Instigator / Pro
0
1492
rating
332
debates
40.66%
won
Topic
#5217

God of the bible has never murdered anybody.

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
Rated
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1773
rating
86
debates
76.74%
won
Description

Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Questions on the topic, send a message.

Round 1
Pro
#1
A big and huge shout out to the comment section.
They're pretty sharp. 

It always comes down to definitions because it affects so much in what we're communicating, changes what we see as correct or incorrect, valid or invalid and sometimes rearranges the whole narrative.

Now much thanks to the opposing side for participating. Congrats on the victories that they perceive to have been enriched in. They don't seem to be responsive outside debating but all is well.

I'll be looking for the opposing side to show in the Bible where Holy God has ever murdered anyone.

Of course murder is a law of the land. The laws of the land apply to men. The government has not and never made laws for God to be governed by.

The  laws of man are just that. They apply to a man.
Government has not made any law for God to follow. Especially any government of the secular world.

Why would that government make a law for an entity they believe doesn't exist?

When somebody murders someone else and says God told them to do it or  mafe them do it, they don't arrest God.

Now I don't know where the opposing side is going to go from here. I do offer questions on the topic but if you feel confident and clear on it, go for it.

So pretty straightforward. To be clear, what constitutes murder is based on a law given to who ?

That is the key part. To who? It was given to who to follow?

If a law doesn't apply to me, I can't be guilty of doing something that indicates I've broken it.

Putting God aside, can a lion murder me?

Can a shark murder me?

Can poison, can fire, can electricity, can water and on and on and on, can any of these do such a thing?

You'll have to find it in the law book.

Ok let's get the opposing sides 's two cents. 

I don't think we'll go very far now thinking about it. 

I should of made this one or two rounds.
Con
#2
Murder has multiple definitions. PRO has to prove that whichever one we use, God has never murdered.


Definition 1.

Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

To drown all of the infants during Noahs Flood were definitely murder according to this definition. 


Definition 2:

Murder: the unlawfull premediated killing of a human. 
Killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately.
Unlawfull: not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by official human law.
Premediated: thought out or planned beforehand.

The premediated part is obvious since he is omniscient.


I am going to argue that God has killed a human. 
 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. [Genesis 38.8-10]
No law has officially allowed God to kill people if they spill their semen. No court of law has ever acknowledged the legality of this killing. 


Government has not made any law for God to follow.
Let us run with this concept. 
P1. To be lawfull an action must be officially permitted by the laws that apply to you.
P2. If no laws apply to you then you cannot act lawfully. 
P3. No laws apply to God.
C: God cannot act lawfully.

Since God cannot act lawfully, he cannot take a life lawfully. The killings that God have commited must therefore be considered unlawfull.


Definition 3:

Murder: the immoral act of killing a person.
Moral: conforming to an accepted standard of right behavior

God killed Onan for spilling his semen. That did not comform with any accepted standard for right behavior. To refute this PRO must present this moral framework.


Summary:
PRO failed to define murder, so I have presented three valid definitions, and proved that each of these leads to God having commited murder. PRO needs to refute each one in order to defend the resolution. I may go into more depth if PRO actually puts effort into his argument this time.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"PRO failed to define murder"

I guess I'll reiterate this and this time I don't want any excuses that I didn't say what I said.


"Of course murder is a law of the land. The laws of the land apply to men. The government has not and never made laws for God to be governed by."

Murder IS IS IS IS ,do we see the word "is" here?

Do we have to breakdown what "is " means?

I think I'm going to have to do it because I don't want any excuses from the opposing side.

Upon doing a search in google search engine for the word "is" you get two definitions not relevant to the topic.

So after selecting for more information, you get merriam webster defining it as "present tense third-person singular of be."

Upon doing a search in google search engine for the word "be" it means exist.

Upon doing a search in google search engine for the word "definition" as the following:

a statement of the exact meaning of a word.

Upon doing a search in google search engine for the word "mean/meant" as the following:

intend to convey, indicate, or refer to (a particular thing or notion); signify.

Upon doing a search in google search engine for the word "signify" it is to be an indication of.

Upon doing a search in google search engine for the word "convey" it is to make known or understandable.

So when I say murder IS the law of the land, it would be as a law, exists as a law,  defined as a law, means a law, meant as a law because it's made known to be, understandable to be, indicated to be, it would have to exist as such for all of what was stated to be evident.

Those are some definitions for yo' a double s.

Upon doing a search in google search engine for the word "indicate" it is to point out, show.

To show, demonstrate what something exists as/understand existing as is defining it.

For instance, what is murder? It'd be a law of the land.

Ok now I understand because I understand what law is. That has been made known to exist to me already.

That has been pointed out. That has been demonstrated. That has been DEFINED.

I'm being thorough on the word "is" because using that word alone apparently was inadequate or glossed over.

"Of course murder is a law of the land. The laws of the land apply to men. The government has not and never made laws for God to be governed by.

The laws of man are just that. They apply to a man.
Government has not made any law for God to follow. Especially any government of the secular world."

So hopefully it has been registered with the opposing side that the murder I'm talking about is the law and the law as I stated here in the first round is attached to the land to men that dwell on it. The land has a government of men for men to govern themselves through laws.

This is my position so if the opposing side attempts or continues to attempt to argue anything else, they will be held accountable at moving the goalpost .

"Let us run with this concept. 
P1. To be lawfull an action must be officially permitted by the laws that apply to you.
P2. If no laws apply to you then you cannot act lawfully. 
P3. No laws apply to God.
C: God cannot act lawfully.

Since God cannot act lawfully, he cannot take a life lawfully. The killings that God have commited must therefore be considered unlawfull."

Only essential segment that I see needs correction.

This concept the opposing side broached is incredibly flawed. Every time you say "unlawfully" it means illegal. 

How can I breaking a law that does not exist or apply to me ?

Readers let's look at international waters which laws don't apply from some or certain jurisdictions. So an activity that would be considered illegal in a jurisdiction isn't illegal where there's no jurisdiction to forbid or that very same jurisdiction would not permit.

I'm going to bring my point back up.

"Putting God aside, can a lion murder me?

Can a shark murder me?

Can poison, can fire, can electricity, can water and on and on and on, can any of these do such a thing?"

Notice how the opposing side didn't respond to this.

The law of murder doesn't apply to any of these. Not a lion, not water, not a snake. They can't be guilty of breaking the law of murder. So to say because the law doesn't apply to them which means they're acting unlawful or illegal is erroneous.

Why? It's because there's no law of murder that exists to them to deem them as illegal or legal.

Remember remember what the function of a law is.

Let's look at it this way. Are you going to say that there can be unlawful activity before any laws even exist?

That's what it means when a law doesn't apply. All intent, purposes and values, in essence, the law doesn't exist to function, to break or be enforced. 

So just like the lion or any other that the law was not made for such as God, in order for God to murder, the law of murder would have to be in effect and apply to God for God to do what is illegal or anything  relating to legality which the law of murder comes in.

So I'm going to extend this challenge again to the opposing side. Find me scripture that shows God was ever governed, assigned or given laws of the land, laws of men to follow, particular the law of murder.

"No law has officially allowed God to kill people"

They have to do better than the argument of silence.

There is no law that permits this or permits that. I can just come back and say there's no law that prohibits this , prohibits that.

Really, the opposing side indirectly, is forfeiting the challenge, conceding that when they say"no law", that is, no law, no application of a law to Holy God or no law of the sort applies to Holy God.

They're correct. So that conveys that the law of murder that does not apply to God cannot constitute illicit activity or any activity that relates to legality to constitute what murder is to say God has murdered.

It's just like the scripture that says where there is no law there is no transgression.
Con
#4
I reiterate that if God has commited murder by ANY valid definition of the word, then he has indeed commited murder and the resolution fails. In R1 I presented 3 valid dictionary definitions of murder, and showed how each of them applies to acts of God, so that God has murdered by 3 different definitions. PRO claims to have defined murder in R1, but "murder is a law of the land" is not a valid dictionary defintion, or even a meaningfull string of words.



Can a shark murder me? Can poison, can fire, can electricity.....They can't be guilty of breaking the law of murder
To anyone that thinks critically this is very easy to understand but I guess I have to spoonfeed common sense to Mall:
  • Fire is not alive, when it kills you that is not an ACT, so not murder.
  • When a shark kills you it is not PREMEDIATED, so not murder. 
  • Neither of these are examples of intelligent beings with moral agency, so they are inapropriate for comparing with a God that is intelligent and has moral agency.

Every time you say "unlawfully" it means illegal. 
Murder: the unlawfull premediated killing of a human. Unlawfull: not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by official human law.
Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. 

So we can see that unlawfull and illegal don't have the same meaning according to oxford dictionaries, and that unlawfull is the standard for murder, not illegal.


Let's look at it this way. Are you going to say that there can be unlawful activity before any laws even exist?
Yes. Without a law no action can be lawfull (obviously) so all actions automatically become unlawfull because of the law of the excluded middle. This also makes sense since no action can comform with, be permited by or recognized by a law if no such thing exists. However, I do grant that there is no illegal actions without a law. So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone. But he also has never been permited to kill anyone by the law, so all of his killings are unlawfull and therefore by definition murder.

If this doesn't make sense to PRO then he should send a letter to Oxford petitioning them to change the dictionary definitions for Murder, Illegal and Unlawfull.

But for now, murder is any premediated killing that isn't permited by or recognized by the law. So without a law all premediated killings of humans are classified as murder.


I extend that God has murdered by killing Onan, that did not comply with, was not permitted by nor was recognized by law. I also extend that God has murdered by 2 other definitons that PRO completely dropped. If any one of these three definitons apply to something God has done then he has murdered and the resolution is false. 

Definition 1.

Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

To drown all of the infants during Noahs Flood were definitely murder according to this definition. God also used 2 bears to slaughter 42 children
 

Definition 3:

Murder: the immoral act of killing a person.
Moral: conforming to an accepted standard of right behavior

God killed Onan for spilling his semen. That did not comform with any accepted standard for right behavior. PRO has still not provided a moral framework that this action comforms with.


God has murdered by at least 3 valid dictionary definitions of murder. PRO has the BoP to show that God has not murdered under any of these definitions.

Round 3
Pro
#5
I reiterate that if God has commited murder "by ANY valid definition of the word, then he has indeed commited murder and the resolution fails. In R1 I presented 3 valid dictionary definitions of murder, and showed how each of them applies to acts of God, so that God has murdered by 3 different definitions. "

Then you move the goalpost. In order for the opposing side to refute my position, they have to pick a definition convenient to them.

"PRO claims to have defined murder in R1, but "murder is a law of the land" is not a valid dictionary defintion, or even a meaningfull string of words."

See this proves it. They're rejecting my own position because they can't refute it. Then they try to use a trumped up technicality of "not a valid dictionary definition ".

What in the world is that supposed to mean? 
Definitions in dictionaries come from people. So how is the individual not valid but the dictionary is?

The opposing side stated the following:

"Murder: the unlawfull premediated killing of a human. 

Unlawfull: not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by official human law."

Is this what the opposing side stated invalid?

They may as well call this invalid because they're charging me being invalid by the same basic definition.

I said ,not claimed, that murder is a law. Here the opposing side has stated murder is unlawful. It can only be unlawful if it involves law or legality .

Which no legality instituted by man has ever applied to a God that they don't believe in. Case closed right there.

The opposing side is almost like pretending I wasn't specific in what I'm referring to. 

I didn't say murder broadly speaking. I specified what I meant by murder. I said it is a law. I didn't mentioned all that other stuff. It's not the debate. So if the opposing side continues on talking that other stuff, they're off topic with moving the goalpost period.

Matter of fact it's futile to bring up these other definitions because murder is a legal term. No legality from man has ever applied to God.

The topic is murder, not kill. Murder, not kill, murder.

"To anyone that thinks critically this is very easy to understand but I guess I have to spoonfeed common sense to Mall:"

You can't even spoon-feed a refutation on this topic. Nevermind common sense and the voters will spoon-feed lies to you or error just to be merciful on them if they believe you're valid.

"Fire is not alive, when it kills you that is not an ACT, so not murder.
When a shark kills you it is not PREMEDIATED, so not murder. 
Neither of these are examples of intelligent beings with moral agency, so they are inapropriate for comparing with a God that is intelligent and has moral agency."

The law does not apply to fire, shark and God I'm sorry. This should be common sense to you. 

Is it not common knowledge to you that the law of the land for murder does not apply to a fire, shark and God?

Answer that .

"So we can see that unlawfull and illegal don't have the same meaning according to oxford dictionaries, and that unlawfull is the standard for murder, not illegal."

I'm not going to argue over definitions. I can just go on the Google search engine to prove my point. But then what? You say "well this dictionary says this over here".

Bottomline is, the legality from man does not apply to God. 

When a man kills someone unlawfully, they've done it illegally or illicit. When a man kills someone lawfully, it was legal as it was self defense for example.

A lawfully wedded wife is a wife legally married. An unlawfully wedded wife is not a man's legal spouse.

The opposing side is just grasping at straws. Let's show them what they don't even see in the definitions they provided themselves.

"Murder: the unlawfull premediated killing of a human. Unlawfull: not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by official human law.
Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. "

Does the opposing side agree that murder is illegal/criminal?

Murder is defined as unlawful. It certainly is forbidden. So why would unlawful not be connected to being illegal?

This is petty to go back and forth over but if you have no other counterpoint that's the best the opposing side has.

If something is prohibited is it permitted or not permitted?

"Yes. Without a law no action can be lawfull (obviously) so all actions automatically become unlawfull because of the law of the excluded middle. "

Without a law there's no basis to judge what is un/lawful or permitted/forbidden by law because no law exists. That's apparently not obvious to you .

You're still thinking in terms in the existence of a law.


"This also makes sense since no action can comform with, be permited by or recognized by a law if no such thing exists."

Any action you can judge to say can conform , be permitted by, recognized by, a law is there for the basis of that. A law has to be there in order to recognize an action for what it is in legality.

Hopefully the opposing side by now realizes that you can't speak on what is legal or not without legality existing at all .


"However, I do grant that there is no illegal actions without a law. So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone. But he also has never been permited to kill anyone by the law, so all of his killings are unlawfull and therefore by definition murder."

This is double talk. First half of this the opposing side finally concedes by the third round. That's all my position is. God has never broken the law of murder so how could he have murdered ever?

If you ever broke a law in killing someone, it has to be some type of murder or at least manslaughter which people can argue is still second degree murder.


That's another thing with what the opposing side has provided as definitions. They made murder uniform excluding to specify the degrees and types but I'm not beating them up over it. Just an observation of details that explains in depth what categorizes the application of legality. For being gung-ho on a definition of something, just some key essentials.

But back to the point. The first half of what the opposing side mentioned is contrary to the second half. If someone has never murdered, it's either they have killed legally or never murdered. If the law does not permit you to kill someone, it would have to be in terms of murder. So to say I never murdered but all my killings of people have not been permitted or  have been forbidden, those killings were illegal (murder).

As far as God goes, the opposing side has never showed where man invented law to apply to God for that law to permit or not permit anything. 

So again, a law that does not exist or apply, you can't say truthfully it doesn't permit. There's no law that tells you what is not permissible. It doesn't exist, it doesn't apply .

Hence my point about fire, water, electric, animals non persons and of course God.

The opposing side is grasping at straws thinking about intelligence and all this mess. We don't even have to complicate things like that.

All that is necessary is this question. Does the law apply or exist for such and such?

If the answer is no, it is off the table . You cannot, cannot,cannot use it as a basis to say what is not permissible, forbidden, unlawful and illegal.

"If this doesn't make sense to PRO then he should send a letter to Oxford petitioning them to change the dictionary definitions for Murder, Illegal and Unlawfull."


First of all , that would be totally unnecessary. Dictionaries are not the source or foundation. Dictionaries are a consensus on record from what comes from people in how people use words and defines them. So I don't petition dictionaries. I don't petition the people. People make up words and definitions that ultimately get recorded. So I can be free to do so myself although I didn't have to because the opposing side has only rephrased what I've already said.

At this point the opposing side already conceded when they stated the following:


"However, I do grant that there is no illegal actions without a law. So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone."

You can't break the law killing someone and it is not called murder. There's no way around that .


"But for now, murder is any premediated killing that isn't permited by or recognized by the law. So without a law all premediated killings of humans are classified as murder."

Whatever, you gave me the debate.

"However, I do grant that there is no illegal actions without a law. So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone."

You can't break the law killing someone and it is not called murder. There's no way around that .


"I extend that God has murdered by killing Onan, that did not comply with, was not permitted by nor was recognized by law. I also extend that God has murdered by 2 other definitons that PRO completely dropped. If any one of these three definitons apply to something God has done then he has murdered and the resolution is false. "

God has not murdered or ever has.

Based on the following agreement:
"However, I do grant that there is no illegal actions without a law. So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone."

Translates to God not murdering upon killing someone.


"God has murdered by at least 3 valid dictionary definitions of murder. PRO has the BoP to show that God has not murdered under any of these definitions."

You can keep playing with these different definitions trying to win a losing battle moving the goalpost from what I meant by the term murder which is a legal term so either way , the opposing side agrees with me.


"So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone."

Translates to God not murdering upon killing someone.

Debate is over.

Con
#6
Then you move the goalpost. In order for the opposing side to refute my position, they have to pick a definition convenient to them.
To the contrary. It was PRO who wrote a resolution with a very hard goalpost. He did not define murder in the description of the debate, so all CON has to do is prove that there exists at least one valid definition of murder under which the resolution is negated. Moreover, PRO seems to reject dictionaries altogether, which is very bad faith.

I'm not going to argue over definitions.
Arguing over definitions is the only thing PRO has done in this debate. So this is a lie. I think what he means is that he is not able to provide a dictionary definition that supports his case.

Does the opposing side agree that murder is illegal/criminal?
When laws exist, murder is illegal. When laws don't exist, murder is not illegal.

That's all my position is. God has never broken the law of murder so how could he have murdered ever?
God has killed people premediatedly without official permission by the law. Something can be "not officially permitted" and "not officially prohibited" at the same time. 


Indulging PRO
I can also make another argument. Killing someone premediately if their life is protected by the law is illegal. So if God kills humans who are protected by human law, those killings are still illegal even if the humans cannot prove God's existence or prosecute him. PRO asserts that his argument is similar to the case of fire or sharks which cannot murder. This is absurd because these don't act with premediation, that is why they aren't murdering, not because they aren't specifically mentioned in the lawbooks. His argument is way more comparable to saying that intelligent aliens could never murder a human because the law doesn't mention aliens specifically. This is obviously a ridiculous claim. The law does not make exceptions for aliens or God. So anyone with the ability to kill with premediation has the ability to murder. 


Maybe God has killed someone illegally, depending on how the voters interpret that argumetn. But still, God has murdered by other, more official and robust definitions. 

God has killed without permission from the law. God has slaughtered people inhumanely. God has killed people in a way not comforming to accepted moral standards.

So the resolutions fails miserably.
Round 4
Pro
#7
"To the contrary. It was PRO who wrote a resolution with a very hard goalpost."

That's why it's called a debate challenge so expect it to be hard.

"He did not define murder in the description of the debate, so all CON has to do is prove that there exists at least one valid definition of murder under which the resolution is negated. Moreover, PRO seems to reject dictionaries altogether, which is very bad faith."

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

"Arguing over definitions is the only thing PRO has done in this debate. So this is a lie. I think what he means is that he is not able to provide a dictionary definition that supports his case."

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not debating myself. I have to respond to the opposing side. They're arguing to me over definitions and has failed reading comprehension where I specifically said what murder is and explained no law from man has applied to God. This is why they forfeited in proving where a law of man , law of murder applied to God.

Then the opposing side begins to double talk. To say I haven't demonstrated all this is clearly a disingenuous deflection on the opposing side's part.

They killed their position when they stated the following:

"So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone."

See , let the opposing side go long enough, giving them enough rope that they finally hung themselves with.

"So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone."

Translates to God not murdering upon killing someone.

"When laws exist, murder is illegal. When laws don't exist, murder is not illegal."

The opposing side concedes that murder is illegal. When the law of murder doesn't exist, murder itself doesn't exist. Murder is a legal term. It's the law. No law no murder. Murder doesn't exist without the law.

To say murder is not illegal when there's no law is saying the act of murder still exists with no law when it is the law. Murder is a act of breaking the law or going against the law surrounding killing someone. It's when the law that forbids the act of killing that constitutes murder. When that forbidding is not in place, the act that would be called murder wouldn't exist, the term itself is no longer relevant to exist. 

If no other term is coined , it would just be called killing someone.

The opposing side concedes that murder is illegal but the last round they tried to make a distinction by stating two different words "murder" and "illegal".

They attempted to vary the definitions and concluded the following:

"So we can see that unlawfull and illegal don't have the same meaning according to oxford dictionaries, and that unlawfull is the standard for murder, not illegal."

I clearly showed them the connection in both terms and definitions.

So they come back saying "When laws exist, murder is illegal" connecting murder with being illegal. So to point out a difference earlier was futile. Then present an ad hoc statement which the fallacy is in "When laws don't exist, murder is not illegal."

This is because the very definition the opposing side stated is not cohesive with this. It doesn't match because it was added on but not an original thought.

The definition stated:

"Murder: the unlawfull"

Murder being the act of unlawfulness based on a law. No law to exist to constitute unlawfulness leaves no act called murder.

There's no separation, unlawfulness constitutes murder. To act in murder without the existence of the law, you done negated what constitutes murder.

The words "murder is not illegal " don't belong in the same context. It's already been established that illegality and unlawfulness are connected and unlawfulness constitutes murder.

To say there's an instance to murder which is being unlawful and calling it not illegal, just tangles, twists everything up .

This is the twist that the opposing side is trying to make to redeem themselves.

Like I said I'm not arguing over definitions. They claim that's all I've done when really all I had to do and have done was I shown the definitions they stated supports my stance, cuts and goes against theirs.


"God has killed people premediatedly without official permission by the law. Something can be "not officially permitted" and "not officially prohibited" at the same time. "

Then God has broken the law and committed murder comrade. It's a contradiction to say God has not broken the law but has done what the law did not permit. 

Is breaking the law and doing what is not permitted different?

It's ad hoc for the opposing side to try to argue that now . Is breaking the law not unlawful?

What is unlawful is not permitted by law. In order to do what is not permitted, the law has to be broken or not maintained. When something is not kept whole or intact, there is a disagreement, incompatibility. When something fits together, matches together, lines up, in agreement, like fulfilling a law, nothing about it was changed, disrupted, interrupted,altered, it's kept the same in pattern and constitution.

A break is a change, altering, not the same, not the law,.

I'm just breaking this down to help us get a handle on what we're communicating. When breaking a law, there's a contrary or difference in what the law stated and what the law breaker has done in relation to the law. 

That what is not permitted by law is unlawful. What is lawful is different or a change than what is unlawful so it would be a break, a cut, a distortion otherwise.

This constant splitting up of all these elements is a last minute move from the opposing side to revive their dead on arrival case .


"I can also make another argument. Killing someone premediately if their life is protected by the law is illegal. So if God kills humans who are protected by human law, those killings are still illegal even if the humans cannot prove God's existence or prosecute him."


No matter what argument you make, you have not made one that shows a law from man for man applies to God like with a shark or lion.

"PRO asserts that his argument is similar to the case of fire or sharks which cannot murder. This is absurd because these don't act with premediation, that is why they aren't murdering, not because they aren't specifically mentioned in the lawbooks. His argument is way more comparable to saying that intelligent aliens could never murder a human because the law doesn't mention aliens specifically. This is obviously a ridiculous claim. "

You miss the point. The law does not apply period. You have not demonstrated in any law book anywhere that it's fact that the law applies. It doesn't matter the reason why the law doesn't apply. That's what I believe you keep harping on. You can't go by hypotheticals trying to argue well if God was proven to be real , the law would apply.

Does the law of murder apply?

Just say no. So to be valid, you can't say God has ever murdered. Murder and kill are two different subjects. Maybe you were hoping to merge the two in this topic but I specifically made the essential key in what is murder.

"The law does not make exceptions for aliens or God. So anyone with the ability to kill with premediation has the ability to murder. "

I'll say it again.

The law does not apply period. You have not demonstrated in any law book anywhere that it's fact that the law applies. It doesn't matter the reason why the law doesn't apply. That's what I believe you keep harping on. You can't go by hypotheticals trying to argue well if God was proven to be real , the law would apply.


"Maybe God has killed someone illegally, depending on how the voters interpret that argumetn. But still, God has murdered by other, more official and robust definitions. 

God has killed without permission from the law. God has slaughtered people inhumanely. God has killed people in a way not comforming to accepted moral standards."

I never had a debate I don't think with the opposing side giving me the ammunition to blast them down with. The opposing side has given me so much ammunition to shoot back at them.

You already conceded when you stated the following:


"So I agree with PRO that God has never broken the law by killing someone."

Translates to God not murdering upon killing someone.!!!!

Debate is over.!!!!!



Con
#8
Definition 1.

Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

To drown all of the infants during Noahs Flood were definitely murder according to this definition. 


Definition 2:

Murder: the unlawfull premediated killing of a human. 
Unlawfull: not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by official human law.

 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also. [Genesis 38.8-10]
No law has officially allowed God to kill people if they spill their semen. No court of law has ever acknowledged the legality of this killing. 


Government has not made any law for God to follow.
Let us run with this concept. 
P1. To be lawfull an action must be officially permitted by the laws that apply to you.
P2. If no laws apply to you then you cannot act lawfully. 
P3. No laws apply to God.
C: God cannot act lawfully.

PRO has not even attempted to adress this syllogism. PRO challenged me by asking me if you can murder someone if no laws exist. I answered him:
Yes. Without a law no action can be lawfull (obviously) so all actions automatically become unlawfull because of the law of the excluded middle.
Since God cannot act lawfully, he cannot take a life lawfully. The killings that God have commited must therefore be considered unlawfull. PRO has not disproved this argument.



Murder is a act of breaking the law or going against the law surrounding killing someone. 
That is generally the case. But PRO says that illegal and unlawfull are one and the same, which is a BLATANT LIE which can be dispelled by looking at Oxford Dictionary.

Illegal: contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. 
Unlawfull: not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by laws or rules.

When there are no laws you cannot lawfully take a life (kill without murdering) but that would not be illegal since no laws forbade the act.



Definition 3:

Murder: the immoral act of killing a person.
Moral: conforming to an accepted standard of right behavior

God killed Onan for spilling his semen. That did not comform with any accepted standard for right behavior. PRO FAILED to provide a moral framework that justifies this killing.



God has killed without permission from the law. God has slaughtered people inhumanely. God has killed people in a way not comforming to accepted moral standards.

All of these actions are MURDER according to 3 valid dictionary definitions of murder. So God HAS murdered. The resolutions fails miserably.



A comment made this argument:
Since god literally creates laws as he goes, none of his killings would be unlawful.
Perhaps that guy could have won this debate on the PRO side. But MALL has not even come close to arguing this. He also has not argued that God is himself a moral standard.

SO IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO VOTE PRO JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE CONVINCED BY ARGUMENTS THAT MY OPPONENT NEVER BROUGHT UP.