The Traditional God Can Exist

"While my opponent gives an original and convincing argument on Omnipotence, My Points still stand, for the following reasons, 1. With The argument that a potential "stone outside of time" paradox, nothing major changes. By the nature of omnipotence One can remove it from themselves, but as i stated in my first argument God would never do so. I was saying that God could make a stone he couldn't lift, but wouldn't.If something never occurs, than it doesn't matter weather you are outside or inside time, because there would be no effects." >>This simply makes no sense. If God is outside time than he is unchangeable. The unchangeblity of God is indeed another prerequisite often denoted towards him. "2. If Something is to be created, than Time must Exist. If God were to create Something of physical Mass, than it must have some movement, and Time is basically just what we use to measure movement. Time is not a physical thing, it is just how we measure speed and such, so if any "stone" were to exist it would have physical Mass, i.e. movement, i.e. time" >> False. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics can tell you that material existence is possible outside of time. And is it actually just as much something with an objective existence as a material object. Your perspective of time is very Pre-Einsteinian. Though it is true something cannot "start" or "end" outside of time, it can however "be" or "not be". Pro's rebuttal is negated again. "My opponent seems to have misunderstood My answer to his attack on Perfection. My opponent argues that by saying that we cannot understand perfection i have made no attack on his case. this is not so, If you read further into my argument you will see that we can theorize on why we exist, and i even gave an example that my opponent didn't answer to." >> Here is his post: "On the subject of Perfection, We must accept that we can never understand a perfect consciousness, being ourselves imperfect. It is baseless to just say that creating anything would be pointless, as we could not comprehend a perfect God but this does not mean we cannot theorize on the purpose of our existing. For example, While God, being Perfect, can never be anything but perfect, Humans have a choice of how to behave, being created with free will. Some think that Humans exist for the purpose of creating another kind of goodness into the world. There are HUGE amounts of ideas on why we are here, but i don't need to list them all here, a quick Google search would give you countless more examples. So in conclusion, Perfection is perfectly compatible with itself, and all other aspects of God." You say you theorize on why we exist? All you say is that we bring "another kind of goodness". What does that even mean? This is what you say I didn't respond to? It was irrelevant. And Your case was certainly invalid. "Assume we have found the Perfect diamond. it is as diamond-like as is possible. Everything about it perfectly fits the description of "diamond". it is Not the perfect acorn. In fact it is about as un-acornlike as can be. Being Perfect Does not exclude the ability of other goodness being created, A perfect God could have reasons to Create things." >> Your analogy is understandable but doesn't fit the scenario. If God is perfect it means he cannot be any better and since God is the creator of all he is the only thing in existence at the beginning so there is nothing within the entire situation that could get any better. Thus the creation of anything else is pointless. Pro's rebuttal is negated again. "On all the further attacks on My case my opponent criticizes the idea of free- will. This is irrelevant to the debate at hand, and incorrect, for the following reasons. 1. My opponent is saying that Chemical reactions, and the like, cause all our actions. if you look at it further, cells govern those reactions, and atoms govern the cells, electrons govern the atoms, ect., ect. Eventually we would get to a handful of things that are the smallest you could possibly go, which for the sake of my argument i will call "minis" These "minis" are all that there are, just arranged into different formations. if you look to what my opponent's argument is pointing to, you will see that there is no such thing as an "idea", a "book", or even a "human", there is only these minis just floating serenely. Consciousness, pain, joy, love, Do not exist, and we are not alive nor can we think, we are just electrons and atoms and "minis" doing what they do. As i believe i exist, at least as a Conscious entity That can think and feel pain, i am forced to conclude there is something Beyond the current facts Scientists are telling us. What they say is True, i have no doubt, but they are missing an integral part of the Puzzle, and because Of those reasons Free will Stands." >> First, I find it humorous that Pro says "for the following reasons" and then only issues one. This irrelevant but funny. Secondly, I submit to the fact that, yes indeed, everything is made up of these "minis" whatever they be. But Pro makes a false assumption in thinking that this makes all other levels of material organization disappear. He says there is no such thing as an idea, a book, a human, pain, joy and love if we concede to the theory of these minis making up everything and running on cause and effect like science declares. Find me a scientist who would tell you that is were it ends. Find one. You will not. Material sciences cover objectivity. But subjectivity is left up to philosophy. Both still rely on reason. As faith does not. It is clear that we have consciousnesses but this does in no way dismiss the "minis" theory. The idea that free-will does not exist is compatible with the recognition of consciousness. So the logic I provided showing that free-will does not exist still stands. Pro's rebuttal is negated again. "On all my opponent's further attacks he just says that we wouldn't have free will if God made us, and so he, if he exists, is responsible for all the bad in the world, but this makes no sense based on his attack on free will, in which he points to the fact that we couldn't exist." >> I made no such claim. We exist. Consciousness exists. That is indisputable. But it is also indisputable based on cause and effect that free-will does not exist. We can, and indeed do, have consciousness without free-will.