frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





just good old god

24



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments



  • if I were to argue that side of view, I would state that since he created everything and everyone; then I would say it would be his right to decide on what is morally good or not; similar in the way a cartoonist who creates his comics gets to decide upon the actions and lives of the character that he draws.  it is his creation, so the creation has no say.

    Ok, even if it is his right to decide what is good or not he still needs to know or possess some sort of concept about what moral goodness is and what it isn't. And this concept will have to be influenced by other external factors which would then mean God is no longer the ultimate Authority on what morality actually is. One cannot say something is moral because "God said so, and God knows what morality is because he is God;" this reasoning is circular. 



  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    i am not sure by what external factors you are bringing up; however if God created morality then he can paint any picture he wishes. morality as well as any concept that god created; started and would not exist without him; so he can be the deciding factor upon who controls it; with out the creator and  morality, then there would be none at all and we would not even be aware of morals either good or bad.  so God should have the deciding vote so to speak; not humans. @ZeusAres42
  • maxx said:
    i am not sure by what external factors you are bringing up;
    Any external factors that would influence God's actions would only be known to him; not us.

    however if God created morality then he can paint any picture he wishes. morality as well as any concept that god created; started and would not exist without him; so he can be the deciding factor upon who controls it; with out the creator and  morality, then there would be none at all and we would not even be aware of morals either good or bad.  so God should have the deciding vote so to speak; not humans.

    Interesting. You do realize that in this particular instance that God could have deemed it to be morally good for all human beings to inflict an endless amount of pain and suffering on one another? In fact, all things that many of us human beings consider evil might actually be considered morally good just so long as God said so?

    Another thing do you also realize that then if Morality is dependent God then anything is permitted without him? 



  • maxx said:
    i am not sure by what external factors you are bringing up;
    Any external factors that would influence God's actions would only be known to him; not us.

    however if God created morality then he can paint any picture he wishes. morality as well as any concept that god created; started and would not exist without him; so he can be the deciding factor upon who controls it; with out the creator and  morality, then there would be none at all and we would not even be aware of morals either good or bad.  so God should have the deciding vote so to speak; not humans.

    Interesting. You do realize that in this particular instance that God could have deemed it to be morally good for all human beings to inflict an endless amount of pain and suffering on one another? In fact, all things that many of us human beings consider evil might actually be considered morally good just so long as God said so?

    Another thing do you also realize that then if Morality is dependent God then anything is permitted without him? 




  • i am not sure by what external factors you are bringing up;
    Any external factors that would influence God's actions would only be known to him; not us.

    however if God created morality then he can paint any picture he wishes. morality as well as any concept that god created; started and would not exist without him; so he can be the deciding factor upon who controls it; with out the creator and  morality, then there would be none at all and we would not even be aware of morals either good or bad.  so God should have the deciding vote so to speak; not humans.

    Interesting. You do realize that in this particular instance that God could have deemed it to be morally good for all human beings to inflict an endless amount of pain and suffering on one another? In fact, all things that many of us human beings consider evil might actually be considered morally good just so long as God said so?

    Another thing do you also realize that then if Morality is dependent God then anything is permitted without him? 



  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    >Well, that's all very interesting considering you've been engaged in a subject relative to this question in the last few or more posts with maxx.

    That is why its a tangent. It's only relative to this topic.

    >Also, this thread is about descriptions about God's character assuming he does exist. And since this would include moral qualities of that character my question is very relevant and appropriate to the topic.

    Then we disagree.

    >However, if you don't want to answer the question then that's fine; you don't have to.

    Thanks. But I did not say I didn't want to answer, I said I didn't want to answer here. If you can't be bothered to make a new thread, my decision was correct.

    >PS, I also have actually asked you this on another thread about morality but you never answered.

    I don't remember, but my guess is that you probably did the same thing there. I call it sniping. The atheist suddenly comes into a rolling conversation with a tangential question he feels is pertinent. In some threads I get 3 or 4 of these. I cannot indulge sniping.

    >I have actually created more than one thread too about morality. 

    Then just direct me to the thread you think is appropriate. This need not be this difficult.

    >But like I said if you don't want to answer that's fine. 

    I'm here voluntarily. If I didn't want to answer, I could simply say so, or not post in the thread. Here is an opportunity to learn something about me. I can't be goaded.

    >Just don't say something is off-topic when it is evidently not; this will help you in your own position too. 

    Your question is indeed off topic. The OP's question is actually about the the bible, not God. But we can disagree,  that's fine too.

    I'm actually enjoying the convo you and maxx are having. The position he's taken is interesting given our earlier convo. He is not well informed, but your position is without merit because it is illogical.

    But please do continue.

  • jesusisGod777jesusisGod777 115 Pts   -  
    The dilemma with most people is that they do not realize beilief and events and situations that take place based on the actions and interactions of other people are defined, in context different.

    The Bible is fact, and there are two lab tests almost everyone I meet are unaware of.

    The question your asking requires an exhaustive explanation of evidence.

    I've realized most people don't even begin to understand collectively what religion is.

    Religion deals with the ohilosiohy of social interactions, not with God or the origin of the human race.

    Second, the logical fallacy of religion is that the god's that are claimed to exist in religions never once interacted with a person, so the knowledge of their existence, is impossible.

    Do you want an exhaustive explanation?


  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    I am not sure whom you are talking to; however my post is plain and simple: "assuming" that god is real, then what can you tell me about his character according to the bible? @jesusisGod777
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    God's character changes constantly in the Bible.
    As you may know God speaks through agents (Angels).
    These "agents" have a lot of latitude, personally given by God, even the authority to speak as if they are God himself.
    According to the scriptures God has never spoken to man "at any time".

    So the different decisions and odd actions of God are due to different Angels personalities being displayed.

    Jesus was the first Angel created, thus the Angel that spent the most time with him.
    That is why most Bible readers conclude that Jesus reflects God qualities the best.

    God uses symbolism to help us understand what it is like in heaven.

    One of the symbolic representation is the Angels as his wife (named Jerusalem Above)
    The other symbolic representation is Jesus as his Son.
    The other symbolic representation is Jesus' wife (named New Jerusalem) which is resurrected humans changed into spirit beings.

    God symbolic representation of his main qualities, Love, Wisdom, Justice, Power is displayed through the Angels faces.
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    God seems to be larger than the heavens that he created.
    Although he states in the Bible he is a spirit being, there are scriptures to indicate he is larger than heaven.

    Your illustration about a cartoonist who creates his comics gets to decide upon the actions and lives of the character that he draws. 
    It seems like this is a good understanding of Gods possible position.
    To use that illustration as a premise.
    God is a cartoonist that created a comic and had the characters in the comic to make their own cartoon which is the human's physical universe.

    Through the Angel's spiritual realm God created the human's physical realm.
    It seems that all the credit goes to God for all the actions done, because God provides the power.

    It seems to know the character of God we have to look at the best representative of him which is Jesus.

    1 Corinthians 2:14-16 - "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ."

    The reason we have to look at Jesus, because God is too powerful or too beyond us. The scriptures say to hear God would cause us to dissipate into nothing (Psalm 92). To see him would kill us. Exodus 33:20 - "But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!""
    I believe this is because he is in a different realm.
    Sight and Hearing is way we discern things in the physical realm
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    aside from the idea of you mention only his positive qualities and not the negative ones shown in the bible, I can agree with some of your statements;  although I am not sure if we will become spirts for I recall the bible saying we will be given new bodies in heaven; and until the resurrection we lay in the grave.@Sand
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    Correct about new bodies. It seams everything is explained with the same word when speaking about heavenly things.
    The Bible says spiritual bodies.
    1 Corinthians 15:42 - "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

    You are right about the resurrection and the grave.

    What is positive and negative is usually determined differently by different people (subjective).

    God constantly says who has a right to check his hand, or how can the clay correct the potter.

    Wisdom could be negative to many, because by means of it God determines who get's to live on and who doesn't.
    Justice could also be negative to many, becuase by means of it God determines whether our actions are worthy of life.

    Though out the Bible the Angels have been know to strike people dead in a blink of an eye.
    Even though they acted swiftly, Jesus paints a picture of God being more lenient.
    But those Angels were not just acting on their own, God no doubt felt the human servant was diserving of death and gave that Angel the authority to execute.


  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    God does change his mind
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    Jeremiah 18:5-10 - "Then the word of the LORD came to me saying, “Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel. “At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. “Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it."

  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    This scripture shows there is no such thing as fate. God can change his mind if the person changes his ways.
    maxx
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    So, in brief, and according to the Bible; assuming it is true, then what kind of character does God possess? “ if” he were human, then how would you describe his character and his personality?@Sand
  • @ethang5

    >Well, that's all very interesting considering you've been engaged in a subject relative to this question in the last few or more posts with maxx.

    That is why its a tangent. It's only relative to this topic
    Exactly. And so was my question to you relevant and appropriate to the topic.

    >Also, this thread is about descriptions about God's character assuming he does exist. And since this would include moral qualities of that character my question is very relevant and appropriate to the topic.

    Then we disagree.

    Would you like to elaborate as to why you disagree or would you prefer to merely just state you disagree?

    >PS, I also have actually asked you this on another thread about morality but you never answered.

    I don't remember, but my guess is that you probably did the same thing there. I call it sniping. The atheist suddenly comes into a rolling conversation with a tangential question he feels is pertinent. In some threads I get 3 or 4 of these. I cannot indulge sniping.

    Have you actually ever thought about saying anything in regards to the actual content of what I said rather than conjecturing up random theories about why I said what I said or might have said what I said?

    >I have actually created more than one thread too about morality. 

    Then just direct me to the thread you think is appropriate. This need not be this difficult.
    Responding to and/or searching need that not be difficult either. I'm not going to do this for you. If you really wanted to answer it at all you would find it and answer, or acknowledge that what I said was relevant instead of continuing to dig a hole for yourself; well, that's at least what I would do if I was you anyway; you make yourself look less silly that way.

    >But like I said if you don't want to answer that's fine. 

    I'm here voluntarily. If I didn't want to answer, I could simply say so, or not post in the thread. Here is an opportunity to learn something about me. I can't be goaded.
    Again, making inferences where none apply. To epitomize your position at this point this is how it looks in standard form:

    Premise: "You're just trying to go goad me with that question."

    Conclusion: "Therefore, I'm not going to answer your question and I'm also going to say it's off-topic."

    If the above sounds absurd to you that's because it is but it' your position; not mine. I'm just epitomizing it.

    >Just don't say something is off-topic when it is evidently not; this will help you in your own position too. 

    Your question is indeed off topic. The OP's question is actually about the the bible, not God. But we can disagree,  that's fine too.
    By all means, disagree but that still doesn't change the fact the about what as actually said in the title and in the original post. You and other readers can verify this but unless I'm living in a parallel world this is precisely what was said in the OP this debate which is titles "Just Good Old God:"
    maxx said:
    assuming for the sake of the argument that God is real and that the entire bible is true and reflects his word; then what can you tell me about his character?

    I'm actually enjoying the convo you and maxx are having. The position he's taken is interesting given our earlier convo. He is not well informed, but your position is without merit because it is illogical.

    But please do continue.
    I'm glad to hear you're enjoying this convo, which is also interesting considering it is something you thought was off-topic; I myself usually ignore posts that I think are off-topic. Anyway, since you say he is not well informed perhaps you can help him out? Also, at the same time maybe you could explain why my position is illogical as opposed to just boldly asserting it? 

    PS. Just one thing I would like to clear up; are you more interested in trying to get one up over the other or are you more interested in having civil and rational discourse? If it is the latter then I'm for that where we can have an enjoyable exploration and exchange of ideas; if it's the former then that's not what I call debate, and I'm not interested in continuing with you.




  • I don't know if you got my previous response as there was a glitch on the site. Anyway, here it is but with some bits added as I must admit I was rather tired that day when I was responding to and should have waited until more awake.

    however if God created morality then he can paint any picture he wishes. morality as well as any concept that god created; started and would not exist without him; so he can be the deciding factor upon who controls it; with out the creator and  morality, then there would be none at all and we would not even be aware of morals either good or bad.  so God should have the deciding vote so to speak; not humans.

    Interesting. You do realize that in this particular instance that God could have deemed it to be morally good for all human beings to inflict an endless amount of pain and suffering on one another? In fact, all things that many of us human beings consider evil might actually be considered morally good just so long as God said so?

    Another thing do you also realize that then if Morality is dependent God then anything is permitted without him? 

    Other things to note here from this particular stance:
    • This renders absolute morality from a theistic point of view as being defunct.
    • If God could paint any picture he wishes about morality then there is nothing stopping him from changing his mind about what is moral or not from one day to the next. 
    • God's idea of morality here is based on nothing more than arbitrariness rather than any reason or system.
    • It's impossible to determine the exact will of God. Or of anything that is not falsifiable and only rests on faith alone for that reason
    • When one of God's commandments contradicts a previous commandment this presents a problem for those Theists that claim morality is absolute. 
    FYI, the question I asked you was in reference to what is known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, and this is been a subject of discussion among Theological scholars and philosophers for many years.  For more information (if you're interested that is) about the Euthyphro dilemma, other things relative, and stuff about conversations that took place by Greek Philosophers see the following:






  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    This is a huge subject because we have to take in consideration the whole Bible.

    #1 God main attributes are
    Love, Wisdom, Justice, and Power

    #2 God describes himself as the "Happy God", "God of Love", "God of all Comfort", "a manly person of war,” “the God of armies,” and “mighty in battle”, etc.
    #3 He is a Jealous God and exacts exclusive devotion.
    #4 He hates certain things 
    Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood. A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.

    maxx
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    at least you are able to answer a hypothetical question without flying off onto a tangent. thanks@Sand
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    taking this stance i would first claim that since God is a creationist, then I would say he was an artist and be it a book, a painting, a drawing, a tapestry, or even a comic strip; there is one person who stops hiself from adding evil morals into his work and that would be him. One would have to factor in and understand what an artists work or Gods creation was meant to represent from his point of view; and we really do not know why he created everything. perhaps it was simply for his own amusement; or simply because he wished to express his artistic ability. absolute morality, as well as to what else is put into the picture, rests soley upon the artist. however, and I point out, one must look at the "content" of the work. we are like the characters in a comic strip trying to look at the artists pen to understand why we are acting and living in a certain way. morality rests within  the pen of the author and the brush of the painter; but only as the mind of the creator directs it.@ZeusAres42

  • taking this stance i would first claim that since God is a creationist, then I would say he was an artist and be it a book, a painting, a drawing, a tapestry, or even a comic strip; there is one person who stops hiself from adding evil morals into his work and that would be him. One would have to factor in and understand what an artists work or Gods creation was meant to represent from his point of view; and we really do not know why he created everything. perhaps it was simply for his own amusement; or simply because he wished to express his artistic ability. absolute morality, as well as to what else is put into the picture, rests soley upon the artist. however, and I point out, one must look at the "content" of the work. we are like the characters in a comic strip trying to look at the artists pen to understand why we are acting and living in a certain way. morality rests within  the pen of the author and the brush of the painter; but only as the mind of the creator directs it

    Ok, before I continue with other stuff and I've got loads btw, hehe. Do you also accept that according to your current stance that God could actually be the Devil that created everything? He could deem what we might call immoral acts actually moral?



  • MikeDwightMikeDwight 2 Pts   -  
    Didn't the Apostle Paul appear before the Athenians in Acts 17 to compliment the one of many Idols, "To the Unknown God", so we have incomplete human records, God inspired, and are so haughty, when the history of Christianity is 2000 years of peasants with their hands in the dirt and some Kings shaking hands, that we'll throw out this post about whether we're going to find humans contradicting each other with really no analysis of the different Biblical authors
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    if god were as well the devil; then I think we would have to exist solely in his mind; although I suspose that he could have created a world with both good and evil built into place in where he actually would not even have to interact with his creation. However as I an author would write a book( and god creates a world) then everything that is in that book would be my actions, my ideas, and above all,; if the characters would be alive, then my fault. so good, evil, sorrows, happiness and everything else would be created by me including right and wrong.  I would not go as far to say that in doing so; compiling all that into a book would make me both good and evil. but simply 2 different aspects of one personality; so I would not separate god and devil into 2 individuals, but combine them into one person who simply created. @ZeusAres42

  • so good, evil, sorrows, happiness and everything else would be created by me including right and wrong.  I would not go as far to say that in doing so; compiling all that into a book would make me both good and evil. but simply 2 different aspects of one personality; so I would not separate god and devil into 2 individuals, but combine them into one person who simply created.

    Okay, let's try this another way. What is something that you consider immoral?



  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    im pretty sure where this is heading so I will toss out an easy one; using other people for your own gain@ZeusAres42

  • im pretty sure where this is heading so I will toss out an easy one; using other people for your own gain.
    Ok, so you consider it immoral to use other people for your own gain. Now, since you previously stated that God created morality and can paint any picture he wishes do you also accept that he may very well have deemed to be morally good to use other people for their own gain? Even at the expense of you thinking it immoral? Remember this is the God that you said he could create any picture he wishes.;



  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    I replied once but it seemed to vanished. so  I as an author create a book, I would write it as a whole and the individual characters in it would simply make up the complete story regardless of how I write it. I do not believe that god created the world for one individual but for the whole and the moral acts and immoral ones are simply part of the story line. I can not consider him immoral simply for placing immoral acts into the world because it is his creation and we are all simply part of it@ZeusAres42

  • maxx said:
    I replied once but it seemed to vanished. so  I as an author create a book, I would write it as a whole and the individual characters in it would simply make up the complete story regardless of how I write it. I do not believe that god created the world for one individual but for the whole and the moral acts and immoral ones are simply part of the story line. I can not consider him immoral simply for placing immoral acts into the world because it is his creation and we are all simply part of it@ZeusAres42
    How does this actually answer my previous question which I feel quite confident was pretty specific?



  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    I accept that god can put such acts into his creation such as using others for their own gain simply because it is his creation. when I write a book, I put both moral and immoral acts into it and it is part of the book as a whole just as one immoral act is part of many moral and immoral acts in gods creation. at my expense has nothing to do with it for I am simply a character within his story-line so to speak. both moral and immoral acts belong in his creation for that his the way he painted it and I can not condemn god for writing and painting as he pleases; he is simply expressing his artistic ability into his creation.  I do not agree that god is immoral for putting immoral acts into something he created. something created has all parts and the world has both immoral and moral acts with-in it to consider him immoral from my point of view is like having a character from my book to say I am immoral for an action I created against him.@ZeusAres42

  • Btw, although possibly slightly off-topic am I right in thinking that you are an actual Theist that does actually believe in a religious God?



  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    actually I believe in none of the world religions as they are written; although I do think there is something else out there beyond our human perception. I think human religion is just a build up  of a long ago cause and affect that slowly evolved over the times. is there a god? I dont know; no one actually knows regardless of that they say so. Belief is inherent, yet not always true. I think humans are caught in a vicious circle and cant get off of the track. each religion will say that they are right; and the only fundamental ideas within them are basically to follow the higher standards of morality. I do not believe that any religion can be true simply because there are so many of them and if there is a creator, then we must look elsewhere@ZeusAres42
    ZeusAres42
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Logic should guide our steps.

    There are four possibilities in life.

    Something vs Nothing
     
    #1 If there is Nothing
    We live life as if there is Nothing
    We receive Nothing

    #2 If there is Something
    We live life as if there is Nothing
    We receive Nothing

    #3 If there is Nothing
    We live life like there is Something
    We receive Nothing

    #4 If there is Something
    We live life like there is Something
    Then there is a chance we will get Something

    Undeniable proof is impossible. There are people questioning if the earth is a sphere. There are also people questioning if man landed on the moon. Whenever you have any evidence, that evidence can be questioned and denied. 

    If there is something beyond your human perception, the discovery of this something is definitely beyond our lifetime.

    It is true there are too many religions, all of them claiming to be right.

    I believe you should read and study all religious books and information to outline your own path to possibly please this Something. Especially the book that stands out, the Bible. We have to use the tools and information we have at our disposal, to make the most logical decision we can make at this time. So the most logical way is to live life like there is Something. That way if for some reason reality turns out to be option #4, there is a chance for Something. At least it beats doing Nothing.



  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ZeusAres42

    That is why its a tangent. It's only relative to this topic

    >Exactly. And so was my question to you relevant and appropriate to the topic.

    I disagree.

    >Also, this thread is about descriptions about God's character assuming he does exist. And since this would include moral qualities of that character my question is very relevant and appropriate to the topic.

    Then we disagree.

    >Would you like to elaborate as to why you disagree or would you prefer to merely just state you disagree? 

    It is a tangent. Thousands of things are related to our subject. We have the ability to create new threads just for those reasons.

    >PS, I also have actually asked you this on another thread about morality but you never answered.

    I don't remember, but my guess is that you probably did the same thing there. I call it sniping. The atheist suddenly comes into a rolling conversation with a tangential question he feels is pertinent. In some threads I get 3 or 4 of these. I cannot indulge sniping.

    >Have you actually ever thought about saying anything in regards to the actual content of what I said rather than conjecturing up random theories about why I said what I said or might have said what I said?

    I responded to your question.>

    >I have actually created more than one thread too about morality. 

    Then just direct me to the thread you think is appropriate. This need not be this difficult.

    >Responding to and/or searching need that not be difficult either. I'm not going to do this for you. If you really wanted to answer it at all you would find it and answer, or acknowledge that what I said was relevant instead of continuing to dig a hole for yourself;

    Lol. OK.

    >well, that's at least what I would do if I was you anyway; you make yourself look less silly that way.

    By doing what you would do? OK.

    >But like I said if you don't want to answer that's fine. 

    I'm here voluntarily. If I didn't want to answer, I could simply say so, or not post in the thread. Here is an opportunity to learn something about me. I can't be goaded.
    >Again, making inferences where none apply. To epitomize your position at this point this is how it looks in standard form: 

    >Premise: "You're just trying to go goad me with that question."

    >Conclusion: "Therefore, I'm not going to answer your question and I'm also going to say it's off-topic."

    >If the above sounds absurd to you that's because it is but it' your position; not mine. I'm just epitomizing it.

    It is absurd, but you will notice, you penned it.

    >Just don't say something is off-topic when it is evidently not; this will help you in your own position too. 

    Your question is indeed off topic. The OP's question is actually about the the bible, not God. But we can disagree,  that's fine too.
    >By all means, disagree but that still doesn't change the fact the about what as actually said in the title and in the original post.

    We don't disagree about what was said. We disagree on how pertinent your tangential question is.

    >You and other readers can verify this but unless I'm living in a parallel world this is precisely what was said in the OP this debate which is titles "Just Good Old God:" 
    maxx said:
    assuming for the sake of the argument that God is real and that the entire bible is true and reflects his word; then what can you tell me about his character?
    I answered.

    I'm actually enjoying the convo you and maxx are having. The position he's taken is interesting given our earlier convo. He is not well informed, but your position is without merit because it is illogical.

    But please do continue.
    >I'm glad to hear you're enjoying this convo, which is also interesting considering it is something you thought was off-topic;

    What? I cannot find a topic enjoyable if its off topic? You are free to babble on off topic subjects, I don't. 

    >I myself usually ignore posts that I think are off-topic.

    As do I, and notice I have ignored your off topic question.

    >Anyway, since you say he is not well informed perhaps you can help him out?

    Why would I do that?

    >Also, at the same time maybe you could explain why my position is illogical as opposed to just boldly asserting it?

    Succinctly state your position so there is no later confusion.

    >PS. Just one thing I would like to clear up; are you more interested in trying to get one up over the other or are you more interested in having civil and rational discourse?

    Have you ever had anyone answer the former? My time is limited, I don't like games.

    >If it is the latter then I'm for that where we can have an enjoyable exploration and exchange of ideas;

    "Enjoyable" to you, right?

     >if it's the former then that's not what I call debate, and I'm not interested in continuing with you.

    Lol. Ok
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2668 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    @ethang5

    I have to say that I was expecting a bit more from you than sarcasm, derision, projection, deflection and blatant acts of desperation. My mistake; I was obviously expecting a bit too much. I think we're done here.

     By all means continue to respond but forgive me if I do not respond back as I will likely be assuming a similar response to your last one. But if that's what you want to do then so be it. In this particular point in the thread with you this is where I say goodbye. Have a nice day. :)



  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    >I have to say that I was expecting a bit more from you than sarcasm, derision, projection, deflection and blatant acts of desperation. My mistake; I was obviously expecting a bit too much. I think we're done here.

    Lol. You can't control the debate, but you can control the ending eh? You were done a few responses ago Z.

    >By all means continue to respond but forgive me if I do not respond back as I will likely be assuming a similar response to your last one.

    Confirmation bias works.

    >But if that's what you want to do then so be it. In this particular point in the thread with you this is where I say goodbye. Have a nice day. 

    Thanks. You too.
    ZeusAres42

  • >I have to say that I was expecting a bit more from you than sarcasm, derision, projection, deflection and blatant acts of desperation. My mistake; I was obviously expecting a bit too much. I think we're done here.

    Lol. You can't control the debate, but you can control the ending eh? You were done a few responses ago Z.

    And this bit is where you let yourself down miserably. What you've just said here is a reflection that you don't know how rational discourse works. You did somewhat indicate this a few response back but these later responses just confirm that even more.

    The one and the only reason I am now done with you is that my efforts to engage in civil and rational discourse with you have proven futile. So don't go and delude yourself into thinking that you're some superior debater that has beaten me; that's not even how debate works, but it obviously is how your mind works! You simply are not worth my time to have a serious discussion with.

    By all means, continue to respond to this as I could do with another laugh just like the last one.





  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 ;

    >I have to say that I was expecting a bit more from you than sarcasm, derision, projection, deflection and blatant acts of desperation. My mistake; I was obviously expecting a bit too much. I think we're done here.

    Lol. You can't control the debate, but you can control the ending eh? You were done a few responses ago Z.

    >And this bit is where you let yourself down miserably. What you've just said here is a reflection that you don't know how rational discourse works.

    Still trying to be a teacher huh? You aren't a judge Z. You are not a referee. I am not applying for your validation or approval.

    You would do better if you just stated your argument and then countered any rebuttals. All you do now is pontificate smugly on your opponent's style. That isn't debate.

    Get rid of the lame liberal belief that only you are rational, and whatever you don't believe is untrue. It's absurd.

    >You did somewhat indicate this a few response back but these later responses just confirm that even more.

    I have many fans, but few of them are interested in your psychoanalysis of me. They logged in to see a debate. You aren't nearly as captivating as you think you are.

    >The one and the only reason I am now done with you is that my efforts to engage in civil and rational discourse with you have proven futile. 

    So you posted again after saying goodbye to say you were done with me? OK.

    >So don't go and delude yourself into thinking that you're some superior debater that has beaten me;

    I am a superior debater, but I say so because you didn't debate. You complained that I didn't do what you liked, and inexplicably tried to become a teacher instead of a debater.

    You may be equal to me in debating skill, but we'll never know unless you stop strutting and actually debate.

    >..that's not even how debate works, but it obviously is how your mind works! You simply are not worth my time to have a serious discussion with.

    Then I am honored you had a few minutes to come back and tell me again how little I was worth your time.

    >By all means, continue to respond to this as I could do with another laugh just like the last one.

    Funny, you don't sound amused. Experience has thought me that when an atheist claims to be laughing, he's quite miffed.

    Look, focus on the debate itself and not on your oh so astute observations of your opponents character.

    Let your premium member badge and your debate skills do your bragging for you.

    Have a nice day. 

    ZeusAres42
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    at one point during my post, you made a claim without any justification that I was uniformed; not any where true and as well you never said what I was uniformed at. As well I could say you are uniformed at many topics such as cellular nutrition or ancient history. I think half of what you claim to be your knowledge is mostly found by looking it on the web in which even a 10 year old could do. claiming that god has only good qualities is what is absurd when the bible points out the opposite ones as well. however just ignore them and pretend that they are not in the bible and perhaps we can take the bible back into time and have the church leaders remove those bad qualities from the books like so many other things that they removed. maybe that will make you happy for then you can point out that there was never any anger or jealousy or any other bad qualities in the bible. you know what; God is an authoritarian and you can not be one by only have good character. @ethang5
    ethang5
  • ethang5ethang5 258 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    >at one point during my post, you made a claim without any justification that I was uniformed;

    Your posts are ample justification.

    >not any where true and as well you never said what I was uniformed at.

    Are you informed at anything?>

    >As well I could say you are uniformed at many topics such as cellular nutrition or ancient history.

    You could say anything at all. But I happen to be informed about both cellular nutrition and ancient history.

    >I think half of what you claim to be your knowledge is mostly found by looking it on the web in which even a 10 year old could do.

    I have an education, and if you had one too, you would know that google mining is not a substitute.

    >claiming that god has only good qualities is what is absurd when the bible points out the opposite ones as well.

    I did not claim God had only good qualities, I said your criteria for calling qualities of God "bad" were incoherent. An education would have helped you see the difference.

    >however just ignore them and pretend that they are not in the bible and perhaps we can take the bible back into time and have the church leaders remove those bad qualities from the books like so many other things that they removed.

    It is comments like that which are justification for the claim that you are uninformed.

    >maybe that will make you happy for then you can point out that there was never any anger or jealousy or any other bad qualities in the bible.

    Neither anger or jealousy are necessarily bad. As I tried to tell you, simply calling something bad doesn't make it bad, plus you had no standard for good and bad. What you call "bad" is simply what you don't like, and your tastes are not what morality is.

    >you know what; God is an authoritarian and you can not be one by only have good character.

    How old are you really? You sound like a 5 year old judging his father "bad" because he wouldn't let you play with a knife.

    You may simply be too young for this convo.
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    yeah; well perhaps you are the one who is uniformed; you can not see it and I am sure if I could ask you questions in real time where you would have to answer at once, then you would fail. ancient history? wow. very few Christians refuse to abandon the idea of the bible that through the genealogy of jesus to adam that the world is a mere 6000 years old. how nice of you to actually refute that idea. telling me I have no education is just as absurd as some google geek sitting behind a screen and pretending he knows more than others. anyone can see by your answers how narrow minded that you are.  one could show your kind absolute proof on something and you would simply not believe it if it conflicts with your beliefs; kind of like those flat earth people or those who refuse to believe we went to the moon. going back through my posts I see you tell me God has only good qualities that he can not be bad, then you say suddenly that you never said that, but you just disagree with how I say it. get an education yourself. The calculations of continental drift in real time alone proves that the earth is much older that the bible says. Since you believe that the bible is pure and true and of gods word then you would have to gather every single event in human history and place it into a  universe of a mere few thousand year old. Sooner or later someone will find your words as an exact copy of an online site or from a book. I can't wait. Basically, you are a fraud!@ ethang5
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  
    Let's have a civilized discussion. This is an opportunity to learn. I know in an effort to make your point tensions can run high. There is no winners or losers. I personally feel that both sides can learn from one another to help each other grow. We all have assumptions, that is the goal of the discussion to discover them and make adjustments.

     Let's look back at the topic.

     If God is real and the Bible is true: Then the earth is much older than 6000 years. Man has only been alive for 6000 years. The Bible speaks about creative days, we know they are not 24 hours. Because God made the Sun and stars on the fourth day. So the creative days were not 24 hour periods. It seems like the creative days could have been 100s of millions of years each. Since God is the creator of "time" for the physical universe, time has no effect on him. Nevertheless, because he mentions the created items in days, there could have been an organized period. If you notice the Bible states God created animals on the fifth day. Then God creates man at the end of the sixth day. This lends to the understanding of why the fossil record be in rock. Also this could explain the Dinosaurs. Humans according to calculations double in population every 150 years. Counting backwards you arrive back aproximately 6000 years. 
    maxx
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    Assuming that the days were 1000 years each then creation would just be 6000 years and even the Bible says a day to god is 1000 years. And I’m sorry, but there is tons of concrete evidence that humans existed long ago. @Sand
  • maxx said:
    assuming for the sake of the argument that God is real and that the entire bible is true and reflects his word; then what can you tell me about his character?

    As we are to presume GOD is real, is not a religion, and the bible is true in that it reflects word of GOD. What does this say of character?

    GOD is real. Is GOD a religion? The bible is a form of truth, is the bible whole truth in context? When the word of an axiom is revealed as truth it’s meaning is logical. An axiom itself is neither just male or only female, it is an expression of logic, or no logic and is simply self-evident.

    Is that an answer to be told of character in GOD? Imagine what the world would be like if God had been only a religion.


  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -   edited July 2019
    No John c. I’m asking according to the Bible what character traits does god have; not what you believe he has. Look at how he acts and does things in the Bible and tell me what kind of character he has@John_C_87
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    Please enlighten me, give me some evidence that man has existed on earth longer than 6000 years.

  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
    I am sure you would flat out reject carbon dating even though science has proven it works so why bother. @Sand
  • SandSand 307 Pts   -  

    The problem with carbon dating is it has a lot of assumptions. The formula has been corrected several times to adjust for wrong dating.
    Just to name a few:
    Assumption #1 - The weather is the same now as it was then.
    Assumption #2 - Carbon dioxide pollution had no effect on the original formula.
    Assumption #3 - Little things can give false readings.

    Someone took a 400 year piece of wood that gave a carbon date of over 9000 years in carbon 14.

    I know you feel I am flat out rejecting carbon dating, but I am not. I just feel that it has a lot of assumptions.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    I’m afraid E T will avoid your question it’s just to tricky for him or maybe you’re in for the usual fury laden response 
  • maxxmaxx 1131 Pts   -  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch