The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
EchoboostX4
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

God did not make the world perfect

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,023 times Debate No: 59640
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

As a Christian, I don't believe we messed up and made the world imperfect. I argue that God didn't make the world perfect as is taught. Here are my definitions

Perfection : a world where evil and suffering do not exist

First round acceptance
EchoboostX4

Con

I accept. Please forgive my future English.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

I take the position that God never made the world perfect. The Bible never says he made the world perfect, it just says that he made the world and heavens. The Serpent, evil, and ability to sin proves that the world was made imperfect. The Bible also never says that Adam and Eve were perfectly sinless in the sense that they can never sin, it implies they were innocent.

I believe in the beginning, God's plan was never to create a perfect world, but to create a world of imperfection and perfect it through the work of Jesus Christ.
EchoboostX4

Con

I shall begin by asking one question: is God perfect?

If your answer is yes, then we shall look at your definition of perfection. Perfection as you claim is the lack of evil and suffering. Evil is defined as profoundly immoral and malevolent. synonyms:wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious and more. Suffering is defined as the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship.

With this in mind, you would as a Christian detest to the claim that God is an evil and vile being that promotes suffering. Here's the thing: http://atheism.about.com...

1.) God is morally perfect (premise)
2.) Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)
3.) Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)
4.) The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God
5.) In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes
6.) It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts
7.) The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist.

Obviously number 7 is not the subject of this debate but now you are locked into considering two things: either God does not exist due to too much incoherence, or the world that God created for us is indeed perfect. Everything fits your definition. All that's left for you is to say that God is not perfect and therefore the evil and suffering he created for this world is not perfect to. If you still insist that God is perfect, you must agree to the logic that perfect beings do perfect things 100% of the time. Therefore, God's creation is perfect, including evil and suffering. Therefore, this world is indeed perfect. Either that, or your God doesn't exist.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

As my opponent stated, God is perfect in the sense that he does not sin, however the current world that we know doesn't imply that God is imperfect as we note the following:

1. God gave the commandment to Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, disobedience would result in death. Now where did evil come from? I don't know, but the point is that by knowledge of good, it produced in man evil. Notice that God was not responsible for the actions of man. It is human beings which were given the choice to eternal life or spiritual and physical death. The fact that God allows sickness and errors in the world isn't his fault, it's our own.

2. perfect beings do not always make the world perfect in the way that we'd like them to be. My opponent failed to back his claims that God condemns/condones immoral acts. All we know is that God is perfect. God causes evil, but the Bible doesn't say that he created it. God punishes sin by death, but he is not the author of death. Therefore, you cannot bring a strong case against the character of God.

With that in mind, my opponent drifts away from the topic at hand. I am arguing that God never made the world perfect, he simply made the world as it is.
EchoboostX4

Con

My opponent unfortunately failed to understand the stipulation of God as a perfect being. My rebuttals will contain the reasons why.

"God gave the commandment to Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, disobedience would result in death." Although God's commandment to not eat the tree was directed towards them, God, being the perfect "sinless" being he is, is omnipotent and omniscient. You cannot deny that God knew of Man's sins way before he created them. This perfect being knew of everything the universe was and will be, including the so called "imperfections". That being said, the perfect God had created a perfect "plan" for all of us. This plan would denote infallibility and definite correctness in his part. You have failed to understand the contention that a perfect being would not make mistakes; that God is ultimately responsible for Man's actions. The evil and suffering around the world is part of God's perfect plan, making them perfect as well. God is responsible for all because he knew of Man's future atrocities and did nothing to stop them. His allowance strictly falls under two things: pure evilness or perfection. By trying to squeeze in "imperfect creations" within a "perfect plan" is a self-contradicting sentence. God is perfect. His actions are supposedly perfect. His actions contain creation. Therefore, all of his creation, including Man and his sins, are perfect.

"My opponent failed to back his claims that God condemns/condones immoral acts." Thank you for allowing me to further my claims. http://infidels.org...

1.) God gets angry with all of the people on Earth, and kills every living thing on Earth, with a few notable exceptions (Genesis 6 & 7).

2.) God heeded the prayers of the Jews and helped the Jews to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites. Later, God told the Jews that they would leave "no survivors" (including women and children) from among the whole people when they battled the followers of King Og of Bashan. In between those two, the Jews battled the followers of King Sihon of Heshbon, who "God had given him a resistant spirit and stubborn determination" so that he would not surrender his people, and for "even the women and children; there was not a single survivor." (Numbers, Chapter 21; and Deuteronomy, Chapters 2 and 3.)

3.) When the Jews fought the Midianites, the Jewish army killed all of the men, but brought back all of the women and children to Moses, who was then furious at this disobedience of God. Moses ordered all of the male children killed, and all of the females who were not virgins. 32,000 virgin females remained alive; all of the other Midianite people were killed. It is unclear from the text whether or not 32 of these virgins were sacrificed to God (human sacrifice). The Jews enslaved all of the virgin females who lived. (Numbers, Chapters 25 and 31.)

4.) God instructed the Jews that when they invaded the territory that God had granted to them, as for the inhabitants, "you must utterly annihilate them. Make no covenant with them nor show them compassion!" (Deuteronomy, Chapter 7.) God instructed the Jews that, when confronting other people who lived on land other than that granted to the Jews, they could give them an offer of perpetual slavery for their whole population, or else they could kill all the males and take the women and little children as slaves. (Deuteronomy, Chapter 20.) God set rules for male Jews who desired to take a wife from among these captives. (Deuteronomy, Chapter 21.)

5.) When invading Jericho, as instructed by God, the Jews "annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well cattle, sheep, and donkeys." (Joshua, Chapter 6.)

6.) When taking Ai, as instructed by God, the Jews "annihilated all who lived in Ai," including all of the men, women, and children. (Joshua, Chapter 8.)

7.) Acting on God's instructions, the Jews "annihilated everyone who lived in" Makkedah. At Libnah, they again "left no survivors." At Lachish, "they put the sword to all who lived there, just as they had done to Libnah." At Eglon, "they annihilated it just as they had done to Lachish." At Hebron, "they annihilated it and all who lived there." Again at Debir, "they annihilated everyone who lived there; they left no survivors." "Joshua defeated the whole land, including the hill country, the Negev, the lowlands, the slopes, and all their kings. He left no survivors. He annihilated everything that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel had commanded." (Joshua, Chapter 10.)

8.) At Hazor, "They annihilated everyone who lived there with the sword-no one who breathed remained." "The Israelites plundered all the loot of these cities and the cattle, but they totally destroyed all the people and allowed no one who breathed to live." "Moses the Lord's servant passed on the Lord's commands to Joshua, and Joshua did as he was told. He did not ignore any of the commands the Lord had given Moses." "No city made peace with the Israelites (except the Hivites living in Gibeon); they had to conquer all of them," "for the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel. He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy, as he had instructed Moses." (Joshua, Chapter 11.)

9.) King Saul of Israel, acting on God's orders, "captured King Agag of the Amalekites alive, but he executed all his people with the sword." (Later, God got angry for this "disobedience" of leaving the king alive and for other matters.) (I Samuel, Chapter 15.)

Like you said, God is perfect. Everything in this list though is clearly immoral, but God had condoned these immoral acts. Therefore, the evils and sufferings listed are undoubtedly part of his perfect plan and hence are perfect.

"With that in mind, my opponent drifts away from the topic at hand. I am arguing that God never made the world perfect, he simply made the world as it is." Again, I'll stress this one more time. You must follow this line of reasoning.
1.) God is perfect, infallible, and sinless
2.) Whatever God's actions were and will be are perfect
3.) God's actions include the creation of the entire universe INCLUDING evil and suffering
4.) God has provided the universe with a perfect plan
5.) God's perfect plan includes evil and suffering
6.) Therefore, the creation of evil and suffering (or anything by God for that matter) is perfect.

My opponent cannot comprehend the corner he has locked himself in. Imperfect beings create imperfect things. Perfect beings create perfect things. Imperfect things created for a perfect plan essentially makes those imperfections perfect. If God's creation were really imperfect, then he would be clearly mistaken. And based on those atrocities and incoherent moralities God required of his people, he is clearly mistaken.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

"By trying to squeeze in "imperfect creations" within a "perfect plan""

The point of this debate was to show that God did not plan to make the world perfect, so your argument falls apart.

These are accusations by a site which has no clear cut proof that it's how it is.

Genesis 6-7 if you look at the context, he doesn't get mad at everyone, he only is angered by wickedness, but spares those who respond to him in faith (Gen. 6:9, 7:1

2) This only further proves that God did not make the world perfect, but that by killing these people off for the evil they done, he's in a sense making it perfect (I don't have time to explain it in this debate, we're getting off topic)

3) Once again, of course if you disobey God, death will result. It's the sign that God didn't the world perfect.

By what standard of evil do you deem his actions evil? Yours? You assume that because God is perfect, he is obligated to create a perfect universe which isn't the case. The fact that God made the universe and sin is present shows that he is able to create but allow imperfection for a greater purpose, doesn't imply that he's not perfect, just that he allows imperfection.

You have not shown that God made the world perfect which is supposed to be your burden of proof.
EchoboostX4

Con

You strangely took that statement out of context. I applaud you. Recluse the statement and of course it wouldn't make sense. But I'll get to that later.

You see, my arguments, which you clearly misread/discarded, are based on only two possible outcomes: either God and her creation are both perfect or God and her creation are both imperfect. Allow me this analogy:

There are two watchmakers. One perfect, and another imperfect. You can question the semantics of a perfect watch all you want but the perfect watch is a watch that works 100% of the time and will never fail to tell the correct time at any exact location. The perfect watchmaker creates perfect watches 100% of the time. The imperfect watchmaker creates perfect watches ___% of the time. The imperfect watchmaker is obviously more likely to create imperfect, unstable watches than the perfect watchmaker who will NEVER fail. One day, the perfect watchmaker strangely decides to purposely create an "imperfect" watch. The imperfect watchmaker asks the perfect one why he would do such a thing when clearly he should never fail. The perfect watchmaker contests that it's all part of his "perfect plan". Time passes and for whatever reason he had, the watchmaker concludes with strong conviction that his "imperfect" watch worked PERFECTLY and went according to his perfect plan. This was a simple reiteration of my stance on why there is "imperfection"; it's all part of God's perfect plan. Just like the perfect watchmaker, God created the world imperfect for a perfect purpose. Since God's plan should never fail, then it is logical to conclude that these "imperfections" are working PERFECTLY, hence the illusion of imperfection is removed and therefore everything that God created for her purpose was really perfect to begin with. Think about that.

Genesis 6-7: that's not the point, he STILL killed/allowed the killing of innocent men, women, children, and every other living species; and it's evident with every other verse I provided. Does that not sound cruel and immoral to you?

"2) This only further proves that God did not make the world perfect, but that by killing these people off for the evil they done, he's in a sense making it perfect (I don't have time to explain it in this debate, we're getting off topic)"
- You just agreed with my two contentions. Either God and her creation are both perfect or God and her creation are both imperfect. What was her divine and perfect plan? To create imperfect beings just to simply kill them off? God is omniscient. She knew of everyone's fates since the beginning of time. She knows EVERYTHING. Why bother creating an imperfect world knowing you'll be dissatisfied by it later on? Or better yet, why create evil and suffering when you really don't want it around in the first place? The genocides committed by God forces one to conclude one of my contentions; either God made a mistake and and decided to wipe out her very creation of evil and suffering, or she created these evil people to merely justify her genocides/allowing of genocides as part of her "perfect" plan. Again, perfect beings MUST do perfect things 100% of the time. That includes whatever he/she creates. Imperfect being can only create perfect things with huge amounts of uncertainty. If you still think this world is TRULY imperfect, then your God is imperfect as well.

As for 3), I'll say this again in case you missed my entire point a while back: perfect plans require things to act perfectly according to plan. If they do, that essentially fulfils their imperfect design perfectly, hence perfection all along.

"By what standard of evil do you deem his actions evil? Yours?"
- The secular society's subjective consensus AKA mine as reflected among many others. If I were to choose an extreme end, it would lean towards atheism because unlike christian morality, secular morality makes more sense.

"You assume that because God is perfect, he is obligated to create a perfect universe which isn't the case."
- You really don't know that. As a matter of fact, you really CAN'T know that.

"The fact that God made the universe and sin is present shows that he is able to create but allow imperfection for a greater purpose, doesn't imply that he's not perfect, just that he allows imperfection."
- Correction: he allows imperfection for a PERFECT PURPOSE. To simply state that's it for a "greater purpose" is just weaselling your way out. What defines something is it's purpose and features. We may seem imperfect to ourselves because that's all we can know, but here I go again; God created this illusion of imperfection for a perfect purpose, hence her creation is working perfectly! I'm not saying this with faith. I'm using the logic of the two contentions I have made since the beginning of this debate. To unfollow this logic is appallingly absurd, because it further demonstrates the total incoherence of your religion.

I should say this now because it might not get through to you: imperfection and perfection is undefinable. Who are we to judge God's creation as perfect or imperfect? She supposedly created us so only she will be able to tell us in the end.

"You have not shown that God made the world perfect which is supposed to be your burden of proof."
- You may have noticed I was labelling God as a 'she'. That's because I'm using a completely different doctrine of Christianity. http://www.oneplace.com...
And that's where the problem begins. You are debating as a christian with a strict set of beliefs. I am debating as a secularist with arguments of sole logic. If you really insist on BOPs, then I suggest you prove to me why your bible/circular reasoning is infallible. I don't necessarily have the BOP. I am already able to defend myself with logical assertions. Yours is based on faith; firm belief in something for which there is no proof. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

P.S. "These are accusations by a site which has no clear cut proof that it's how it is." Same goes for your 2000 year old book.
Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

"There are two watchmakers. One perfect, and another imperfect. You can question the semantics of a perfect watch all you want but the perfect watch is a watch that works 100% of the time and will never fail to tell the correct time at any exact location. The perfect watchmaker creates perfect watches 100% of the time. The imperfect watchmaker creates perfect watches ___% of the time. The imperfect watchmaker is obviously more likely to create imperfect, unstable watches than the perfect watchmaker who will NEVER fail. One day, the perfect watchmaker strangely decides to purposely create an "imperfect" watch. The imperfect watchmaker asks the perfect one why he would do such a thing when clearly he should never fail. The perfect watchmaker contests that it's all part of his "perfect plan". Time passes and for whatever reason he had, the watchmaker concludes with strong conviction that his "imperfect" watch worked PERFECTLY and went according to his perfect plan. This was a simple reiteration of my stance on why there is "imperfection"; it's all part of God's perfect plan. Just like the perfect watchmaker, God created the world imperfect for a perfect purpose. Since God's plan should never fail, then it is logical to conclude that these "imperfections" are working PERFECTLY, hence the illusion of imperfection is removed and therefore everything that God created for her purpose was really perfect to begin with. Think about that."

I would prefer if my opponent would simply stick to Scripture to back his claims up.

"Genesis 6-7: that's not the point, he STILL killed/allowed the killing of innocent men, women, children, and every other living species; and it's evident with every other verse I provided. Does that not sound cruel and immoral to you?"

Who am i to question if it's immoral or not? Not the point of this debeate

I was expecting someone to debate solely on Scripture. We're talking about the Christian God, not just any God, but i should've phrased my debate better
EchoboostX4

Con

It seems that my opponent and I are not on the same page. That, or he's excusing himself for not taking into account that other Gods, doctrines, and beliefs from a multitude of other religions exist. I'm sorry if you were expecting a "Christian" debate. Welcome to the internet: a place where religions come to die. http://m.youtube.com...

I decided to partake in this debate with the intention of using the "God attribute" to justify itself; perfection. I will remain with all the contentions I've made throughout the debate. Either God and his/her creation are both perfect or God and his/her creation are both imperfect. Here is my summary of why:

1.) God is perfect
2.) Everything he does is perfect, otherwise he wouldn't be considered perfect in the first place
3.) What he does/did was create the entire universe
4.) He created the universe with the intention of including it in his perfect plan
5.) Perfect plans never go astray; they will never fail
6.) God created evil and suffering; he created "imperfection"
7.) Imperfection is part of his perfect plan
8.) Therefore, evil and suffering are going perfectly according to his plan, hence perfection all along

Whatever works perfectly in someone's eyes, especially God's eyes (the supposed creator of the universe) is considered perfect. We only call ourselves imperfect because our standards for everything always fluctuate. Since God's plan should never fail, then it is logical to conclude that these "imperfections" are working perfectly, hence the illusion of imperfection is removed and therefore everything that God created is perfect to begin with.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EchoboostX4 3 years ago
EchoboostX4
@ Sagey: exactly.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
If God made Adam perfect, he would have refused to eat the fruit, regardless of temptation.
Adam ate the fruit as either he was not Perfect, and thus God could not have produces a perfect Man.
Or, Adam (being Perfect) knew that God was not perfect for setting up the temptation and thus in both cases, God was not Perfect.

Conclusion, God was not perfect!
Thus his creations were never perfect.
:-D~
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
The Universe is Random.
Imperfection is a natural part of a random universe.
Perfection cannot possibly exist.
Neither can a perfect being, i.e. God.
Posted by EchoboostX4 3 years ago
EchoboostX4
Wiley, I understand your position. However, I'm debating as an atheist/former theist. I'm really focusing on the physical here because in truth, that's all we know. It will be foolish for either of us to claim God as true. I am not bashing or dissing your religion. Please understand that I will not dwell on subjects outside of my "expertise". By the way, come check out this debate on "free will". Maybe that'll give you some ideas.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
WileyC1949
Con you overlook the simple fact that imperfection may in fact be part of a perfect plan. Seemingly you are arguing that the physical life is all that exists, whereas the basic premise of theism is that there is more to life than the physical. If in fact the supernatural does exist and our true nature is as immortal spiritual beings, then one must ask the question as to why God would create the physical. Personally I can see only two possible answers to that: either it exists for "entertainment" for the soul, or it exists for educational reasons. The more practical answer I would believe to be educational. So what knowledge are we to learn that God could not have possibly given us at our creation?

The answer to that question is love. I believe that God is love and wishes us to be one with Him in that love. However love cannot be forced and remain love. By its very nature it MUST be freely given. So God could not create us already "loving" Him or others... that would be a contradiction. Everything else follows from that. For anyone to learn true selfless love of others who are not within our social circle one must first learn to care about others. For anyone to learn to care about others one must first learn compassion and sympathy. For any to truly learn compassion and sympathy they must personally know the effects of pain, suffering, toil, evil and death. Without evil we can no learn to reject evil and to do good. This also explains why direct knowledge of God's existence is denied to us as such knowledge would completely interfere with out freedom of choice. For example if you were planning to rob a store but when you arrived you saw three police cars parked outside would you continue with your plan? Is the fact that you did not rob the store the result of you being "good" or the result of a desire not to be caught?
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
Like I said. It's better to remove all accusations of the thing itself, and simply address it as we imagine it ourselves.
Posted by elixir 3 years ago
elixir
If we don't 'assume this god existed' we can't debate this debate.

I'm not here to challenge the resolution, like you are. I am here to adapt to whatever I'm arguing with.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
I am all for imagination, friend. What I am not for, is improper wording and improper use of the imagination. You can suppose anything you want, but don't "assume this if god existed" - it's better to assume what we believe it would be like if there was a "god", without alluding to any rhetoric. So for an example, "if a "god" existed, what would it be like?", is different and far less fruitless than, say, "did god, itself, make a world perfect?" - how would you know what a "god" wanted, if it ever existed in the first place as people see it? Even that's the issue because everyone perceives god like a cloud anyways; differently.
Posted by elixir 3 years ago
elixir
@aerogant: Exactly my point. You're not debating the thing. You're debating the results brought about by the thing"so you'll have to assume it exists. Thank you. Besides, there's this other thing called humouring somebody. Ever heard of that? If you nitpick at every specific and unnecessary detail, it takes the fun out of everything.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
You can't debate based on an assumption, because what ever you are assuming for debate isn't the thing in itself. I can debate if there was a wild succubus in my closet waiting to lay me tonight, but that has nothing to do with whether or not there really was a wild succubus in my closet.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Truth_seekerEchoboostX4Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate really started when Con attempted to show that because God is perfect, all that it creates is also perfect. This went on for a few rounds as Con attempted to re-iterate his points but ultimately failed to see that a perfect god could willingly create an imperfect world. I believe Pro made this theory very clear to understand and instead of properly rebutting it, con continued creating a counter-argument that completely missed the point. I also believe it was clear that the context of this debate was to be about the Christian God, hence I see no real win in that case either for Con. All in all, Pro showed how God could have created an imperfect world and maintained that argument by overcoming the rebuttals presented by Con.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 3 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Truth_seekerEchoboostX4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly establishes his premise R1 and had to reiterate it several times in the face of Con semantics to twist an alternative resolution into the mix. And he failed.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 3 years ago
mishapqueen
Truth_seekerEchoboostX4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had good reasoning and logic, but I didn't feel he effectively refuted Con's points. His replies seemed minimalistic, and didn't fully refute Con's logic. While I agree with Pro, I feel Con won the debate from a pure arguments perspective, although I still disagree with him.