CreateDebate


Debate Info

56
25
That makes no sense. Religious response.
Debate Score:81
Arguments:67
Total Votes:86
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 That makes no sense. (42)
 
 Religious response. (19)

Debate Creator

SitaraForJesus(3819) pic



So lemme get this straight:

God is all good, all powerful, evil exists, and it's not God's fault? I cannot except this. Someothing has to give.

That makes no sense.

Side Score: 56
VS.

Religious response.

Side Score: 25
3 points

Your journey to Satanism continues.

Side: That makes no sense.

LOL! Im not too happy with Satan either. i just wanna do my own thing, and not be dictated. Unless Im in the bedroom. ;)

Side: That makes no sense.
1 point

That's okay I like to dominate in the bedroom. I'm a very aggressive person if you hadn't noticed yet.

Side: That makes no sense.
2 points

If God created everything, then he must also have created evil.

Side: That makes no sense.

Thats what Im thinking. I am so puzzled. .

Side: That makes no sense.
Intangible(4933) Disputed
1 point

Nope...Evil is the absence of Good. The absence of something is not a part of anything.

So while God did create everything, he couldn't have created evil.

Side: Religious response.
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
2 points

So while God did create everything, he couldn't have created evil.

You just concluded that evil doesn't exist. If God created everything and he didn't create evil, then evil isn't included in everything which is the same as saying that it doesn't exist.

Evil is the absence of Good. The absence of something is not a part of anything.

Equally, sound is the absence of silence. The absence of silence is not a part of anything, therefore sound doesn't exist. We can see from this example that this logic produces absurd conclusions. There's nothing particularly worrisome about the definition of evil so the problem must be in saying that the absence of something isn't a part of anything.

"Not being part of anything" can be substituted with "not existing in any sense". Therefore, the absence of something doesn't exist in any sense. Let's define an object as a box that only contains air. We could say that this box doesn't contain bananas and it would true per definition. But to futher conclude that 'the absence of bananas is not a quality of the box' seems absurd, since we used nothing but the definition of the box to conclude that it doesn't contain bananas.

Qualities do belong to objects, so we may say that the quality of bananalessness is a part of the box. That is, the absence of bananas is a part of the object. If this is true for simple cases, then I think it has to be true for more complicated as well.

If we decide that a system doesn't contain X, then the quality that it lacks X is a part of the system (although an abstract one). Therefore, even though it's true that the particular Good that the system doesn't have doesn't belong to the system (that's a tautology), it's still not false that the lack of some Good exist as a qualitative aspect of the system considered.

So if God created everything, he created the qualities that some objects lack Good.

Side: That makes no sense.
1 point

I disagree. Im sorry. That makes no sense. .

Side: That makes no sense.
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

If God is good, and god is omnipresent, how can there be any evil, if there is no absence of God?

Side: That makes no sense.

Evil doesn't exist. Good doesn't exist. Unless you can hand me a jar of good or evil.

Side: That makes no sense.
2 points

Accept *

Side: That makes no sense.

Spank you for the spell check. ;)

Side: That makes no sense.
2 points

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -- Epicurus

Side: That makes no sense.
2 points

It is not logically possible for a deity to exhibit omnibenevolence alongside omniscience and omnipotence as a result of the problem of evil. This is one of those commonly deduced paradoxes which many religions invoke. There are countless obvious and poignant examples of logical fallacies between scripture and science.

"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions ... to be skeptical of those in authority, then we're up for grabs..." - Carl Sagan

Side: That makes no sense.

I am starting to see that. I'm still freaking out about Hell though. It's so scary. :'(

Side: That makes no sense.
2 points

That's why religion uses it... :P

Any god if it existed would not need something as flimsy as hellfire and brimstone to compel belief; only humans need that.

Side: That makes no sense.
2 points

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

- Epicurus

Side: That makes no sense.

God being good is generally presented as a tautology by religious individuals; God defines morality, so what is good is good because God says so, God is good because he says he is good, etc. You aren't going to get a useful argument regarding that out of the religious group, so I'd leave that one out.

God being all-powerful? I'm not so certain that most religions make a statement to that effect, at least in their religious texts. Even then, 'all powerful' as interpreted by a stone/bronze/iron age peasant is not the same thing as 'all powerful' as we would describe in light of all of our technology. All that is required for this all to be consistent is to not consider god to be all-powerful; indeed, if there was an all-powerful god, I doubt we'd see evidence of evolution, among other things. As we can see evidence of evolution, if the existence of god is to be accepted than evolution needs to be accepted as a tool that god used; an all-powerful god would not have need of tools, after all. A god that is not all-powerful could also be prone to unintentional consequences, such as the existence of evil. Even then, it's a bit of a stretch to say that the evil is 'gods fault-' in fact, if god is not all-powerful, the existence of evil may well be a required concession if beings with free will are to be created. In that case, it wouldn't be 'gods fault' so much as 'just how it is.'

So my answer? Either 'God is good,' 'God is all-powerful,' or both must be conceded to be consistent with everything we are able to observe while still allowing for belief in a god without ignoring visible evidence. Interestingly enough, though, while many religious individuals refuse to make these concessions, the assertions to be conceded aren't exactly backed up by your average holy book either. It astounds me how many religious individuals are completely unfamiliar with the religion they claim to practice.

Side: That makes no sense.

I know. I was told to read the Bible, and I told them that I wanna think for myself, and then I was told what a sinner I was. I was thinking "welcome to the Sinner's Club, you twat", but I didn't wanna get kicked out of another Christian group. LOL.

Side: That makes no sense.

I don't understand the cause for evil. Evil should have been destroyed a long time ago.

Side: That makes no sense.
2 points

Hmmm. All of evil spawns from sin. Sin is not created but is merely a lack of moral perfection. All creatures that have fallen from this moral perfection bear full responsibility for it. It is their choice and only their choice. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not free will exists or not.

Side: Religious response.

Who allowed the evil? Have you heard of accessory after the fact?

Side: Religious response.
lupusFati(790) Disputed
1 point

So you argue against God with a Human concept. Read: flawed.

Side: That makes no sense.
AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
2 points

God created us with moral imperfection or at the very least knowledge that we would fall to moral imperfection. How is this not his fault and responsibility? If a watchmaker makes a watch that he knows won't work do we blame the watch for not properly telling time? Its the watchmakers fault.

Side: That makes no sense.

Exactly. .

Side: That makes no sense.
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

At what point is God liable for our faults? Why does knowledge require action nevermind make it his fault? That's like saying witnessing and committing a crime are the same thing. God created us with a balanced opportunity to fall into sin or not sin. While it is true that all sin, this doesn't negate it is purely our own doing.

Side: Religious response.
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
1 point

Is someone not responsible for the consequences of one's actions?

Let's say I have trapped a mouse in a cage and inject it with a randomly chosen drug. If the mouse dies as a result of deadly poisoning, am I not responsible for it's death?

Let's also say that I chose the drug from a set of a billion unidentified drugs, and I further knew that only one of these drugs were deadly, the rest were harmless. Even when there was one in a billion chance that I might kill the rodent, isn't it's premature death still my responsibility?

The case with God is largely analogous. He created the world, and everything in it, but he also gave us free will. Free will introduces the possibility of things will going wrong. This is similar to us picking one of a billion drugs at random where one is deadly. We thus arrive at a point where it seems like we can say that God is responsible for evil.

But we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. In the case with the drugs we knew for a fact that one was deadly. In the case with God, the question is if God knew that free will introduced the potential for things going wrong. It isn't necessary impossible that free will could make things go wrong. That is proved by the example of human society. The question is if God could have known that it wasn't necessarily impossible.

But of course he could; if moral perfection is defined as perfect execution of the Divine Command and we introduce a possibility that these divine commandments don't get executed perfectly, then obviously, free will introduces the possibility for sin. So either God didn't know that free will introduced this possibility (which makes him not-omniscient, rather mentally retarded) or he is responsible for the sin he introduced into this world.

Side: That makes no sense.
Jace(4796) Clarified
1 point

As with God, there is no evidence proving that free will is anything more than a human construction. I contend that we do not have free will, and that the growing body of scientific research makes this increasingly probabilistically true. The more we learn of the human mind, the more we realize that our genetics and environmental stimuli condition even those actions which we presume to be autonomously made via free will.

I pressed the wrong button; this should have been a dispute. Apologies.

Side: That makes no sense.
trumpet_guy(502) Clarified
1 point

There are two sides to this argument. Scientific research has supported free will as well. Some find that the brain's chemicals self-align to make both/all decisions possible after an influence occurs.

Side: That makes no sense.
pakicetus(1455) Disputed
1 point

Is not God omnipresent? Can evil form in God's presence?

All creatures that have fallen from this moral perfection bear full responsibility for it.

Did not god make us imperfect? And then he judges and punishes us for doing exactly what he made us to do? How are we responsible for our own evil, when it someone else who caused it?

Side: That makes no sense.
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
1 point

At what point is God liable for our faults? Why does knowledge require action nevermind make it his fault? That's like saying witnessing and committing a crime are the same thing. God created us with a BALANCED opportunity to fall into sin or not sin. While it is true that all sin, this doesn't negate it is purely our own doing.

Side: Religious response.

Answer: god is a troll

Troll song
Side: Religious response.
1 point

God is all good, all powerful, evil exists, and it's not God's fault?

Yes, because God created man. Man disobeyed God and as a result of man disobeying God, sin entered the world. As a result of sin, we do evil things with what we say, do, and think.

Side: Religious response.
JaeB(6) Disputed
4 points

A bizarre, highly individual, rationalization which allows you to keep a structured and consistant view of your god, and Earth as you know it to be (at times, distressingly bad.)

"God is all good, all powerful, evil exists, and it's not God's fault?"

"Yes, because God created man. Man disobeyed God and as a result of man disobeying God, sin entered the world. As a result of sin, we do evil things with what we say, do, and think." - This is completely illogical. You don't actually believe that do you? If something is all-good and all-powerful then anything bad, of any nature - by definition, cannot happen - logical fallacy101.

The brain has its own language for testing the structure and consistancy of the world. You can attempt to "pick" what you believe - that is, to go against the conclusion drawn by your mind, but you won't actually believe this and you'll be suffering with the disorder better known as denial. If the mind in question lacks critical thinking skills then illogical conclusions may satisfy the minds queries and denial may never be an issue - even more frightening.

Side: That makes no sense.
trumpet_guy(502) Disputed
0 points

This is completely illogical. You don't actually believe that do you? If something is all-good and all-powerful then anything bad, of any nature - by definition, cannot happen - logical fallacy101.

Not necessarily. All-powerful and all-good are both attributes but are different in both nature and qualification. All powerful is self explanatory and means to be able to do all things. However, in itself it does not require the use of a power. To objectify my point, its like a loaded gun, nothing more nothing less. Action is not required.

All-good is the attribute that requires the use of all-powerful, but what it means to be all-good needs to be defined.

1. a (1) : of a favorable character or tendency (2) : bountiful, fertile (3) : handsome, attractive

Good is ambiguous at best. Who's definition of good is being used in the Bible? The Bible is written by human authors so their definition of good must be considered but shouldn't it also be considered that God is trying to describe Himself through His inspired works? If God is describing Himself then all-good is determined by God and not us. As a common theme in the Bible, we as humans don't always know what's best for us so we don't always see what is "good" as God does. Since we are going by God's definition of good and not our own, God can be both all-powerful and all-good as well as all-knowing.

I'm glad that you can look at the world as black and white but sometimes one should be able to think deeper about a subject before claiming it a logical fallacy right away.

Side: Religious response.
2 points

Nothing happens without God's permission. If you can thank Him, you can blame Him.

Side: That makes no sense.
1 point

Ok first things first, i am not religious but i feel the need to give a religious viewpoint on the matter. If we take the belief that God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient and question why there is evil the conclusion you may come to is that God therefore cannot be either omnipotent or omnibenevolent. However, God can be both of these as God chooses not to interfere with our free will and warp the construct of our reality. If God intervened to stop a bullet or a knife or a bomb then in doing so God breaks the strict rules of creation and in a way is mollycoddling us which leads to us never understanding or truly accepting things and "growing-up". You cannot have free will and a intervening God. One of Christianity's most celebrated theologian is Augustine who said that evil is a privation of good, just like blindness is a privation of sight, evil is not an entity in itself and therefore God couldn't have created it. Evil exists because humans have settled for a lesser form of good which is a privation leading to evil which is the result of the "fall" caused by Adam and Eve and the outcome is that evil and suffering are caused through our free will and that, according to Augustine, we deserve it for turning away from God. Another less celebrated theologian is Irenaean who said that humans are not created perfect and must strive for perfection in the likeness of God and grow to be closer to God. God did not intend for evil and suffering to cause this growth but he argues that it does as it strengthens faith. The philosopher John Hick furthers this by adding that mankind is set at what he terms a "epistemic distance" from God, which means we are born not knowing of God's existence, and we are to get closer to God and perfection through "a battle to attain religious faith". There are plenty of good counter arguments to what i have said and i invite people to contest me to create a better understanding of this topic. :)

Side: Religious response.
Jace(4796) Disputed
1 point

Why not just make humans perfect to begin with and do away with all of the suffering and pain? If a God created all of existence, then there is certainly no reason that evil had to be a part of it.

P.S. God does not exist, there is no objective evil, and we have no free will. This informs my viewpoint above, and you may take it as a helpful insight or elect to pursue any of the potential tangents arising therefrom.

Side: That makes no sense.
Shadow29(148) Disputed
1 point

I take your point and as an atheist myself i do think it is quite ridiculous, however the religious view would say that God did in fact make humans perfect through the creation of Adam and Eve but because they disobeyed it created a sort of unbalance in nature. Though you would agree moral evil is the result of the choices we humans make even if they are apparent choices, natural evil must be entirely God's fault (taking out of the equation humans settle in earthquake and volcanic zones and that in the like). Augustine said that evil exists but denied that any of it is natural as it is the result of the choice to disobey from Adam and Eve and therefore free will causes both natural and moral evils. The defence works by suggesting that so-called natural evils ”earthquakes, epidemics, etc”are the work of demonic forces, fallen angels. They are, it is suggested, no less the result of free will than evils normally classified as moral. This defence thus effectively denies the existence of natural evils, holding that all evils result from the choices of free agents, and so that all evils are moral. Due to this humans must be punished for the evils they commit and have committed and for the imbalance in nature. the punishment is pain and suffering as we humans are the sole cause of evil. Another religious point makes the stance that there must be some evil so that there can be good. Good and evil, according to this position, are relative terms, like up and down or past and future; one cannot have one unless one has both. If this is correct, if it is impossible for one to exist without the other, then perhaps God was justified in creating a world containing evil because it was only by doing so that God could create a world containing good. I'm sorry this was long-winded. :)

Side: Religious response.

Sin is seperation from God.

Side: Religious response.
1 point

Nothing happens without God's permission. .

Side: That makes no sense.
1 point

Good and Evil are subjective. The only Objective Evil is hurting people for the fun of it and you are consciously aware that what you are doing is commonly perceived as wrong.

Also note: Without evil, we cannot identify good. We have to go through evil to know the righteous. God understands that. It is immature to think that God's going to set up a magnificent paradise for every single being in existence to live in forever and everything is all hunky-dory.

LIFE IS PURGATORY. WE LIVE TO ENCOUNTER TRIBULATION AND CONQUER IT. WE WILL BECOME ALL THE GREATER FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL VICTORIES AND HONORABLE DEFEATS.

Side: Religious response.