The Instigator
ATHOS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

If God created this world he's an idiot

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 1 vote the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,155 times Debate No: 34969
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

ATHOS

Pro

I just saw a debate like this and wanted to debate this myself.

Definitions:

God: The Judeo-Christian God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Create: make something: to bring something into existence
~~~~~~~~~~~~
World: planet Earth: the planet Earth
Earth and everything on it: the Earth, including all of its inhabitants and the things upon it
~~~~~~~~~~~~
human race: all of the human inhabitants of Earth
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Idiot: a dolt, or dullard or one that is mentally deficient, one that acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rules:

Usual debate rules. Like courtesy and no personal attacks.

R1 is for acceptance.

R2 is for arguments.

R3 is for rebuttals and conclusion.

*No devil's advocates.

*No appealing to mysteries.

I would like to thank Con in advance, and good luck.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will argue that if God created this world then he is NOT an idiot because it was his first time trying to create a world and naturally he had no prior knowledge to work with when creating it.

You may state your case
Debate Round No. 1
ATHOS

Pro

I just saw a debate like this and wanted to debate this myself.

Definitions:

God: The Judeo-Christian God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Create: make something: to bring something into existence
~~~~~~~~~~~~
World: planet Earth: the planet Earth
Earth and everything on it: the Earth, including all of its inhabitants and the things upon it
~~~~~~~~~~~~
human race: all of the human inhabitants of Earth
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Idiot: a dolt, or dullard or one that is mentally deficient, one that acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rules:

Usual debate rules. Like courtesy and no personal attacks.

R1 is for acceptance.

R2 is for arguments.

R3 is for rebuttals and conclusion.

*No devil's advocates.

*No appealing to mysteries.

I would like to thank Con in advance, and good luck.

In this debate I am making the claim:

'If God created this world he's an idiot'

Am I really arguing that God is an idiot? No.

What I am actually arguing is that God does not have anything to do with the creation of this world. So in effect I am arguing that God is not an idiot.

I will attempt to do this by using "the law of non-contradiction' and the "like from like" principle. The"like from like' principle states that it is impossible for an entity to create unlike itself.

(It is important to remember that this principle is always referring to content and never form.)

Let's take a look at the main content or attribute of God that pertains to my argument.

Perfect:

"Perfect" is often said to be a subjective concept. However, when "perfect" is used to describe God it needs to have a clear definition. A definition that is explicit. A definition that cannot be interpreted into something it is not. I don't want this debate to turn into a debate of definitions and subjectivity. To keep this debate on track I'll define 'perfect' as:

unchanging, indestructible, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, -"perfect"- will include all of this.

Therefore, anything that changes, can be destroyed, is subjected to the effects of time or contradicts any of the qualities that has been equated with "perfect" will be considered to be imperfection. I'm sure my opponent will agree.

God is also attributed to creating this world. This to me is a problem, it doesn't logically follow that a perfect God would create a world with obvious imperfections. A world that is completely ungodly. There is nothing in this world that reflects the attributes of a "perfect" God. This world is a dynamic and ever changing place. Everything here is capable of being destroyed and is subject to the effects of time.

If God is perfect then by definition anything it creates would have to be perfect and not separate.

My opponent may argue that there is no reason why perfection must logically be passed down through creation.
or
A perfect God cannot be limited to only create perfection.
or
God could have created imperfection of its own volition.
or other variations of the same thing.

I would ask why would God created unlike itself? This question must have a logical answer.
I would answer this question with 'it wouldn't'.

Let me explain:

A being or entity that is perfect as defined would not will to create anything that was unlike itself. I would say that the will of a perfect God would be in accordance with its own *identity. It would not be possible for a perfect entity to extend its will in a way that the given extension would be contrary to its own identity.
(by law of non-contradiction)

*identity and likeness are synonymous

I am merely asserting that if there is a God, it is not an idiot. But if there is a God and it created unlike itself, it most certainly is an idiot.

Here are some examples of the"like from like" principle:

When a person creates a work of art or an invention that piece of work contains their likeness or identity; their feelings, emotions, necessities, thoughts and many other aspects of who they are, this cannot be denied. A part of their identity can definitely be found in their creation. In fact, It would be an impossibility for an artist or inventor to create something that does not contain a part of their identity. An artist and their work are intimately connected. Therefore, what is created shares aspects with its creator. It must have been created for a reason, to serve a purpose.

We can look to the natural world and see this principle in effect. When a bird creates a nest, its nest is specifically designed for that bird. Its identity or likeness is reflected in its nest. In fact, one could determined a birds identity just by looking at its nest. Examples of this principle can be found all through out nature.

However, humans and animals are mortal things. Therefore, whatever we create or should I say make follows in the footsteps of our mortality. Even if it out lives us, it is always vulnerable and subject to the effects of time, and will one day be no more.This is the principle of 'like from like'.

to summarize:

A being cannot create unlike itself by law of non-contradiction. The likeness of this being has been endowed with "Perfection". (as defined above) It would be impossible for a perfect being to create unlike itself and not be an idiot. I have also applied the principle of "like from like", which simply says that which is created always expresses the likeness of its creator. I have illustrated how this principle can be observed with people and the natural world. I have also stated that "likeness" and "identity" are synonymous, and explained the connection between "will" and 'identity" that the will to create is an extension of ones identity, and how the likeness of a being can be found in it creations. This debate topic can also be applied to people and the natural world. It would be idiotic for anyone or anything to create unlike itself or to create contrary to its own identity, it would be irrational, self destructive and counter productive.
imabench

Con

"Am I really arguing that God is an idiot? No."

Alrighty then, that makes my job a hell of a lot easier

"So in effect I am arguing that God is not an idiot."

Fantastic :D

"Therefore, anything that changes, can be destroyed, is subjected to the effects of time or contradicts any of the qualities that has been equated with "perfect" will be considered to be imperfection. I'm sure my opponent will agree"

Sounds good to me

"it doesn't logically follow that a perfect God would create a world with obvious imperfections"

Yeah its pretty confusing.

"Everything here is capable of being destroyed and is subject to the effects of time."

Yes, its a pretty well known fact that the world isnt close to being perfect.

"If God is perfect then by definition anything it creates would have to be perfect and not separate."

Thats debatable but Ill let it slide for the sake of the debate.

"My opponent may argue that there is no reason why perfection must logically be passed down through creation. or A perfect God cannot be limited to only create perfection. or God could have created imperfection of its own volition. or other variations of the same thing."

All of those sound like good arguments for why God would create an inperfect world... Others could argue that God himself isnt perfect or that since death is always inevitable nothing can be perfect.


======================================================================


"I am merely asserting that if there is a God, it is not an idiot. But if there is a God and it created unlike itself, it most certainly is an idiot."


Just because you dont make things to be as good as yourself, it doesnt mean you are an idiot, it only means you are limited by your surroundings, nature, the laws of time, etc to how 'perfect; your creations are

"A part of their identity can definitely be found in their creation"

That could actually be the answer to your question. A product that is created only contains PART of the identity of its creator, not ALL of the creator's identity. That could very well be the case with Earth and God where Earth and life on it only carry a part of God's identity within it. What exactly that is though is anybody's guess although everyone can agree that it certainly isnt 'perfection'

"It would be impossible for a perfect being to create unlike itself and not be an idiot"

Unless perhaps the being isnt perfect or because the laws of time and nature limit a creation from being 'perfect'

"It would be idiotic for anyone or anything to create unlike itself or to create contrary to its own identity, it would be irrational, self destructive and counter productive."

But thats just madness. People create things unlike themselves all the time and contrary to their own identity, it doesnt mean those creators are idiots though, it simply means that they failed.



The simple fact is that Pros arguments only give evidence that God (whose existence is implied) is not perfect, not that God is in fact an idiot.
Debate Round No. 2
ATHOS

Pro


Clearly for the purpose of this debate God's existence is implied, it says so right there in the title. the key word being "if".

In R2 I stated:

'Am I really arguing that God is an idiot? No. What I am actually arguing is that God does not have anything to do with the creation of this world. So in effect I am arguing that God is not an idiot."


And later on:

'I am merely asserting that if there is a God, it is not an idiot. But if there is a God and it created unlike itself, it most certainly is an idiot.'

Con didn't really have anything to argue in R2. He basically agrees with the premises:

'
Sounds good to me'

'Yeah its pretty confusing.'

'Yes, its a pretty well known fact that the world isnt close to being perfect.'



I'm not sure if Con believes in God or not, but I was hoping to debate this topic with some who believes that God created this world. In R2 he makes no argument (a logical framework) as to why a supposedly "perfect" God would create unlike itself.

In the beginning of R2 he agrees with the my premises, and in closing he concedes to a very similar conclusion:

"The simple fact is that Pros arguments only give evidence that God (whose existence is implied) is not perfect, not that God is in fact an idiot.'

If there is a God and it's not "perfect", why even call it God?

The simple fact is that Pros arguments only give evidence that God (whose existence is implied) is not perfect, not that God is in fact an idiot.'
Idiocy is a result of imperfection.



In R2 I provided a theory or logical extension regarding a hypothetical situation, that being God. By using some principles of logic, I have shown that a perfect being cannot create unlike itself. I have also shown that to create contrary to ones own identity would be self destructive, thus demonstrating idiocy.



My opponent has failed to refute anything in my R2 argument, as it is logically sound and consistent.


Once again, thanks to my opponent for accepting, back to Con.
imabench

Con

"If there is a God and it's not "perfect", why even call it God?"

Because its not a requirement that Gods have to be perfect in order to be considered a God.... If a Hod is all knowing, all powerful, eternal, etc then he is still certainly a god even if he isn't perfect...

"Idiocy is a result of imperfection."

Exactly! Idiocy is a result of imperfection, but you're arguing that the opposote is true where imperfection is a result from idiocy when there is no evidence to suggest such a thing.

" I have also shown that to create contrary to ones own identity would be self destructive, thus demonstrating idiocy."

But you havent shown it. You only jump to that conclusion by dismissing the much more likely scenario that God isn't perfect which would account for why the Earth isn't perfect... The fact that you conceded twice in the first round that you're not going to argue that God is an idiot and that you dont even think he's not an idiot...

The fact is it's much more likely to conclude that God simply isn't perfect rather then claim he is actually an idiot simply because the world isn't perfect. Idiocy is linked purely to cognitive abilities, not the result of ones creations, and pro has built his entire flawed case around the latter rather then the former

To conclude, God isn't an idiot. It is much more likely that he is simply not perfect or that his creations are bounded by the laws of physics and nature which makes them impossible to be perfect
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
It is notoriously hard to win a clean victory against Imabench. His jovial buffoonery masks a very effective matador"s sabre that can very impressively eviscerate the best debaters from the class clown seat at the back of the schoolroom. It does not help when his opponent appears to concede in the first round of arguments. ("Am I really arguing that God is an idiot? No.")

Unfortunately, this was exactly the premise that had been agreed to. It appeared that the bible would be used to establish that a certain Mesopotamian mountain god is an "idiot" according to the definition presented in R1. This goal was immediately abandoned in favor of arguing that this god isn"t anything other than a literary character. Most of Pro"s R2 attack simply did not focus on demonstrating his premise. That is, the definition of "idiot" as defined can be attributed to the god of the bible. The conclusion does explicitly argue that the biblical narrative indicates a level of idiocy, but this is not supported.

In R3, Pro tries to clarify his position, but the accidental concession in R2 had hopelessly derailed the effort by this point. I suspect that Pro is arguing that "the self-defeating and significantly counterproductive systems that exist within the universe prove that, if the Mesopotamian mountain god Yahweh created it, then he was an idiot." Frustratingly, this argument was never made or defended.

Could the Mesopotamian deity Yahweh be described as "a dolt, or dullard or one that is mentally deficient, one that acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way." Of course he can, and this is an easy task. Easy or not, the deed just wasn"t accomplished here.

Arguments to Con.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Jz said it perfectly.
Posted by Jzyehoshua 3 years ago
Jzyehoshua
Why assume God created this world in its present state? The whole premise seems flawed, since the whole Garden of Eden concept is that God designed the world perfect and it got corrupted by the actions of Satan and mankind.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
ATHOSimabenchTied
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: See Comments.