These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1D.

=====Argument from Evil===== 1. Burden to prove free will trumps God's desire to eliminate evil >>>Free will is not free will if we are morally perfect. <<< I never said it was. I was offering other options than free will (since you say free will causes people to do evil). Either we can have no free will, or have free will but be morally perfect (thus in both situation no evil is done). Thus, the rest of your argument is irrelevant. My opponent misses the point. He hasn't reasoned why God would prefer to let us have free will w/evil instead of no free will/free will with moral perfection and thus no evil. 2. Natural Evils >>>Are natural evils, evil? They are simply circumstances that can cause negative externalities, however they are not inherently evil. Thus, it has no intrinsic link to inherent good or evil. <<< This is true. There is a difference between an action and an event. An action implies that there is a will/reason behind it. However, a basic philosophy course in ethics teaches that if God were to exist (and create the entire universe and all that is in it), then EVERY event is an action via God. Natural disasters were created by God, either directly or indirectly. My opponent needs to somehow justify natural evils - they are certainly unnecessary. 3. Heaven negates the "form" claim >>>Example: A boy and girl are opposite correct? A boy does't need to have a girl inside him to make him opposite. <<< A boy doesn't need to have a girl exist to be called a boy. If all the girls in the world were to somehow die, we wouldn't cease calling young males "boys". 4. Automation ppl, no free will My opponent fails to even approach justifying his burden. I recommend he focuses on it, since this is my last round and he has yet to fulfill it. He has to show why God would prefer free will (thus evil) for something else like no free will (thus no evil) or free will with moral perfection (thus no evil). 5. Actions by themselves are not evil >>>Remember the Christian framework for the round. E. g. Killing is inherently wrong because it strips life away. <<< Haha yes, do remember the Christian framework. God kills entire cities in the Bible, so is he evil? >>>By God abolishing evil, he is doing an evil towards an evil, thus not acting loving. <<< Abolishing a concept or the "form" of evil is not equatable to killing. My opponent presupposes a deontological framework, but it's erroneous to say abolishing is evil. Abolishing does not necessarily mean killing or anything immoral by nature. Even if my opponent did not mean to equate killing with abolishment, let's apply his thinking to real world situations: According to the Christian framework, abolishing slavery is evil? Unless my opponent is a racist, then I rest my case. It's obvious that if God is doing AWAY with something bad (evil), then it is NOT being un-loving. When God eventually abolishes/banishes Satan to Hell, is he evil? Of course not - it's all in your theology. =====Argument from Non-Belief===== 6A. God desieres us to know >>>He gives u absolutly no warrant to this claim, drop it<<< Apparently my opponent didn't read my source. It was the verse 1 Timothy 2:4, which states "[God] who wants all people to be saved and to come to know the truth fully. " It's obvious that God wants and desires for us to know. As I've said before, it's my opponent's burden to show what desire would trump his desire. Obviously, my opponent uses the free will defense (FWD), but he has yet to develop that argument. b. Highest Desire >>>This falls because premise 1 has no warrant to it<<< If my opponent were to read the source, then yes, he would realize it has warrant. 7. Jesus' coming is debatable >>>Yeah, and so is everything else. Saying it is debateable is the reason we are debating it? <<< The way you said it sounded as if you were presupposing everyone knew Jesus resurrected. Obviously, it was an empty claim. Refer to the previous round. 8. Rape and free will >>>Forcing yourself on someone else is wrong and evil. Thus God, since he is omnibenevolent would not "rape" us persay. And cross-apply my free will defense argument at top. <<< First, rape is not the same with God revealing to us who he is. Rape violates someone's privacy, fulfills the rapist' and not the victim's desire, and goes against their will. God allowing himself to be known gives us all comfort and hope, least of all salvation and coincides with everyone's desire to know the truth. And of course, refer to my concern with my opponent's FWD. He hasn't justified it at the least. >>>Place a theory argument agaisnt my opponents "Non-Belief" Argument. This argument is compltley abusive because if you accept it as a voter for the round, then there was no way I could have won this debate at all. It is clrealy an abusive argument. <<< I'm sorry, but I have absolutely NO idea what you mean by a theory argument. The non-belief argument is completely abusive? Sorry, but at least a little clarification would have been nice. =====Conclusion===== I'm afraid to say that my opponent's argument is completely rubbish. Racked with spelling errors and small responses, he has done mistakes from forgetting to read my aforementioned source, to completely misreading my arguments. Since my opponent has done nothing yet to justify the FWD, besides just saying God would want it for us, I will lay out a few arguments against the FWD here since it's my last round (and when hopefully my opponent gets on the right track again). 1. The FWD supposes that God values our free will as one of, if not the most, highest priorities. However, the Christian needs to account for why so many times in the Bible God has violated the free will of people. He has killed cities, spoken explicitly to people, and performed miracles (as Jesus). Apparantely, interfering with one's free will isn't that big. 2. Having knowledge of God's existence doesn't mean we are forced to believe in him. Take the descent of angels, for example. They perfectly knew that God existed, but they still left with Satan (who he himself also knew God and the properties attributed to him). This is all for now voters, for my opponent has given me barely any arguments and substance to refute.