The Christian God Does not Exist

Before I begin addressing the contentions laid before us by the affirmative's cas, I would like to point specifically that you pay close attention to his expressed desire to limit the parameter of this debate to the Judeo Christian Holy text colloquialy referred to as the Bible. It is the observation of the contender that if possibility can be demonstrated in regards to the characterization of the Christian God (see note 101), then the affirmative has failed to uphold its burden and you are therefore obligated to vote "con."RE: Argument 1: The Problem of Evil (Suffering)(a) The instigator would have you believe that because of the existene of suffering, an omnibenevolent God cannot possibly exist. Right off the bat, the instigator has already failed to subscribe to the conditions which he set out in iniating our current contest.Like many skeptics, the instigator has trapped himself within the realms of hyper literalism hence has designed rules which no reasonable person would subscribe to when dissecting texts for comprehension. He asserts that God is omnibenevolent, but this is not true. Benevolence is indeed as aspect of God's nature, but so is wisdom, justice and righteousness. Moreover, the Bible notes that God hates sin. The application of the instigator's hyper literal standard would lead us to conclude that God "loves" sin, or at very least, doesn't hate it, since there love would apprantly be all he is capable of, per the instigator's own arguments. (b)RE P1: Even viewing the first premise in the most favorable light, he assumes without justification that a being entirely comprised of love would automatically end all suffering. This premise is not established, therefore you are to reject it immediately. Furthermore, I'd note an example as simple as loving parents. Many do in fact love their children, but have allowed them to suffer many times throughout history even when being capable of providing aid. Clearly, one cannot simply take P1 for granted or deem it "common sense."RE P2: I usually would not use this argument, but just for argument's sake, I would like for the instigator to prove that suffering exist. To do that, he must demostrate that "suffering" is measurable, therefore must also give a clear working definition of the term. I assert that there are some people who claim they are suffering, when society in general would disagree. If PRO is uncertain of what point I'm making, I'll elaborate in the next round.RE P3: Even viewing P1 and P2 in the most favorable light, non sequitur. One can be capable of and have desire of performing an action, yet still not perform said action. I may be capable of robbing a bank and I may even have the desire to rob a bank in order to secure additional finances. Nonetheless, I can also have to desire to adhere to my morals. If desire for the latter is greater, I will not go through with said action.Preemptive refutation (1): a) I have denied the 'omni' connotation. This refutation does not satisfy my objection, therefore gets dismissed. b) Omni not only fails in terms of benevolence, but also 'potence.' There are many abilities God lacks and this once again goes back to the instigator's poor decision to appeal to hyper literalism.Preemptive refutation (2): See 'b.' Also, I contend that suffering is not necessary to allow happiness. It is nonetheless necessary to allow freedom and accountability.Preemptive refutation (3): I have not made this argument, therefore you are obligated to dismiss this rebuttal RE: Argument 2: Omnibenevolent and Omnipotence can not co-exist.Seeing as I don't subscribe to either omnibenevolence or omnipotence at least in the fashion the instigator does and have alluded to both concepts being strawmen via hyper literalism, I am not obligated to addres this contention.However, even viewing the instigator's position in the most favorable light:P1: OkayP2: This assumes without justification that the omnibenevolent being hasn't chosen to be omnibenevolent.P3: Chain broken at P2P4 ^P5 ^RE Argument 3: The Great Flood(a) The instigator attempts to establish that God is not omniscient (all knowing) on the grounds that he regetted his actions in the creation of an. This is an age old question. One with an age old response. Looking at this passage (and others, such as in Jonah or Exodus) , we note that the word translated as 'relent' or repent' is actually the Hebrew expression "to be sorry for." Just because one is sorry does not mean that a change has taken course. Rather, it simply means regret for something which has taken place (C1). When individuals lose loved ones, they may regret their passing, but this is not an indication that feelings towards said loved ones have changed. To see his children do evil acts is not just something which God 'regretted' then, but what he regrets on a regular basis. Even viewing PRO's claim in a favorable light, does it make sense that God would allow man to continue to exist if he "regretted" their existence in the context which is being alluded to? PRO likes to take notice of God's omnipotence, thus surely even he must realize the gap in his reasoning.(b) Looking past the instigator's continual support for hyper literalism and that their are clearly other aspects of God's nature (in this case, justice), it should be noted that their are clear differences between a human taking another human's life and God doing so. For God, the concept and ramifications of 'death' doesn't even exist. These men who were adjucated in accordance to his will merely went from one realm (earth) to the next (paradise). Due to space constraints, I shall not pacify PRO's false dilemna.RE: Argument 4: The Tower of Babel1: The instigator may as well offer the same reasoning for any other instance at which God intervenes throughout the Bible. If God knew David would commit the act of murder as well as commit adultery with Bathsheba, why not prevent him from doing this in the first place? Or why not punish David before even committing the act? The answer is that God acts and reacts however he so chooses in accordance to his will. If speculation is of any value, God probably chose to act at that time just so he'd be acting upon the defiant men committing their defiant acts. Sort of how law enforcement acts upon criminals breaking the law.2: The instigator fails to justify his assumption which he uses to infer that God did not in fact know every detail of the event. How does he reach this conclusion? Dismiss this subpoint entirely until their is justication for it.3: This does not follow. What fear? How is it a threat based on this verse? And even if established, how would these premises lead us to conclude that God wasn't omnipotent. Even granting the most absurd scenario, maybe he simply "fears" they too can become "omnipotent." :D4: How is supreme arrogance best for mankind? Does not the Bible teach that pride always comes before the fall? Once again pacifying the PRO's false concept of omnibenevolence, this would be a rather loving act.==================And that will be all for now.Citation (1) : http://www.gotquestions.org...Note (101) : Possibility can be demonstrated purely through negation of the instigator's assertions. Elaboration upon this concept can be offered upon request.