The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Tied
11 Points
The Contender
Talib.ul-Ilm
Con (against)
Tied
11 Points

A Perfect Being Cannot 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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,145 times Debate No: 33318
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (6)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

First round for acceptance. The Burden of proof is on me to show that a perfect being cannot exist. My opponent must undermine my claims.
Talib.ul-Ilm

Con

I accept the challenge. Any slander or insult to character is an automatic forfeit.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Perfect = Maximally Great

"To say that I tacitly endorse Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is an understatement...I am an enthusiastic proponent...The Anselmian conception of God as the greatest conceivable being or most perfect being has guided philosophical speculation..." - William Lane Craig [1]

If I want to have an intermediate of sorts, it makes more sense to say "x" is "kind of great" than "x" is "kind of perfect". I mean, something can be kind of great but it seems weird to say kind of perfect. Regardless, I will interchange between the two in this debate; keep in mind that the mean the same thing theistically. If I switch between them it is for ease of explanation.

Argument Against a Perfect Being (AKA God)

P1: If God exists, he is a perfect being

*"This follows from classical Theism"

P2: If a perfect being exists, his choices are consistent with 100% perfection

*"Anything less than 100% perfection is not perfection at all, but imperfection. Between two hypothetical beings; the one who has choices consistent with 100% perfection is self-evidently the perfect being, over a being who has choices consistent with imperfection. To state otherwise would seem to be an absurdity."

P3: A being who makes choices consistent with 100% perfection, would not choose to shift reality from:

(i) A reality consisting of 100% perfection

to

(ii) A reality consisting of imperfection (less than 100% perfection)

."This seems to follow naturally and is self-evident."

P4: If a perfect being exists, creating the universe would be shifting reality from (i) to (ii)

."Denial of this entails that either the universe and its entities is God, or that the universe is just as perfect. This destroys the notion of God. Therefore, the theist would have to concede that the universe and the entities it contains are imperfect. This means that if a perfect being exists; reality consisted of 100% perfection prior to the universe, while reality now consists of imperfection."

P5: A perfect being would not choose to create the universe

."This follows naturally from the preceding premises"

P6: If God exists, a perfect being would choose to create the universe

."This follows from classical Theism"

Conclusion: God does not exist

."This follows naturally from the preceding premises"

Possible Objections

The argument is logically valid, so my guess is that my opponent is going to deny P4; as the other premises are extremely self-evident. The objection will probably be with regards to how the universe is perfect. Since the universe is perfect, then it would be compatible with a perfect being. Well, if the universe is completely perfect then either:

(i) The universe is completely perfect, but has some imperfect parts

(ii) The universe is completely perfect, and has all perfect parts

Both (i) and (ii) contradict each other, so they both cannot be true. Which one is true? Well, saying (i) is true is the logical equivalent to:

(i) The house is completely red, but has some blue parts

The above makes no sense, as a completely red house would have all red parts. Similarly, a completely perfect universe would have all perfect parts (logic 101). Since (i) is out of the question deductively, that leaves us with (ii). However, "beings" are part of the universe. If God is defined as a "perfect" "being", and (ii) entails that all the parts are "perfect", then his means that according to the definition of God, every single being on Earth is God including Charles Manson. This position is fatal to the theist; and I will explain it further. What I suspect my opponent will do is equivocate between two types of perfection. I will explain below:

Categorical Perfection/ Greatness and General Perfection/ Greatness

My opponent is going to argue for the notion that the universe is perfect, and therefore the beginning of the universe would not shift reality from 100% perfection to imperfection. Therefore, P4 is false and my argument fails. Con will claim that the universe is a perfect universe, and thus is perfect and compatible with a perfect being. Does this argument hold up? I would say no. There is a confusion between categorical and general perfection/ greatness. If the universe is as a whole is perfect, then that only means that it is perfect...for a universe (its category). If part of the universe like an asteroid is perfect, this only means it is perfect...for an asteroid (its category). If a grain of sand is perfect, then this only means it is perfect...for a grain of sand (you get the picture). This route is fatal for the theist as I already showed, because what about beings? If we take this category type of perfection and apply it to beings then this means we are are perfect beings. Thus, we are Gods by definition. This makes no sense. If God is a perfect and maximally great then he has omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. However, if the universe and everything in is perfect for what it is, and humans are beings, then it follows that we are perfect beings. The theist must avoid this route because it leads to the conclusion that reality right now is not 100% perfect because it contains us. Why? Well any honest and rational being who had to dub one of two beings "perfect" between:

Being A: Maintains reality at a level of 100% perfection eternally

or

Being B: Maintained reality at a level of 100% perfection, but shifted reality into a state of imperfection (less than 100% perfection)

...Would agree that clearly Being A deserves the title of "perfect" and Being B obviously does not. Therefore, a perfect being would not have created anything imperfect, or that tainted reality if he exists. Now what about general perfection or greatness over categorical? Well, my I-phone is generally greater than a grain of sand. If we were not trying to be difficult and were all rational honest beings, and we had to choose between:

(i) A grain of sand at a beach
(ii) An I-Phone

...We would agree that (ii) is generally greater (keep in mind if my opponent tries to argue that perfection is subjective, then the resolution is affirmed by default).. However, this all changes when a category gets brought into it. For example, which is greater for the sand category? Obviously a grain of sand is more perfect and great than an I-Phone in the sand category. The distinction must be made because there is a huge difference.

Now, if God exists he is both:

(i) The most perfect being (categorically perfect with regards to beings)
(ii) The most perfect being (generally perfect with regards to perfection as a whole)

If God exists, then categorically he is a perfect being. However we already deduced that if all the parts of the whole of the universe are perfect categorically, and the universe contains beings, then this means that humans are the perfect beings. Obviously God is more perfect/ great of a being than a human.

These two beings:

(i) A omniscient, Omnipotent, omnibenevolent God
(ii) Charles Manson

.....Are not on the same level categorically or generally with regards to perfection. This means that the universe actually does contain imperfection if we accept categorical perfection. This means that the theist has to believe that a perfect being maintained reality at a level of 100% perfection, but shifted reality into a state of imperfection. However, we already know that it is self-evident that a perfect being would maintain reality at a level of 100% perfection. This means, that my argument would still seem to stand strong in light of these objections. Also, if there can be something just as perfect generally as God, but non-sentient, then Heaven would fit that description.

These two entities:

(i) Heaven (Kingdom of God)
(ii) A dead, cold, radiation filed vacuum (the universe)

...Are not on the same level generally with regards to perfection. This either way you look at it reality is imperfect and incompatible with God (a perfect being). A perfect being would maintain reality at 100% perfection eternally. This is not what we see with regards to the evidence.
Talib.ul-Ilm

Con

Good morning, everyone. Pro begins off by quoting William Lane Craig as if his word really has weight here, when it doesn't. He makes a long argument that seemingly makes sense, but I will show just the opposite, and how he basically does a straw man. Now follow along as I break down his argument and show you why it makes no sense.




Counter Argument Against a Perfect Being (AKA God)

"P1: If God exists, he is a perfect being"


Yes, God is a perfect being, most certainly.




"P2: If a perfect being exists, his choices are consistent with 100% perfection"


Sure. Of course, this is only natural and logical.




"P3: A being who makes choices consistent with 100% perfection, would not choose to shift reality from:

(i) A reality consisting of 100% perfection

to

(ii) A reality consisting of imperfection (less than 100% perfection)"


This is where Pro completely misunderstands the idea of God and His creation. He seems to in his own way equate the creation with God, but this simply can't be. Both God and His creation are completely different and separate realities.




"P4: If a perfect being exists, creating the universe would be shifting reality from (i) to (ii)"


Well, no. It would not be, because it is not "shifting" any reality at all, the All-Mighty is "creating" a whole other reality besides Himself.




"Denial of this entails that either the universe and its entities is God, or that the universe is just as perfect. This destroys the notion of God. Therefore, the theist would have to concede that the universe and the entities it contains are imperfect. This means that if a perfect being exists; reality consisted of 100% perfection prior to the universe, while reality now consists of imperfection."


Wrong, because both God and His creation are both different realities and entities, both of which are perfect. This is no way destroys the notion of God. But now we come to the real issue here, the real misunderstanding on Pro's part. He says "the theist would have to concede that the universe and the entities it contains are imperfect." I in no way see how this makes sense.
  1. Both God and His creation are separate and different realities.
  2. Both God and His creation are perfect realities.

Pro has to show me how the entirely separate reality of creation is imperfect now.




"P5: A perfect being would not choose to create the universe"


Well, why not? A perfect reality that is God has created another perfect reality that is the universe. Logic would follow that a perfect reality (God) creating a perfect reality (Creation) is logically consistent.




"The argument is logically valid, so my guess is that my opponent is going to deny P4; as the other premises are extremely self-evident. The objection will probably be with regards to how the universe is perfect. Since the universe is perfect, then it would be compatible with a perfect being. Well, if the universe is completely perfect then either:

(i) The universe is completely perfect, but has some imperfect parts

(ii) The universe is completely perfect, and has all perfect parts"


This is where Pro in his own way gives me a straw man. He has defined what perfect is under his own understanding, and that is not acceptable. In all reality, what this comes down to is the problem of evil, because I see everything in the universe as perfect. Let me basically counter the rest of what he said.


  1. God is a separate and perfect reality.
  2. Creation is a separate and perfect reality
  3. Therefore the perfect God creating a whole other perfect reality is logically consistent.

Pro wants to nit-pick and say that every part within the creation must be perfect in order for this to be perfect, and gives an example of Charles Manson and saying that by comparing him to God would be irrational, but let me explain why Charles Manson is indeed a perfect part within the universe, a necessity in fact.


  1. God created the other reality, creation, as a test for sentient beings.
  2. Without evil, there can be no test.
  3. Without evil, the reality that is creation today is no longer that same reality.
  • If you remove disease, evil and all of the like, you no longer have a test, because everything is good.
  • If you remove disease, evil and all of the like, you no longer have true free will, because it would not be possible for man to be evil, such as the likes of Charles Manson.

4. Therefore to not create with evil would mean to not create the perfect reality for a test.
5. Therefore, by creating the possibility of people like Charles Manson, by creating good, neutral and evil in general, you create the perfect reality, in fact, said evil in all actuality is now a "perfect part" because of the intention behind creating the universe in the first place.




Let me also explain something to those who are watching this debate. Everything is dependent upon everything else to exist. If you simply remove from creation just one element, you no longer have the same creation, at all. In fact, remove water, and all life is gone. Remove all of the carbon dioxide, and all life is gone, because trees use carbon dioxide for food and turn it into oxygen which all life that has lungs uses. Even if you remove the ability to create waste product from the universe, you no longer have the universe, because every animal produces waste, it is apart of its creation, and without this part, reality would not be reality, it would also become irrational, because many things produce waste, and that producing of waste is a necessity, a reality. So look at that, even "feces and urine" is a "perfect part" of our wonderful and perfect reality.




Conclusion

  1. God is a perfect reality.
  2. Creation is a perfect reality with perfect parts.
  3. Therefore the perfect reality of God creating a different and separate perfect reality that is creation, with perfect parts, is logically consistent.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting My Opponents Claims

"This is where Pro completely misunderstands the idea of God and His creation. He seems to in his own way equate the creation with God, but this simply can't be. Both God and His creation are completely different and separate realities." - Talib

A being who creates perfection is more perfect than a being who does not. Therefore, a perfect being does not create imperfection. Your argument is like saying that even though God is logical being, he could still create a perfectly spherical cube because his creation is not him. This is obviously a logical abomination, as the most logical being ever would create nothing illogical like that. Similarly, saying that a perfect God created imperfection is a logical abomination, as the most perfect being ever would not create anything imperfect like us.

Here is a thought experiment:

Lets say there is an "Existence Board" who gives people titles and tickets to "Existent Land", and this board is full of honest and rational beings. Being A and Being B walk up and both beings contradict each other. Therefore, only one of them can receive the title of "perfect" and the ticket to Existent Land.

Being A: "I am just as perfect as Being B, except I have created some imperfect things"
Being B: "I am just as perfect as Being A, except I have never created anything imperfect"

If a board of honest and rational beings were going to give the title and the ticket to a being, who would it be? The answer should be obvious if you are not intentionally being difficult, and that is Being B. Being B would get the title "perfect" and the ticket to Existent Land, and Being A would get banished to Non-Existent Land for eternity.

A perfect being does not create that which does not fall in line with 100%, because over a being who did, they would get shot down by the Existence Board every time. This is why we can deduce that if the person is perfect, then so is the creation because we could conceive of a more perfect being; one that did not create imperfection. If we can conceive of a more perfect being, then that being is God...Not the one we were previously thinking of.

"Well, no. It would not be, because it is not "shifting" any reality at all, the All-Mighty is "creating" a whole other reality besides Himself." - Talib

The above from my opponent is logically incoherent. Reality means everything in existence, so there cannot be a whole new reality created because that would mean that we have two "everything that exists" which would be absolutely absurd. If God created imperfection, then he shifted reality as a whole from a state of perfection to imperfection and made reality as a whole have a less than a 100% perfection rate. This choice is not consistent with 100% perfection. Thus, Premise 3 still stands firm. The crucial premise, is premise 4.

"Wrong, because both God and His creation are both different realities and entities, both of which are perfect." - Talib

Reality = all that exists. You cannot have two realities without contradicting yourself. I think my opponent is equivocating with regards to reality here. Also to say that the universe and God are generally as perfect is to say these two are just as equal in perfection:

(i) An omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being
(ii) A dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space

This is outrageous clearly, as God is self-evidently more generally perfect. To deny the intuitions that lead us to this truth, is to deny that the very intuitions which leads theists to attribute certain "perfect" qualities to God in the first place. If my opponent means that the universe is categorically perfect (as in, perfect for a universe), then I already explained why this position is fatal to the theist.

"1. Both God and His creation are separate and different realities
2. Both God and His creation are perfect realities.

Pro has to show me how the entirely separate reality of creation is imperfect now." - Talib


I already showed this is incoherent with regards to my argument. By "reality" I mean "the totality of everything that exists". There cannot be a separate "totality of everything that exist" from another "totality of everything that exists" because they would both be the subset of "the totality of everything that exists". Thus, if God created anything less than generally perfect than himself then what he did was change reality from

(i) 100% perfect
(ii) Imperfect (anything less than 100% perfect)

Since my opponent agrees that a perfect being makes choices 100% in line with perfection, then creating anything less than generally perfect than God, makes him disappear in a puff of logic.

"Logic would follow that a perfect reality (God) creating a perfect reality (Creation) is logically consistent." - Talib

It is not consistent, as there is an equivocating with the word "perfect". Con is claiming that because the universe is perfect for a universe (categorical perfection), that it is just as perfect as God (general perfection). That is a non-sequitur. This means that what Con is saying is not logically consistent in the slightest because he is committing the fallacy of equivocation.

" He has defined what perfect is under his own understanding, and that is not acceptable." - Talib

My opponent is confusing personal standards with logical necessity.

(i) The universe is completely perfect, but has some imperfect parts
(ii) The universe is completely perfect, and has all perfect parts

(ii) is completely perfect necessarily due to the laws of logic, it has nothing to do with any subjective beliefs. Since my opponent is confusing:

(i) Subjective understanding

with

(ii) Logical Necessity

...The rebuttal from Con here is an utter failure.

"If you remove disease, evil and all of the like, you no longer have a test, because everything is good. If you remove disease, evil and all of the like, you no longer have true free will, because it would not be possible for man to be evil, such as the likes of Charles Manson." - Talib

This is a straw man. My argument is not that God would remove aspects from what he has created, my argument is that he would never create the universe in the first place because the universe is generally less perfect than God, even if it is perfect for a universe. Also, to say that everything in the universe is perfect is to include the beings as well. This would makes Charles Manson a God.

"Everything is dependent upon everything else to exist. If you simply remove from creation just one element, you no longer have the same creation, at all. In fact, remove water, and all life is gone." - Talib

If the above is true it is only because God made it that way. God did not have to make it that way. Therefore acting like the way things are is necessary is nothing more than a cruel joke. Yes, if you take anything out of the equation it all falls apart. However, if God exists it did not have to be this way and he would have created that which is more in line with 100% perfect (or even better, not create at all as he is supposed to be 100% perfect himself).

"P1: God is a perfect reality.

P2: Creation is a perfect reality with perfect parts

P3: Therefore the perfect reality of God creating a different and separate perfect reality that is creation, with perfect parts, is logically consistent." - Talib

P1 fails because reality = the totality of existence. He would only be a "perfect reality" if he did not create anything and just existed in an eternal equilibrium of perfection. The second he creates anything less perfect generally than himself, he just lowered the percentage of perfection of reality as a whole. This would conflict with choice making consistent with 100% perfection. Ergo, God would not create the universe.

P2 fails for Con by default. If the "parts" are "perfect", and Charles Manson is a "part" of the universe, and Charles Manson is a "being", then he is God by definition.

P3 is based on failed premises. Also, what perfection is my opponent using?

(i) Categorical
(ii) General
Talib.ul-Ilm

Con


"A being who creates perfection is more perfect than a being who does not. Therefore, a perfect being does not create imperfection. Your argument is like saying that even though God is logical being, he could still create a perfectly spherical cube because his creation is not him. This is obviously a logical abomination, as the most logical being ever would create nothing illogical like that. Similarly, saying that a perfect God created imperfection is a logical abomination, as the most perfect being ever would not create anything imperfect like us." -
Rational


God did create perfection. He did not create imperfection. Therefore this is logically conistent.
God is perfect, and God created a perfect creation.


"The above from my opponent is logically incoherent. Reality means everything in existence, so there cannot be a whole new reality created because that would mean that we have two "everything that exists" which would be absolutely absurd. If God created imperfection, then he shifted reality as a whole from a state of perfection to imperfection and made reality as a whole have a less than a 100% perfection rate. This choice is not consistent with 100% perfection. Thus, Premise 3 still stands firm. The crucial premise, is premise 4." - Rational


No, equating the creation with God is logically incoherent, and that is not who the Abrahamic God is. That is what you are doing right now, you are saying that God and His creation are one reality, which is not so. And again, God is perfect and created a perfect creation. Show me how I am wrong.


"Reality = all that exists. You cannot have two realities without contradicting yourself. I think my opponent is equivocating with regards to reality here. Also to say that the universe and God are generally as perfect is to say these two are just as equal in perfection:

(i) An omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being
(ii) A dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space

This is outrageous clearly, as God is self-evidently more generally perfect. To deny the intuitions that lead us to this truth, is to deny that the very intuitions which leads theists to attribute certain "perfect" qualities to God in the first place. If my opponent means that the universe is categorically perfect (as in, perfect for a universe), then I already explained why this position is fatal to the theist." - Rational

God and His creation are two different realities, two different things. You are trying to equate God with His creation, which goes against the idea of the Abrahamic God. He transcends your concept of reality, the creation and the Creator can not be said to be the same thing, that is clear.

You are also implying that this dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space is not perfect. I say it is a perfect reality. So even if you do want to be technical and go against the definition of God being completely separate from His creation, this reality is still perfect.


"I already showed this is incoherent with regards to my argument...." - Rational


Okay. So lets say the totality of all that is. Because you can't equate the creation with the Creator. That much is clear. Again, God did create a perfect creation. Show me how I am wrong.


"It is not consistent, as there is an equivocating with the word "perfect". Con is claiming that because..." - Rational


It is not only perfect "for a universe," it is perfect period. You have to show me how the creation is not perfect. You have yet to do that. You merely gave me your opinion that it is not perfect. I see the creation as perfect in every way.


"My opponent is confusing personal standards with logical necessity.

(i) The universe is completely perfect, but has some imperfect parts
(ii) The universe is completely perfect, and has all perfect parts

(ii) is completely perfect necessarily due to the laws of logic, it has nothing to do with any subjective beliefs. Since my opponent is confusing:

(i) Subjective understanding

with

(ii) Logical Necessity

...The rebuttal from Con here is an utter failure." - Rational


It's actually the opposite. You are confusing personal standards and understandings with the creation and its Creator. In fact, you could say we both are. I say the universe is perfect, you say it is not. You have to show me how the universe is not perfect.


"This is a straw man. My argument is not that God would remove aspects from what he has created, my argument is that he would never create the universe in the first place because the universe is generally less perfect than God, even if it is perfect for a universe. Also, to say that everything in the universe is perfect is to include the beings as well. This would makes Charles Manson a God."


Not really. You have clearly stated that the universe is not perfect because people like Charles Manson are not perfect. You brought up the problem of evil. If you say it is not perfect because of Charles Manson, and I say the opposite, what then?

And again, you are equating the creation with the Creator, which simply can't be. The Creator for being a creator is perfect, and creation for being a creation is perfect. You have to show me how I am wrong. In no way can you equate the creation to the Creator.


"If the above is true it is only because God made it that way. God did not have to make it that way. Therefore acting like the way things are is necessary is nothing more than a cruel joke. Yes, if you take anything out of the equation it all falls apart. However, if God exists it did not have to be this way and he would have created that which is more in line with 100% perfect (or even better, not create at all as he is supposed to be 100% perfect himself)." - Rational


Actually, I would argue that God did indeed have to make it that way, a perfect being is also sentient, and there is a lot of wisdom in creating the universe in this way. You have to show me how I am wrong. I say that God created something which is one-hundred percent in line with perfection just as the Creator is perfect. As God has free will, so do we. That is an attribute of God, therefore we too must have that attribute.


"P1 fails because reality = the totality of existence. He would only be a "perfect reality" if he did not create anything and just existed in an eternal equilibrium of perfection. The second he creates anything less perfect generally than himself, he just lowered the percentage of perfection of reality as a whole. This would conflict with choice making consistent with 100% perfection. Ergo, God would not create the universe.

P2 fails for Con by default. If the "parts" are "perfect", and Charles Manson is a "part" of the universe, and Charles Manson is a "being", then he is God by definition.

P3 is based on failed premises. Also, what perfection is my opponent using?


(i) Categorical
(ii) General" -Rational


You are in your way equating God with the creation, which simply can't be, for they are two different entities. You are also giving your own opinion as to what perfect is.


My Rebuttal

1. A perfect being exists.
2. The perfect being has free will.
3. The perfect being creates outside of itself, the universe.

  1. And naturally, because the perfect being must create an equally perfect universe, there must be the possibility of free will, thereby allowing the likes of Charles Manson.

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

  1. Simply because there is evil, does not make it imperfect. Just because there is a dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space, does not make it imperfect. On the contrary, these are necessities.
5. Therefore because the Creator and the creation are both perfect, with perfect parts (including free will), they are both logically consistent.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Rebutting My Opponent's Claims

"
God did create perfection. He did not create imperfection." - Talib


Con has not backed up the above with anything. Thus, I am calling Con out on a bare-assertion fallacy. Regardless, if reality and its parts are perfect, then the beings inside the universe are perfect. If the beings inside the universe are perfect, then the beings inside are perfect beings (Gods by definition). This means that Charles Manson is God if the theist goes this route. It is absolutely fatal, and I am shocked that Con has not caught on to this.


"Therefore this is logically consistent. God is perfect, and God created a perfect creation." - Talib

It is not logically consistent, as Con is committing the fallacy of equivocation. The universe may be perfect for a universe, but it isn't perfect in general to God. Thus, the creation of the universe would still be taking reality as a whole from a state of 100% perfection to imperfection. This would be incompatible with a perfect being. A grain of sand may be perfect for a grain of sand, but a human being is generally greater. Since my opponent is equivocating and not specifying which "perfect" he is talking about, the above from Con is trivial at best.

"No, equating the creation with God is logically incoherent, and that is not who the Abrahamic God is." - Talib

If God exists, he is part of the same "totality of existence" as everybody else. He is just the same as his creation in that aspect. You cannot have duplicates of a "totality of existence". This is what I mean by "reality". To stop the confusion, instead of:

God shifted "reality" from "x" to "x"

I will say..

God shifted "the state of the totality of existence" from "x" to x"

Hopefully, this will stop Con from equivocating again.

"God and His creation are two different realities, two different things." - Talib

However they are part of the same totality of existence. If a perfect being makes choices consistent with 100% perfection, then he would not do something which would change the state of the totality of existence from:


(i) 100% perfection

to

(ii) Imperfection (less than 100% perfect)

This would necessarily be the case if he brought anything into existence less perfect in any way than him. The universe and Charles Mansion are not as generally perfect as God. Either way my opponent fails. Therefore, we live in a state of the totality of existence which is not 100% perfect. This means a perfect being cannot exist. If a perfect being makes choices consistent with 100% perfection, then a perfect being would not choose to shift the state of the totality of existence from his previous "God only" state of totality of existence which contained 100% perfection, to now.

This means that the resolution has been affirmed off of this alone.

"You are also implying that this dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space is not perfect. I say it is a perfect reality." - Talib

This means that the universe is no less perfect generally than God. This is like saying a grain of sand is no less perfect generally to a human being. This is completely counter intuitive. To stomp on our intuitions which lead to conclusions on greatness and perfection in this sense, is to stomp on Anselmian Perfect Being Theology as a whole! Thus, this would be self-refuting. Therefore, my opponent must say that the universe is not generally perfect, but categorically perfect for a universe (and that everthing within the universe is perfect for what it is). This is fatal I have said before, as beings exist within the universe. Thus, if we are perfect then we are perfect beings, and thus Gods. Therefore, this view of perfection cannot be held in context of the debate. My opponent either must:

(i) Accept that my argument is sound.
(ii) Claim that the universe and its parts are just as perfect as God generally (which would be to destroy the intuitions Perfect Being Theology depends upon).
(iii) Claim that the universe and its parts are perfect categorically (which would destroy theism, as this leads to the conclusion that Charles Mansion is a perfect being).

Either way, Con has no feasible escape route here.

"Because you can't equate the creation with the Creator. That much is clear. Again, God did create a perfect creation. Show me how I am wrong." - Talib

You can equate created with creator; as persons are but a reflections of their choices. Regardless, this is not the point. If God exists then he exists in the same totality of existence as I. Therefore, I can equate myself with God in that aspect. If he did anything which lead to less perfection than possible, then he would not make it past the "Existence Board" against a being I posit. A perfect being who makes choices consistent with 100% perfection is more perfect than a being who does not. If only God existed, then the state of the totality of existence would be that of 100% and no flaws. A perfect being would keep it this way. A perfect being would not break perfect symmetry to lead to the chaos we call The Big Bang and taint the state of the totality of existence with imperfection like bacteria. To say bacteria is perfect is to say it is no less great than God in general. This is absurd as obviously God would be more perfect and great than bacteria. Con has backed himself into a corner I do not think he will be able to escape.

"It is not only perfect "for a universe," it is perfect period." - Talib

Then this means that the universes inhabitants are perfect as well (Con admitted that a completely perfect whole has perfect parts). This means that Charles Manson is God. Your argument only works if Charles Manson is God by definition, along with Kim Kardashian. Does Con really want to go this route? I cannot see why he would. If everything is perfect besides God, and Flava Flav is a being, then he is a perfect being. Flava Flav is God according to Con.....Yeeaaaaa Boi!

"You are confusing personal standards and understandings with the creation and its Creator." - Talib

False. Con is confusing personal standards with logical necessity and that which is self-evident.

Being A: Perfect, but lead to "x" imperfection
Being B: Perfect, but lead to only perfection

Your argument would amount to saying that it is just my "personal belief" that Being B would be the perfect being over Being A if we can only choose one. This is looking at all wrong. Being B is self-evidently the more perfect being because his existence involves more perfection, it has nothing to do with anything subjective. These truths are objectively self-evident.

"Not really. You have clearly stated that the universe is not perfect because people like Charles Manson are not perfect." - Talib

Now you are catching on. To state otherwise would be to say Charles Manson is God. This is fatal to your position. Therefore, you have to admit the universe contains imperfection. This is fatal to your position as well, because you admitted that a perfect being who makes choices only makes choices consistent with 100% perfection. If God made a choice that lead to Charles Manson, then he is not perfect as he clearly shifted the state of the totality from God only (100% perfection) to God + Charles Manson (less than 100% perfection).


"If you say it is not perfect because of Charles Manson, and I say the opposite, what then?|" - Talib

You lose either way lol If go with my argument that the universe as a whole and its parts are imperfect, then the resolution is affirmed because you conceded that a perfect being makes choices only 100% consistent with complete perfection. Lets say we go with your argument that the universe and its parts are perfect; this means that because the "beings" in it are ""part" of the universe; we are "perfect". This means that Kim Kardashian is a perfect being. You either have to admit:

(i) God Does Not Exist
(ii) Kim Kardashian is God.

My opponent has no options left...

The resolution has been affirmed; as my opponent has no feasible escape route other than admitting Kim Kardashian is God.
Talib.ul-Ilm

Con

My Rebuttal

1. A perfect being exists.
2. The perfect being has free will.
3. The perfect being creates outside of itself, the universe.

  1. Because the perfect being has free will, so does His creation.

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

  1. Just because men like Charles Manson exist, doesn't mean the universe is imperfect. It means the opposite, as God has free will, so must man.
  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.
5. Therefore because the Creator and the creation are both perfect, and the creation has perfect parts (including free will), they are both logically consistent with each other.



Nowhere did Pro actually give a decent rebuttal. Nowhere did I equate Flava Flav or Charles Manson to God. In fact they are both distinct to God, even if they are in the same totality of existence.

Where has Pro shown me how Charles Manson, or anything else for that matter, is imperfect? He hasn't. He has simply assumed that there are imperfections. That is what it came down to. As you can see by the above counter-formula, he would need to show me how such things are imperfect.

How are men like Flava Flav and Charles Manson perfect parts of the perfect creation? That's easily answered. Free will. Both God and parts within creation have free will. Really, if you removed the free will from certain parts of the creation, only then would it be imperfect. Because God is perfect, has free will, therefore the creation must have the possibility of free will as well. So in all reality, they are perfect parts of a perfect creation. Just because certain individuals do not try to emulate the complete perfection of God, doesn't mean the are not perfect.

How is a dead, cold, radiation filled vacuum of space perfect parts of the perfect creation? Again, this is easily answered. Ask just about any scientist about the beauty of the universe, of science, and they will tell you exactly how those things are perfect. They are perfect because they are necessities of creation. Those things are needed in order for the universe to function in the way it does, perfectly.

How can feces and urine be considered to be perfect parts of the perfect creation? Take a moment to try and truly conceive of the idea that the creatures in our universe did not produce waste. Why does waste come about? Because we eat, we take nutrients from we eat, and we expel what is left. So take this away, and you take away eating and growing. This too is a perfect part of a perfect creation.

Where did Pro go wrong? He seems to think that a part of creation can be equated to God. You can not compare a part of an entity to the whole of an entity. Let me show you the irrationality in this.

When you go to the car dealership to buy a car, would you as the dealer to compare the tire of a car to the entirety of another? Of course not.

When you speak about the Trinity, do you call the Holy Spirit God? No, the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father are what the Trinity is, are what God is within Christianity.

The many parts of the creation within the creation are what makes the creation whole. When you compare God and the creation within the context of this debate, you can't compare one piece within the entity of creation to the whole entity of God. That's just silly.

Also, he is greatly opinionated on what perfect is. I have throughly explained how something may not seem perfect, but in all reality, it is. Everything is perfect, everything has it's own place within the universe.

Conclusion

When you vote, remember my counter-formula. Remember that everything part of creation has its place, and can be deemed perfect. I have thoroughly answered Pro on every point, yet he only persisted in saying the same thing over and over again, and never addressed my explanations as to why the parts are indeed perfect parts of the perfect creation.

Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AnonyFeline 4 years ago
AnonyFeline
Again, given the perfect being discussed is God:

To claim to know whether or not God exists is an extremely arrogant notion on the part of humanity. From the scientific perspective, it is a hypothesis that can never be tested nor is it a theory that can ever be observed. To claim otherwise would be to circumvent the scientific method and ignore the process by which all scientific knowledge has been established. From the religious and/or spiritual perspective, think that we could possibly see or much less understand the intentions, mind, or even the mere idea of God is in itself heresy. If God does exist, and God created everything in existence, to fully understand God would be infinitely beyond our comprehension. Take sub intelligent life form that exists in our world as an example (rodent, lizard, bacteria, or a virus). Would any of these life forms be able to understand the intricacies of language, self consciousness, and self realization/actualization? Would they ever understand the idea of partial differential equations? the nuanced language and double entendre of Shakespeare? or the dialectic method? The obvious answer to all of these questions is a deep and resounding NO. Our understanding and intelligence is orders of magnitude beyond what any of these life forms could even come close to after generations of evolution. Similarly, who are we, as mere humans to believe that we can even begin to understand God, the master and creator of the universe? The one and only way to possibly understand God is to create a universe of our own, including all matter and life therein. So in effect, there is no way to know, which makes both the contention of a theist and an atheist contradictory to their stance. A theist could not possibly understand God, an atheist could not possibly prove (by testing and/or observation) whether God existed or not.
Posted by masterdebater6969 4 years ago
masterdebater6969
Pennington, if he wasnt created, then he is not there.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
Yeah, I noticed. Very close. And yes, both winners, haha. Thank you for the debate.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Well that came down to the last wire....lol Nice work Talib, we are both winners!
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
@masterdebater6969, God is immortal therefore never have been created. Where do you here of created Gods?
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
I meant to say that I agreed with Con. Cause Jesus is perfect.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
very deep science. need so many thousands of debate to understand.
and when i will initiate them than it will be continues.
in sha ALLAH.
soon.
until than bye bye
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
well this universe. is not the first one. indeed all ingredient were already present there but ALLAH just shaped them like that.
and all infinities he is holding.
all other things are finite.
and i must tell u derived from him.
like from his attribute called kun.
every thing is created from kun.
a small word.
Posted by Talib.ul-Ilm 4 years ago
Talib.ul-Ilm
That's a cliche, and overused. The perfect God is the uncaused caused, the true beginning from which everything comes from. There can't be an infinite regression of universes, something had to have been there that wasn't caused.
Posted by masterdebater6969 4 years ago
masterdebater6969
If god is perfect, then who made a the perfect god?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
Rational_Thinker9119Talib.ul-IlmTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: good debate both sides did a descent job I'm a Christian so I agreed with Pro before and after. I put a tie on reliable sources because none of them used sources. Even though I don't agree with Con I still vote the right way. I didn't vote by favorites. Con and Pro did had everything I marked. Con did have a good convincing argument, but it didn't change my belief.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Rational_Thinker9119Talib.ul-IlmTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Vote from Justin.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 4 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
Rational_Thinker9119Talib.ul-IlmTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A perfect being cannot exist because everyone has a different definition of Perfect. I mean im sure you think your wife is perfect right? but others might now. (ps. She is ;P)
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
Rational_Thinker9119Talib.ul-IlmTied
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: I'm sorry, Pro's arguments had so many logical flaws it was hard to keep track of them all. It was worse than some of the episodes in the final seasons of Lost. Pro had the burden of proof but did not live up to it.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 4 years ago
HeartOfGod
Rational_Thinker9119Talib.ul-IlmTied
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: While I personally believe God is a wholy perfect being, pro tipped the scales for me and made a good point that if the universe and all its parts are perfect then we have to say flava flav is a perfect being (that part gave me a chuckle lol). Cons objections to this missed the mark, and this made his case some what weak in the long run. I give arguments to pro. Neither used any sources. Spelling an grammar seemed about even I suppose...
Vote Placed by jackintosh 4 years ago
jackintosh
Rational_Thinker9119Talib.ul-IlmTied
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: "God did create perfection. He did not create imperfection." is what really hung me up. If god created everything, he also created the imperfection in all of us, since we are his creation. he creation the imperfection that lead to the fall of man. If I create something imperfect, it is simply because I am imperfect. Why would that not hold true for god as well, thus bringing god from a perfect being to imperfect, meaning because there is imperfection there is not god.