The Instigator
Talib.ul-Ilm
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
WilliamofOckham
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

A Perfect Being Can Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
WilliamofOckham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,287 times Debate No: 33401
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (8)

 

Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

The Rules:

  1. No swearing.
  2. No slander.
  3. No insult to character.

The Debate Format:

  1. The opponent will immediately begin with a rebuttal, and it will be counter-arguments and rebuttals from then on.




My Argument

1. A perfect being exists.
2. The perfect being has free will.

  1. The ability to be evil or good.

3. The perfect being creates outside of itself, the universe.

  1. Because the perfect being has free will, His creation too has the potential for free will within it.
  2. Both the perfect being and His creation are separate entities, separate beings. Same perfection, different nature.

4. The universe is perfect, and is made up of perfect parts.

  1. Just because there exists evil, doesn't mean the universe is imperfect. It means the opposite, as God has free will, so must His creation.
  2. Just because there is a dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space, doesn't mean the creation is imperfect. On the contrary, they are perfect necessities to the creation.
  3. What defines perfect is subjective, where one sees imperfection, I see perfection, and can argue such.
  4. The parts individually are not the being that is the universe, but the parts collectively are the being that is the universe.
5. Therefore because the Creator and the creation are both perfect, and the creation has perfect parts (including the potential for free will), they are both logically consistent with each other.


In order for Con to give a rebuttal, he must show how the parts within creation are not perfect. And the creation is its own entity, being, so to compare the perfect being to just a part of the perfect creation, exluding the rest, would require Con to show how it is logical to take a part and call it the whole.

Example: I remove the leg off of a chair and call the leg a chair. (This is not logical, for it is no longer the chair. It is something new all-together.)

Example: You're doing an autopsy, and the family of the deceased asks to see the body, you cut off the foot and bring it to them and say that's the body.

Example: A Muslim goes to a Christian and asks what God is in the Trinity. The Christian says that God is the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit, and the Father, and the Son is who God is.
WilliamofOckham

Con

1. Knowledge of God

This is my simple argument; the argument of non-cognitivism:

I. There are three attributes of existents which concern us particularly, these being:

A. Primary Attributes - The basic nature a particular thing is composed of. What a thing is, specifically, that it may do particular things or affect those around it in a particular way. The following two types of attributes provided below can only be applied to a thing if they can be related to an existent"s primary attribute and the primary attribute is positively identified
B. Secondary Attributes - Character traits or abilities a particular thing may enact or possess. examples: being generous, kind, powerful, wise
C. Relational Attributes " What we associate with the character. For example, in the case of President Obama, the fact that he is the President of the United States is an example of a relational attribute.

II. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existent"s A in order to be considered meaningful.
III. The term "God" lacks a positively identified A.
IV. Because of this, the term "God" holds no justified A, B, or C. (From III)
V. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
VI. Therefore, the term "God" is meaningless. (From IV, V, and VI)
VII. Therefore, the god concept is invalid.1

We have to know what God is before we can prove its existence. "Until the content of a belief is made clear, the appeal to accept the belief on faithis beside the point, for one would not know what one has accepted. The request forthe meaning of a religious belief is logically prior to the question of accepting that belief on faith or to the question of whether that belief constitutes knowledge."2

God cannot be proven until he is described.

Think of it another way. God is typically defined as something like: "Almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true."3

If God is incomprehensible and ineffable, how can the other attributes of God be known if he can neither be understood nor described? Therefore:

1. Anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist.
2. God has contradictory attributes
3. Therefore, God cannot exist.4

2. Demographics of God"s Belief

1. If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism make Atheism more plausible than Theism.
2. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism.
3. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism.

We can begin by making some simple observations:

1. There are many more Muslims than Christians in the Middle East
2. There are many more Hindus in India than in the rest of the world
3. In the ancient world, every culture had its own mythology.
4. In fact, these mythologies often contradicted each other and varied wildly.5, 6, 7

"God" seems to be just a social protocol that depends on the particular race/country/region of the people who practice it. It is not one coherent belief, and should be discarded as such.

3. The Problem of Evil

Here is it in its simplest form:

1. If God exists, unjustified evil does not exist
2. Unjustified evil does exist
3. Therefore, God does not exist.8

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exists? God cannot exist if there is evil.

Works Cited:

1 http://debate.org...
2 Smith, G. "Atheism: The Case Against God"
3 National Catholic Almanac (1968), p. 360.
4 http://www.infidels.org...
5 http://www.state.gov...
6 http://censusindia.gov.in...
7 http://www.mythweb.com...
8 Tobin, P. "The Rejection of Pascal"s Wager: The Skeptic"s Guide to Christianity."
http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

1. Knowledge of God

A. Primary Attributes: Allaah is One. Allaah is transcendant, meaning that He is not material, He is immaterial, not of the substance of His creation. Allaah is self-sustaining, He doesn't require anything to exist.

B. Secondary Attributes: The Merciful, The Compassionate, The Sovereign, The Holy, The Flawless, The Giver of Faith, The Guardian, The Incomparable, The Compeller, The Proud, The Creator, The Maker of Perfect Harmony, The Shaper of Unique Beauty, The Forgiver, The Subduer, The Bestower, The Provider, The Opener, The Knower, The Constricter, The Expander, The Abaser, The Exalter, The Honorer, The Dishonorer, The All-Hearing, The All-Seeing, The Arbiter, The Just, The Subtle, The Aware, The Forebearer, The Magnificent, The Concealer of Faults, The Rewarder of Thankfulness, The Highest, The Great, The Preserver, The Maintainer, The Reckoner, The Majestic, The Generous, The Vigilant, The Responder to Prayer, The Vast, The Wise, The Loving, The Glorious, The Resurrector, The Witness, The Truth, The Trustee, The Strong, The Firm, The Friend, The Praised, The Appraiser, The Beginner, The Restorer, The Life-Giver, The Life-Taker, The Living, The Self-Existing, The Resourceful, The Noble, The Unique, The One, The Eternal, The Able, The Powerful, The Promoter, The Postponer, The First, The Last, The Manifest, The Hidden, The Governer, The Exalted, The Source of All Goodness, The Acceptor of Repentence, The Avenger, The Pardoner, The Clement, The King of Absolute Sovereignty, The Lord of Majesty and Generosity, The Equitable, The Gatherer, The Rich, The Enricher, The Protector, The Punisher, The Creator of the Beneficial, The Light, The Guide, The Originator, The Everlasting, The Inheritor, The Right in Guidance, The Patient.

C. Relational Attributes: Allaah is the Creator, the universe is the creation. Allaah is our Lord, our God, our ultimate end.


There are no contradictory attributes that you can name that do not go along with God, or that can't be explained.



2. Demographics of Belief in God

1. The demographics for the belief in God are not explained by Atheism, as Atheism is the belief that there is no deity. So that really doesn't make sense, unless you mean to say that because all of the religions are different, that none can be true, which makes no sense. Why? Because many religions actually point to one God, to one ultimate Source of all that is. In fact there is a Perennial Philosophy in the world, that is based off of traditions everywhere. This philosophy is Panentheistic, and comes from Sufism, Gnosticism, Kaballah, Daoism, Buddhism, Vedanta, Platonism, Neoplatonism, etc. I can easily twist this around and say that because everywhere in the world people are in search of God, that God does indeed exist.
2. The demographics of the belief in God or higher beings are better explained by an innate seeking for God and truth.
3. Therefore, Theism and God is more plausible than Atheism.

Con's Observations:

1. There are more people who lean towards the Ultimate Source than those who disbelieve in any higher power at all.
2. There are many Hindus who also point towards One God, as many other religions in the world.
3. This really doesn't matter, as there is a large difference between religion that has been divinely revealed and sought through meditation and philosophy than regular mythologies.
4. That actually depends on the area. You can find depending on who you compare more similarities than contradictions, but read the above, it doesn't matter.

God has been sought by all of mankind since we began to become civilized and could truly contemplate, and has been revealed to us through Himself, not to mention has been concluded by mere philosophy.



3. The Problem of Evil

1. God has free will, therefore creation has the potential for free will.
2. Because creation has the potential for free will, all evil is justified, as it comes from the will of sentient beings or natural consequences.
3. Because God has free will, created the universe with the potential for free will, evil is not a problem, it is the lack of the emulation of God, of obeying God. It is also merely the choice on the part of others to do evil.
4. Because God created the universe and manking with the intention of testing us, He doesn't necessarily have to step in and right every last wrong, to take away the test is to take away free will, to take away free will is to completely distort our entire creation.

As you can see, there is an explanation for everything, you simply have to seek it, and then contemplate.



4. The Cliche

There are many Atheists who will ask the offensive question, "Well do you believe in the tooth fairy?", as if it actually has any weight. Con in his own way suggested this by naming off the many mythologies. This is a cliche, why? Because there is a massive difference between a divinely revealed religion, and the belief in God based off of deep philosophical contemplation and meditation. A very large difference. So I would like to ask Con to leave this kind of cliche aside as we continue the debate.

WilliamofOckham

Con

If I understand my opponent"s argument correctly, it is that the "Creation" is perfect because the "Creator" is perfect. However, if this is true, there are countless flaws in this understanding. I will point out 3.

1. The Orbit of the Planets

This was in fact a major crisis for the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th Century. During this time, Kepler formulated that the motion of the planets around the sun was not circular, but elliptical. This was, at the time, considered heretical because God"s creation was supposed to be perfect; however, if the motion of the planets around the sun were elliptical, that would imply an imperfect creation. Therefore, because the motion of the planets around the sun is elliptical, God"s creation is not perfect.

2. The Earth"s Shape

The Earth"s shape is not a sphere; it is more flat than a sphere at the poles, and is bulging at the equator. This implies that the Earth"s is not a perfect sphere. Therefore, because the Earth"s space is not spherical, God"s creation is not perfect.

3. The Problem of Evil

This is my main point. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" " Epicurus. This is the problem of evil in a nutshell. If evil exists, then the creation must be imperfect.

The main problem is the point of "unjustified evil", or evil that is brought on innocent people. Such examples would be Breivik"s massacre in Norway in 2011 that killed over 70 children, Hurricane Sandy in which over 100 people died, and any crime where someone innocent is victimized.

The existence of this type of evil should not be around in a "perfect creation". As Charles Bradlaugh explains:

The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block for the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God or it exist independently; but it cannot be caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exists hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been eternal, but according to the theist, it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or outside God; but according to the theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity.1

Therefore, I conclude with this argument:

1.If God exists, then he is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (by definition).
2. If proposition 1 is true, then unjustufied evil will not occur.
3. However, unjustified evil does occur.
4. If evil exists, than the creation is imperfect.

4. The Imperfect Creation Summarized

If God is all knowing and all powerful then why did It create such an imperfect creation such as humankind? Any half decent mechanical engineer will tell you that if you designed the human skeleton that you would place the spinal column centrally within the rib cage as opposed to its current cantilever position. The reason for the cantilever design is due to our evolutionary past when we walked on all fours (such as dogs) in which the cantilever design is superior. The result of this imperfect cantilever design is that hundreds of thousands of people suffer acute back pain. Why did God design the human "cooling system" as it is? Humans sweat so much in a hot climate that they continually need water to replenish that lost through perspiration. The hairless human is so useless in cold climates that they would die within minutes without clothing. Why did God design the lower intestine wall lining so that it is unfinished? Why did God design the eye so poorly that it has had to undergo over forty macro redesigns since its first configuration? Why did God combine the breathing passage with the eating and drinking passage? This necessitated the introduction of an epiglottis to prevent choking (1,000s choke to death every day worldwide). Other mammals do not have this dangerous arrangement. Why do men have nipples? Why combine the excretory organs with the reproductive organs " thereby causing high risk of infection (particularly high for females during menstruation)? Why is the female clitoris in entirely the wrong position to give her sexual satisfaction during the standard positions of sexual intercourse? Why have females got such a narrow birth passage " necessitating severe deformation of the baby's head during birth? (distress for both baby and mother). Why do we have nails on our toes? The why-list is endless!
An interesting corollary of evolution is that it tells us there is no single perfect solution to survival. Life on Earth consists of a variety of species, which can be summarised into 5 key life forms: 1) bacteria, 2) algae, 3) molds, yeasts and mushrooms, 4) animals and 5) plants. Each of these 5 classifications are further subdivided. For example, animals are cold or warm blooded, mammal, reptilian, invertebrate, and so on. Some animals have eyes, while others survive quite happily without the need for eyes. Those animals with eyes have different types of eye, such as the human eye versus the fish eye or fly eye. A human couldn't last a single day in a desert without water, whereas scorpions survive without the need for mains water on tap. This is evolution: different species for different environments, with no single species being ideally suited for all environments. Implying that no life form is perfect. Indeed, all life forms are highly imperfect. Fine if you believe in evolution but far from valid if you believe in a perfect creator of everything.
We cannot understand why an all knowing and all powerful being would create such an imperfect universe. If God truly was/is all knowing and all powerful and knew that It could not create a perfect universe then it would firstly not even attempt creating a universe and secondly would destroy an imperfect universe. The fact that we currently exist in an imperfect state implies that God is not all knowing and not all powerful and does not exist.2

Works Cited:

1 http://www.ccel.org...
2 http://www.god-does-not-exist.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

1. The Orbit of the Planets

This was specific to the Catholic Church, first of all. And second of all, how does this in any way truly show that the creation is not perfect? It doesn't. So what? So the orbit is elliptical. This is explained by science as to why it does this. And it is just another perfect part of the perfect creation. Con has to show me how this is actually imperfect, and how scientifically and logically it would make more sense to have a circular orbit, all the while taking into account the consequences should it be circular. Why is the orbit elliptical? I call that another perfect part.



2. The Earth's Shape

The reply to this is the same as above. Science perfectly explains as to why this happened. Con seems to think that everything must be a perfect circle in order to be perfect. Why so? When you actually look into the science of why the Earth is the way it is, you will see perfection and beauty in its creation.

Interestingly enough, the Qur'an actually speaks of this. http://www.answering-christianity.com...



3. The Problem of Evil

Again, there is no problem of evil. Epicurus didn't take into account what would happen if you remove all evil from the universe. Lets think about it for a second. If you remove all evil from the universe, you remove all free will. I'm sure both Con and I have committed some "sin" or "evil" in our past that we aren't proud of. If God were to have taken away the ability for us to do that, God also would have taken away our free will, because we do not have free will if we can't choose to steal. So take away evil, and you take away free will, and you make it impossible for one to steal. Take away evil, and thereby free will, and you make it impossible to have war, to murder. Take away evil, and thereby free will, and you take away our authentic creation. Not to mention that you also completely distort the intention of creation, which is to test mankind, so God may as well have just made angels with no free will and nothing else.

If you take away the possibility of "evil," you completely distort the universe, because much of the "evil" today are things like natural phenomena, like volcanoes and hurricanes, earthquakes, as these all kill people and ruin lives as well. And to remove such natural phenomena would mean to distort the universe, the Earth in specific, and what makes it the Earth. Also, by taking away the possibility of evil, you completely distort our society, you make it unrealistic, as there are many scientific and psychological explanations as to why one does evil, the main one bing free will, the ability to choose a path.

Would Con prefer us all to be robots?

Therefore I conclude with this argument:
  1. If God exists, then he is naturally omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
  2. If God created the universe with the potential for free will, and with the intention to test mankind, sentient beings, and a universe that is perfectly logical with both free will and the intention, then there is no unjustified evil.
  3. There is no such thing as unjustified evil, as mankind has free will and was created with the intention of testing them.
  4. Therefore the creation is perfect, with perfect parts, and is logically consistent with a perfect being.


4. The Perfect Creation Summarized

Con seems to mention evolution an awful lot. In fact, that is the explanation to just about all of it. Evolution is actually one of the most perfect parts of our perfect creation. I challenge Con to think of something more beautiful and complex than creation by evolution. Sure, God could have just poofed everything into thin air, but God is logical, and so is creation, and He is also an artist, so something so crude wouldn't befit Him, now would it? Con goes on to name off all of these things that are imperfect, but what he doesn't realize is that he is calling evolution itself imperfect. So here is the challenge that he must meet:

Con has to think up of a way that is logically consistent, and as beautiful and complex as evolution as a means of creation of life. But keep in mind, he has to also explain through science how this is logically possible as well.

Everything that he mentioned as imperfect, is perfect. Take the possibility of such a part coming to be, and you take away the possibilities of so much more in our creation. Completely distorting it.



5. Conclusion

Con hasn't really given any actual rebuttal in my eyes. Everything seems to be a perfect part of a perfect creation intertwined with the intention of testing mankind and the possibility of free will. And evolution is just an amazing process of creating life that God implemented into our creation.
WilliamofOckham

Con

1. Knowledge of God

"The honorer, the dishonorer", "The life-giver, the life-taker", "The avenger, the pardoner", "The forgiver, the subduer", "The originator, the everlasting", The first, the last". These are all examples of contradictions within my opponent"s long, unnecessary list of secondary attributes, and there are more.

These contradictions imply that God doesn"t exist (see my first argument on this subject). If you look at my opponent"s definition for primary attributes, you would see that this confirmed one part of my argument: "The term God lacks a positively defined A [primary attributes]", and my opponent confirms this. I later showed that this definition of God made that concept invalid, and therefore he does not exist.

If God has free-will, as some Christians believe that he does, then how can he know everything? These are some of the attributes of God that are logically incompatible; thus making the Theist God impossible. So, "Thus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians (and other theologians) are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb."5

I conclude with this argument: God is often described as omnipotent and omniscient. But this problem arises:

1. God is all powerful.
A. Therefore, he can change the future.
2. God is all knowing.
A. Therefore, he knows the future.
3. A being who knows the future is powerless to change it.
4. Hence, an all-knowing, all-powerful, and freewilled God is impossible.

2. Demographics

My opponent"s argument here relies on the idea that a significant proportion of the world believes in a "higher power". However, not only is this an Ad Populum fallacy, it is also irrelevant. If 4 billion people decided to drink poison, should you do it?

My opponent fails to respond to my argument as to why different beliefs are so widespread, and why most are concentrated in one general area and culture. Atheism permeates the world, while theism is subject to cultural background. Therefore, atheism is more probable than theism.

3. The Problem of Evil

But how does giving man free-will relate to physical evils such as earthquakes, famines, plagues and floods? Thus, the free-will explanation cannot explain the existence of natural calamities that befall man.

But the free will explanation cannot even satisfactorily explain moral evil. If God is all powerful, he could have created all man with free will and with a predisposition towards doing good. But according to the same theologians, man is sinful by nature, with a predisposition for doing bad. God's action in giving man free-will and at the same time giving him a predisposition towards doing bad is no different morally from a man who drinks, on purpose, in front of a recently reformed alcoholic! If we describe such a man as irresponsible and immoral, why do we persist in calling such a God good?

The abstraction "man" used above is also misleading. All of mankind have free-will; some, a small minority, some men-and women-, chose evil and rob, kill, cheat and maim. Are the more numerous victims to be consoled by saying that this is a consequence of their (the victims) having free will? In other words, are the innocent victims somehow responsible for the crimes on themselves because they have free will? The right to be protected from crimes is basic for all citizens in the world; any government that fails to deliver a reasonable amount of protection from these would be condemned and duly removed from power. Yet somehow it is okay for the all powerful God to give men free will and allow them to suffer the consequences from the minority who misuse it. To say that all will be rectified in the afterlife where the good will be rewarded in heaven and the bad will be punished in hell does not resolve the issue. As George H. Smith observes:

[N]o appeal to an afterlife can actually eradicate the problem of evil. An injustice always remains an injustice, regardless of any subsequent effort to comfort the victim. If a father, after beating his child unmercifully, later gives him a lollipop as compensation, this does not eradicate the original act or its evil nature. Nor would we praise the father as just and loving.

Yet, this is exactly what the Christians claim their God to do. He allows the faithful to suffer (remember Job!) and later rewards them. This God cannot, by any moral yardstick, be called good.1, 2, 3

4. The Clich"

There is no difference between believing in the tooth fairy and believing in God. In the end, every religion is just a collection of fairy tales revolving around one, or a group of unseen, out-of-this-world gods who seek the betterment (or sometime detriment) of mankind in an attempt to explain natural phenomena and evil. The tooth fairy and God are unseen, unheard, and not even sensed. If you don"t believe in the tooth fairy, you shouldn"t believe in a God.

5. The Earth"s Imperfections

An elliptical orbit is not perfect. A circular orbit is. In fact, like I mentioned in the last round, the Catholic Church had a big fuss about it because they claimed that an elliptical orbit of the planets made God"s creation imperfect. Perfection is defined as "An unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence [i.e. symmetry]." An elliptical orbit is not symmetrical, therefore it is not perfect, and therefore God"s creation is imperfect.

As for the shape of the Earth, the Earth is not so elongated as to call it an egg. The Earth is not an ellipsoid. In fact, when have you ever seen an egg with a bulging center and flat tops? Also, the same principle of asymmetry, imperfection, unomnipotent creation applies here as well.

On evolution itself, my opponent obviously did not read my argument. Evolution is also imperfect. I will requote some of my argument: "Why did God design the eye so poorly that it has had to undergo over forty macro redesigns since its first configuration? Why did God combine the breathing passage with the eating and drinking passage? This necessitated the introduction of an epiglottis to prevent choking (1,000s choke to death every day worldwide). Other mammals do not have this dangerous arrangement." That is an imperfection in evolution, and there are many more if you reread my round 2 argument about this. Evolution is by no means perfect whatsoever.4

If God truly was/is all knowing and all powerful and knew that It could not create a perfect universe then it would firstly not even attempt creating a universe and secondly would destroy an imperfect universe. The fact that we currently exist in an imperfect state implies that God is not all knowing and not all powerful and does not exist.

Works Cited:

1 http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...
2 Stein, The Encyclopedia of Unbelief: p191
3 Smith, Atheism: p84
4 http://www.god-does-not-exist.org...
5 Tobin, P. The Rejection of Pascal"s Wager
Debate Round No. 3
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

1. Knowledge of God

Actually there are no contradictions at all, Con is simply misunderstanding, a lot. He seems to neglect that everything has a context to it. God honors the righteous and dishonors the unrighteous, what's so hard to understand about that? God gives us life and He takes it away, only to give it to us once again for eternity, there isn't much of a contradiction here, if anything, if God can give life in the first place, then logically He must be able to take it away. These are the misunderstandings that Con seems to have with the attributes of God that I gave.

Con says that for God to know everything and have free will at the same time is impossible. Well. Why? Just because you know everything that is, you're going to refuse to create and bless sentient beings like us with life and self-awareness? Yeah, that makes sense. A parent from an African wartorn village has a child with full knowledge of what their life is very likely to be like. It is the same here, God may know everything, but out of love, still created, still gave us an opportunity.

Because God has free will, your formula completely fails. Just because God knows everything doesn't mean He doesn't bless us with the chance of life. And just because he doesn't right every single wrong, doesn't mean he doesn't do anything to help us out.


2. Demographics

Con's argument lies in that because religions all over the world seem to be cultural and theologically different, that they are all wrong. But he seems to neglect that so many religions around the world have many similiarities as well, and there is even a Perennial Philosophy found throughout the world.

This Perennial Philosophy is found within Buddhism, Platonism, Neoplatonism, Daoism, Vedanta, Sufism, Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and more. These traditions all have the same Pantheistic and Panentheistic traits within them. They all teach what leads to either The All is God, or The All is one part of two pieces of God, with the second being a transcendent source of infinite production allowing us to be. As you can see, the demographics are hardly evidence for Atheism, if anything, they are evidence for Pantheism and Panentheism, because they all point to One God.


3. The Problem of Free Will

Con is again misunderstanding. He neglects to understand the context of many things, I am starting to wonder if this is intentional. Yes, there are many natural disasters, but there are also many things that counter those disasters, that bring about balance. Remember that one of God's names is The Maker of Perfect Harmony. Just as there is earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, there are magnificent harvests, people born with extremely high IQ's like Einstein, and much more. Not to mention that those earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are perfect parts of our perfect creation, so important that they are a big reason as to why the Earth is the way it is.

Con says that if God were all-powerful, that He would have created man with a disposition towards good. Well, who is to say that He didn't? Not to mention that He has revealed Himself to us, to help guide us. And our very sentience is a disposition towards good, because so many people would think twice before taking an action that would make someone sad and cry, etc.

Free will is a perfect explanation to it all, because you're free to choose between good and evil actions and paths. If you take away this possibility in any way at all, you have taken away true free will. Con wants to speak about the victims, but what of them? Now they rest in their graves, peacefully, awaiting the Last Day. If there was no possibility of victims suffering, there would be no possibility of assailants, and therefore no possibility of free will. This is pretty self-explanatory.


4. The Cliche

This is where Con should lose conduct points, as I have already explained clearly as to why this is a cliche, and should not be used. I suppose I will explain this again.

The tooth fairy and the concept of God are extremely different. One, God has revealed Himself to us through divine revelations throughout the world. Two, God has been concluded philosophically to be true by many philosophers. Three, the tooth fairy is clealy just mythological fairy tales for children, and nobody actually speaks of them as being real.

Why should Con lose conduct points on this? Because of the other reason as to why it's a cliche. Obviously the concept of God and the idea of the tooth fairy are different, the tooth fairy is nowhere near the level of God, and Con knows this. The other reason is that this is a psychological warfare tactic. Think about it. If you're in a debate, and you demean the idea of God down to something that everybody sees as a fairy tale, you're not only insulting the other person, you're psychologically attacking them, and their concept of God, when He and the tooth fairy are nowhere near the same level.


5. The Earth's Imperfections

You hear that, ladies? If you're not symmetrical, you're not perfect. I'll be sure to remind Con's future wife of this.

As to what the Catholic Church has to say about the elliptical orbit, this has no impact on me, and hardly on anybody today. Why? Because we now know why the orbit is elliptical, and it is perfect that way because of those reasons. I have already explained this.

The same applies to the shape of the Earth. Again, why does it have to be a perfect circle in order to be perfect?

Con seems to think that because the eye had to go through a complex and beautiful process of evolution, that we are not perfect. No, evolution is the perfect tool of creating life within the perfect creation. And why not combine the drinking passage with the breathing? That's pretty damn awesome that we can do two, completely different things all in one. People die of choking, but they also live, I guess it was just their day to die.

Nothing is imperfect. And my challenge from my last rebuttal still stands. If he finds all of these to be imperfect, I challenge him to show me scientifically and logically, how he would create the perfect universe, or, what is perfect in his eyes.

The definition of perfect is subjective, everything is in perfect balance, therefore every part is perfect, and because every part is perfect, the creation is perfect, and logically consistent with a perfect God.
WilliamofOckham

Con

I am going to bow out. I feel like pro is just repeating himself constantly.
Debate Round No. 4
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

The contender has forfeited. There is nothing much else to say except for al-Hamdulilaah, praise be to God.
WilliamofOckham

Con

Again, I won't repeat myself. I hand this over to the voters.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
You completely misunderstood, Magic. Because in Islam, it is clear that God is completely "unlike" His creation, therefore if the creation is material, God is immaterial, and not like His creation. Also, God is transcendent, as He is beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience, and surpasses the ordinary.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
" Primary Attributes: Allaah is One. Allaah is transcendant, meaning that He is not material, He is immaterial, not of the substance of His creation. Allaah is self-sustaining, He doesn't require anything to exist."

Not primary at all. The reason I stopped using this argument and am using a simpler one (similar to the one DoubtingDave uses now) is because people just didn't grasp the concepts of the 3 attributes.

Being transcendent and immaterial is defining what God is NOT. It's not what God is. Transcendent = extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience, or not within our limits. Immaterial = not matter. It's like saying "Who is magic8000?" "He's not Barack Obama."
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
"Pro never proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is a necessary entity. Con showed a perfect God to be logically impossible, the best example of this is in his argument about why God doesn't defeat evil, a point dropped by Pro. This shows a perfect being to be logically impossible, and even if not Pro failed to prove God to be real and thus the first premise of his argument fails. Essentially, argument that constitutes the resolution is massive circular reasoning. Essentially it goes as such: "A perfect being exists, thus a perfect being can exist" This is not a valid argument."

The debate wasn't about the existence of God, you didn't pay attention. I answered Con as to why God doesn't defeat all evil, it takes away free will and authenticity, so there is a lie. It actually went, "Each part is perfect in that it is a perfect, logical necessity, in harmony, therefore because the parts are perfect, then creation is perfect, and logically consistent with a perfect being."

Thanks for not reading the debate and vote bombing. It was appreciated.
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
Fruitytree, thanks for illustrating that Mohamed was sexist.
Posted by Fruitytree 4 years ago
Fruitytree
Games: Mohamed PBUH said there were many perfect men, and few perfect women and counted amongst the women, Maiam the mother of Jesus and Assya the wife of pharaoh, It's good that you don't make statements form ignorance!
Posted by JarJarBinks 4 years ago
JarJarBinks
Jesus was perfect and he will come again one day but im voting Pro becuase Jesus was perfect
Posted by games 4 years ago
games
there will be no perfect being Muhammad (S.A.W) was the only perfect being
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
because con this not answered the pro's presumption.
so i am leaving the first argument from pro. which is extremely bad.
he said the primary attribute of thing.
and pro did refuted that GOD is not thing. he is not martial. so no need to be material. there are many many many things which are not material but exist.
like love and hate.
and for secondary and rational he did also well.
again demographic presumption was refuted well.
which is also in main RFD.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
Well, they misunderstood my statement about the egg-shaped Earth.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
so voters don't have head.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is a necessary entity. Con showed a perfect God to be logically impossible, the best example of this is in his argument about why God doesn't defeat evil, a point dropped by Pro. This shows a perfect being to be logically impossible, and even if not Pro failed to prove God to be real and thus the first premise of his argument fails. Essentially, argument that constitutes the resolution is massive circular reasoning. Essentially it goes as such: "A perfect being exists, thus a perfect being can exist" This is not a valid argument.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering A.WitherspoonVI, AgentRocks, DebaterAgent, and Fruitytree. Pro has four unjustifed points between those four votes (I don't count conduct, as con did forfeit).
Vote Placed by Fruitytree 4 years ago
Fruitytree
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to prove a perfect being cannot exist and also failed to refute Pro arguments. His forfeit made me give the point of better conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: a worst debate. first of all the pro open the debate in first round with assertion which are never answered by the cod. what con did, he did copy paste. he changed the whole resolution and made the debate undebatable by presenting more and so many more assertions. he presented the whole new case, and never answered or rebutted the presumption. he also presented the myth of other nations. well is is known they all believe in the most high GOD the almighty. but there gods down on earth, they considered them as subordinate. indeed there are only atheist and communist or secular who don't believe him. but they are on ongoing activity to find him that's they reason they debate more and more. well some find him some are in quest to find him. means they believe if they can find him one day because of high potential. well remaining is in comment section about the scattered and unaligned argument from both sides.
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 4 years ago
DebaterAgent
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: ...
Vote Placed by AgentRocks 4 years ago
AgentRocks
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that Jesus exists, so a perfect does exist. Good try Con, good job Pro.
Vote Placed by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
A.WitherspoonVI
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's conduct and arguments were lacking, even though Talib repeated himself Con did not seem to really defuse it.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Talib.ul-IlmWilliamofOckhamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: My initial urge was to give this to con for not making me read an addition 16,000 characters; but as pro took offense to this, and con had a chance to refute the offense which managed to confuse pro so much, I am giving pro the point. Spelling was fine. Argument: First of all con did not concede, he merely did not turn his argument into one by further increasing assertion; as too many points were repeating themselves, there was no reason to continue in the circle of the same point and counter points. Pro found many faults to con's argument, such as the problem of evil; his toothfairy points may have been a low blow, but the counter against those was an argument by assertion instead of relevance (the tooth fairy is real because mom said it was; insert other names for myth and person). Sources: Con had a number of them, whereas pro had one talking about how the earth is egg shaped... An egg, really? The prophet of the proposed perfect being, was given some bad information.