God of slaves.

Summary As conditions to this debate, we accepted the following statements as true: god exists (no atheist or agnostic doctrine permitted) we would speak of a general "god the creator" rather than the god of any specific religion. From these assumptions, Pro had the burden of proof to show that humans are enslaved to god, "that humans owe their lives and origin to god, and have a debt to pay without choice. If humans don't repay their debt, they're unjustifiably condemned to hell and torture." This seems to me a very difficult thing to prove, and I accepted the debate out of curiosity to see how Pro might do it. Unfortunately, he has proved nothing. He has made a series of statements about his beliefs, but he has not proved that hell exists, that humans have a debt to pay to god, that we lack freedom of choice, or that anything in our relationship with god is unjustifiable. god is not subject to human law Pro has based his assumptions about god's nature on his observations of human behavior. He draws parallels between human law and divine law. He compares god to Hitler, a slave-owner, a pet-owner and a strict parent. But there's no reason at all to suppose that god would behave the way humans do when they're in a position of power. Quite the contrary in fact. God the creator created humans. As Pro pointed out in round 2, there is nothing in the human capacity that even approximates that. We cannot understand god's intentions by looking at humans. not all morality is god's morality Pro made an extraordinary statement about morality. It is this: "...all things must be created by god. Morality wouldn't exist without god the creator making it. Therefore understanding of moral obligation between god and man is valid..."It seems that Pro is arguing that his version of morality is valid because god must have created it, since god created everything. Therefore, if a man believes it's moral to beat a dog, so god believes it's moral to punish us.But what about a man who believes it's immoral to beat a dog? What about indulgent parents who believe that disciplining children is wrong? What about buddhists who refuse to harm even the smallest bug, and scoop up scorpions in buckets and lovingly carry them back to the jungle? The morality of these people is also created by god, according to Pro. If god also shares this kind of morality, then he would never treat us like slaves or punish us unfairly.How to decide - Pro's morality or mine? Of course, we can't decide on this basis. God's morality cannot be inferred from human morality. The truth of god's nature cannot be inferred from human belief (neither mine nor Pro's). God's relationship with us cannot be inferred from human-human relationships. Therefore, Pro's statements about god's morality, drawn only from his own beliefs and his observations of humans and animals, can be dismissed.We are not in debt to godIn particular, there is only Pro's statement that we are in debt to god. There is no contract, no evidence of any kind. God does not punish us in our lifetimes if we infringe this "contract". Pro speaks darkly of punishment that may come when we die but again, he's just guessing. He speaks of "moral obligation" to god, but seems unsure about what this entails. When parents instruct their children, in contrast, it's clear what they want them to do. God wants "respect and loyalty", according to Pro, but cannot be more specific than that. Pro says, "...for Con to assume we are free to choose, he must prove we can live after death without god." This is the wrong way around. If we have freedom to choose, why should we assume anything other than that god has given us that freedom? As Pro says, god has created everything, including our freedom to choose. Our freedom is right here with us. We can see it in the way people choose to live their lives and the things they say. Hell and the threat of punishment is not right here. We can't see it, and most likely it does not exist at all. Of course, it's most logical to believe in what we have evidence for (freedom to choose) over what we haven't (eternal punishment).Whose opinion counts?Pro has complained several times that I am only giving my opinion. He writes, "I don't need to defend against his [sic] opinion, only factual evidence against my opinion."Yet, Pro has provided no factual or logical support for his own opinion. In stating that we are slaves to god, he has made a positive assertion that he needed to defend. Because he has provided no evidence, logical or factual, to support his opinion, he has failed to uphold the burden of proof. Therefore, if we choose to dismiss mere opinion, as Pro insists we must do (and I agree), he has failed to carry his argument.