so....

Thanks.

Omnibenevolent actually means "all good will" not "all/infinite loving"

-->
@ethang5

I'll be arguing for the claim in the title.

-->
@BrutalTruth

The Pro/Con - Instigator/Contender thing confuses me. What will you be arguing BT?

-->
@Alec

Apparently not.

-->
@BrutalTruth

Do you think anyone will take the debate?