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

>>>Okay, so you have "learned" about past occurrences in history. But it is still by "faith" that you belive certain historical events happened. <<< ----> NO, it's by evidence. =====Counterarguments===== 1. Argument from Evil ~A. Free Will Well, my opponent's interestingly long and metaphoric argument boils down to one thing: our free will. Jeez, couldn't you have said it in a more terse manner haha? Anyway, onto my rebuttal: This does not explain why there are "natural evils", such as tornadoes and earthquakes. These are not caused by free will, and cause millions of deaths and agony. How does my opponent attempt to reconcile these phenomena? Secondly, there are many repeated acts in the Bible where God disregards the supposed importance of free will, such as killing millions of people or performing miracles (Jesus). If free will isn't a huge priority here, why is it in our case now? ~B. Adam and Eve >>>God specifically told them NOT to eat from the tree. <<< Yes, like telling a newborn baby or a new pet something is "bad". THEY WON'T GET IT. Adam and Eve do not understand the moral implications of commands such as "yes" or "no". When you tell someone a command, and they don't follow it, then there are only a few explanations: -They don't understand the concept of morality (practically every human does) -They broke your command purposely(that is either a right thing or a wrong thing) -They broke your command by accident (doesn't apply to Adam and Eve) -They did not understand the command (assume to be false in the case of Adam and Eve) -There was a defect or a blockage (they couldn't carry out the task, something/one was stopping them, etc. ) As we can see, only the first option applies - they simply didn't know what RIGHT and WRONG meant. Pertaining to my other statement, I was referring to why every generations of people after Adam and Eve have to suffer and feel pain also. This is called punishing the son for the wages of the father - Adam and Eve should have bore their punishment, not their sons also. 2. Argument from Non-Belief >>>"God is trying, trying hard to help you believe, but atheists just keep ignoring these signs. "<<< ----> This is AMAZING. My opponent has actually stated that every atheist have irrational disbelief in God. Can you really uphold such a bold claim? Are you really saying that NO atheist thinks he has good reasons and argument to not believe in God? Are you really saying that EVERY atheist secretly hate and ignore God? >>>"God has to let you have free will. God is a god of love, and he does not rule by force, but purely by love. So, God does very much want you to believe, but he cannot rule by force, so he is patiently waiting for you to believe. "<<< If God was "purely love", then he wouldn't let so many people burn to hell because he is "hiding" (he hasn't sufficient evidence for his existence in the perspective of many people). He doesn't have to rule us by force or brutalize us into believing him - as a God he bring this upon us in many ways. For example, he can some belief-implantation thing, such as was the case for Adam and Eve. Or he can make fancy symbols and writing in the sky. Or he can be more subtle, and have thousands of angels preach everywhere in such a convincing manner that we are all saved. Or, he can make the Bible claim startling accurate and detailed prophecies of the future that the evidence becomes too overbearing and any rational person will believe in Him. This Free Will Defense also pertains to my previous argument when talking about the argument from evil (you basically use the same defense): how come in the Bible God violates the free will of so many people (like killing them)? It seems here that free will 'aint so much of a priority any more. =====Conclusion===== >>>"Unfortunately, there really cannot be a true winner on this debate since judges will want to vote for the person that is debating for their religion. But, I thank my opponent for a great debate so far. "<<< ----> I would like to say that some do vote as objectively as they can - and sometimes they leave good reasons-for-voting in the comment sections. I hope this comes to fruit :) It's been nice debating. I have refuted my opponent's main argument: the free will defense. He uses this for both argument so I have refuted it twice.