Lightdemon

That's right!

I submit a formal request to bring back the reverse debate about God's existence. I've read through the original thread and the comments that followed, and apparently there's some discontent about the substance of the debate. And I agree, there should have been more....meat I guess you can call it.

That is why I would like to bring this back to the surface and redo it in its entirety.

If this is fine with everyone, I would like to invite anyone who is willing to participate in this debate with me.

Technically speaking, I am agnostic, but certainly leaning towards atheism as I do live an atheistic lifestyle. I would naturally then be arguing for the existence of God, though I do sit on the fence on this one.

I've been involved in quite a few debates on God's existence, and I am no stranger to apologetics. I have heard nearly every theological theory that favors in God's existence, and managed to refute most of them. I've read some of Saint Augustine's work and some of Aquinas' as well.

So do we have any takers?

__________________

Lachean

Sounds like a good idea. I guess be both can't be taking the theist's position, so I'll sit on the sidelines.

I highly recommend either Jerry or Galenrox to take the Atheist position, they are easily DP's more formidable theists.

__________________
"Truth, in the matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived." - Oscar Wilde

Lightdemon

Still no takers?

....


If worse comes to worse, I guess I technically qualify as being a theist.
But that would be no fun.

Rhapsody1447

I'll take the atheist position. This is going to be weird though.

__________________
You aren't here to debate anything, just argue. -Caine

Lightdemon

Cool. Now do we need to discuss the parameters and rules? Like how many posts are allowed? Or is there some sort of template we must follow?

Rhapsody1447

Whatever you want man, your debate.

Lightdemon

Ok, tell me if this sounds ok.

Each debater gets 3 posts each, plus one closing statement, so 4 total. Each post can be however long you want it to be, no maximums. This debate will last for 7 straight days, or whenever both debaters finishes thier alloted number of posts. If the debaters do not finish within 7 days, they will forfeit. Though I'm sure one full week is more than enough.

The topic will be God's existence. Lightdemon will be arguing for God's existence, and Rhapsody1447 will argue against God's existence.

Is there anything you want to add? Or maybe something I missed?

Rhapsody1447

Do the three posts include the opening? Is it 5 total? Or is it 1 opening, two responses and one conclusion?

Lightdemon

Ah, sorry. The opening statements will be counted as the first post. So there will be a total of 4 posts per debater. That means 3 posts (opening included), plus a closing statement.

I also sent you a PM regarding who gets to post first. It'll be your choice.

Lightdemon

God’s existence has been argued about over and over again, since time immemorial. There are innumerable ways to argue His existence, but I will focus on only a few of them. Probably the most widely known argument is the one called the Ontological Argument. It starts with the basic definition of God, which is:

1. He is Omnipotent; meaning he is all-powerful.
2. He is Omnibenevolent; meaning he is an all-loving God.
3. He is Omniscience; meaning he knows everything (all-knowing).
4. He is the Creator of the Universe.


Disbelievers accept this definition for God from Christians, but they present a dilemma. The world is corrupt and evil. They follow that if such a God does in fact exist, then how can He create an imperfect world? Further, disbelievers claim that because the world is corrupt and evil, 1 of the 4 definitions of God must be false.

He is either (1) not Omnipotent because he was unable to create a perfect world. Or (2) He is not really Omnibenevolent because he is actually not a good God. Or (3) He is not Omniscient and therefore allowing him to make a mistake. Or (4) He is simply not the Creator of the Universe.

The problem with this argument though is the claim that the world is in fact evil and corrupt. Let’s examine this claim. How do we know that the world is Evil? Is it because people kill each other? Is it because infants die of starvation? Is it because innocent people die for no reason? Is it because evil men live luxurious lives?

There are a number of ways that shows that the world is not evil.

One very simple solution is to say that the world is not evil, but lacking in “goodness.” By that I mean that it only seems “evil” because there is not enough good at the moment. By definition, only God is Omnibenevolent, all else is a lesser form of God. It is written in the Bible that “Man was created in the image of God,” meaning that man is good, but not as good as God Himself.

For example if we see a hole in a sweater, we do not say it isn’t a sweater anymore. It isn’t an opposite of a sweater either. Merely, it is not a full sweater anymore. Now as the hole gets bigger, we have less sweater, but a sweater nonetheless. The fully knitted sweater is an analogy of God and what it means to be good, and the absence of good is represented as holes in the sweater. Now when the hole gets large enough that the sweater is no longer there, we do not say that is the opposite of a sweater, we simply say that there is no more sweater. The same thing can be said of the concept of “good.” The world may seem evil, but it is a matter of how much good is left in the world. Evil, itself, does not necessarily exist, but it is merely the absence of good.


There are other ways to show that the world is not evil, but I find this one to be the most compelling. If you are familiar with the story of Genesis, then you will know that the fall of mankind is caused by mankind and not God himself. It was Adam who ate the apple and committed the original sin. One could ask though….if God was all-knowing then he should have foreseen this from happening and prevented Adam from ever committing a sin in the first place. So God could have saved mankind from the evil world that man created. So why didn’t he?

Consider this short story of a father and his daughter:

The father stands at the door to his daughter’s room, and he sees that she is learning how to sow. What troubles him though is that her finger is bleeding. He figures that it is because she has pricked her finger so many times from the needle. However, he does not go in and stop her, instead he lets her continue. He has taught his daughter everything he thinks is important, and he also has confidence in his daughter. He also knows that she will make many, many mistakes along the way. After the day is finished, the daughter gives her father a beautiful scarf, and the father is pleased.


So why did the father not help his daughter? It is because he wants her to be who she wants to be. When learning to walk, one must scrape knees. In the end however, we all learn how to walk. But more important, I think this has to do more with the concept of Free Will. If God intervenes every time Adam makes a mistake, Adam not only fails to learn, but he also forfeits his Free Will. Meaning that Adam is not free to act on his own, that he does not have a choice in the matter.

Free Will is very fundamental to God’s existence. Christians believe that the reason that God exist in the first place is so that He can be worshipped. However, God does not force you to worship Him, He wants you to want to worship him on your own Free Will. So in order for you to have Free Will, he must not restrict your choices. However, what he does do is tell Adam what not to do, and expect him to follow His advice. Adam did not obey, and so mankind suffered the consequences as God said they would should Adam disobey His orders.

So it was not God Himself who made the world corrupted, He in fact created a perfect world which we know as Eden, but it was Adam who failed mankind.