The Existence of God (Christian)

Rebuttal: “This is true, but one must determine whether created, sentient beings with free will are imperfect.” Free-will creates imperfection, therefore free-will is imperfect. A perfect God creating imperfections is impossible thus God is impossible. “If God is perfect and has free will, then it stands to reason that created, sentient beings with free will are also perfect.” Pro states that humans are perfect. On my math test this week, I got two questions wrong, I am a human, so humans aren’t perfect. “Con's ‘logical’ thought process fails to account for creates, sentient beings which have the capacity to will and thus of themselves become ‘imperfect’ or better yet, lose their original "goodness.’ ” Beings that have the capacity to do imperfections aren’t perfect beings. “I agree the world is ‘imperfect’ but that is because I can compare it to God's holy and righteous, unchanging standard of perfection or "goodness.’ ” CONTRADICTION ALERT! At the end of this sentence you say God is perfect, at the beginning you say the world is imperfect. If God created the world then the world can’t imperfect lol. “What standard, I wonder, can Con honestly judge the imperfection of the world by?” The standard I judge imperfection by is perfection. (lol) “Sin brings imperfection/corruption/bad things into the world, and it is an abstract entity originating in the mind of created, sentient beings who volionally choose to exercise their capacity to will in defiance of God and in disobedience to His holy standard/law. Therefore, the imperfect state of creation does not, by any means, rule out the existence of God.” But God gave them the ability to do that, that is a flaw/imperfection that does rule out the existence of God. “Con's logic is flawed here in that one can have knowledge of a thing without partaking in that thing. Con seems to imply that knowledge of a thing must equate to partaking of a thing, yet he provides no substantial reason why this must be so. I can have knowledge that a person has desired to torture someone, for example, without ever having participated in such a heinous thought myself. Knowledge indeed does not necessitate participation. Therefore God's knowledge of the sins of man does not necessitate His participation, in any way, of said sins.” Knowledge and experience are two different things. I could describe to you what bungee jumping is like, but that is just a description, you can’t completely, truly know what it is like to bungee jump without actually doing it. God could be told what lust and envy are, and what they are like, but He will never truly know what is like until experiencing it. Since He can’t experience it without breaking his moral perfection, he cannot experience everything man can, rendering him not omnipotent. Something has to give; moral perfection or omnipotence. If one of them gives, then the being is not a god; God is impossible. “The fact that God knows His choices in advanced because He knows the future does not hinder His capacity for free will as He can make His decisions before hand and thus His "bondage" to the inability to avoid future choices becomes negligible as He has already decided on said choices.” If God knows what will happen in the future, then the future is already decided, fixed. God cannot change his decision because he already knows what his decision will be. “This becomes a much more convoluted issue when one takes in to account the fact that God is eternal and has no beginning or end, according to scripture, and thus is in a sense outside of time.” Infinity is impossible. Imagine I had infinity amount of Hershey’s chocolate bars, and then I ate five of them, how many do I have left? “Con's first two qualitative, standard-dependent arguments, though unsound, beg the question, as stated before, "by what standard does Con judge such things by?" In conceding to the possibility of perfect or imperfect, good or bad, Con has the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a reliable standard by which to judge such qualitative designations.Since he has not, and surely cannot, apart from referring to God's standard which would negate his entire case, his arguments cannot be seriously considered.” The standard I judge things by is your God, that is what we are debating in case you didn’t notice. I don’t understand how this negates my entire case, Pro never explained. “Also, to make such an argument, one must maintain that God, for moral reasons, must follow His own standard. Why should He? What if God were deceitful and contradictory? How would this count as evidence against His existence?” Because God has to be morally perfect, if He is deceitful and contradictory then he is not morally perfect. “Con seems to have completely dropped my argument concerning the information found in DNA, and he has instead opted to make a counter argument.” Are you serious? I wrote a full paragraph engaging your argument about DNA! “Con's argument fails to hold up as God is not a biological being whose physical existence depends on the information content of a genome.” I never said that God has to be a biological being, you said that any kind of intelligence depends on an original act of intelligence to construct it. If God was the original act of intelligence for us and DNA then who was the original act of intelligence for us? All I did was follow your logic. “In what way did Con deem it good I wonder then?” I thought it was good because I had never heard it before, but then I realized that you just got it from a creationist website for almost all of your citations and links were to some kind of creationist website, so it turns out it was not original at all. “Con has claimed that my arguments are a God-of-the-gaps explanation. Con is thus implying that my argument relies on what we do not know scientifically, but on the contrary, my argument rests on what we do know about cellular and genetic function.” I’m sorry but I found your second argument very confusing. I assumed that since RNAP can’t be built without the DNA and the DNA can’t be built without the RNAP so therefore God must have made both at the same time since evolution couldn’t have done it. I apologize if I interpreted it wrong, my bad. But according to what I thought, that was a God of the Gaps argument. If my assumption was wrong then I’m sorry, I made the wrong rebuttal. “Con has again dropped my argument and has failed to realize that the very observational descriptions I provided about the function and processes of DNA, ATP synthase, and RNAP are critical in the support of my argument.” How is it impossible to drop an argument twice in one response? “Con provides no substantial reason why we should accept this claim beyond his own personal speculation.” Yes, I suppose this is my own personal speculation, because as you look at all of the old religions they all answer questions that humans did not know the answers do, this is an observable theory. It is not fact, it is just a supported theory. “Nor does he seem to realize that, if the God of the Bible does exist, then He is the one who brings rain and is control of all weather systems on Earth.” Nor does he seem to realize that if Zeus does exist, then he is the one who brings rain and is control of all weather systems on Earth. The fact that, through scientific inquiry, we can explain meteorological processes does not in any way negate the potential existence for God as He would be the one who sets in to motion the physical laws of nature which such processes must follow.” Pro provides no substantial reason to why we should accept this claim beyond his own personal speculation. “Again, Con fails to realize that my argument is not contingent upon the "mystery" of how such cellular components may have came to be but rather it is based on scientific observations of how they function. My argument is not based on the assumption that God must have done it since it is currently inexplicable by means of natural processes. Scientific observations and experimentation have demonstrated that cells cannot exist apart from their constituent parts and the vital functions they perform.” See I thought that my interpretation of your argument was wrong, but now I am confused again, please explain how your argument proved God’s existence that isn’t how I interpreted it. “a quick answer to Con's argument concerning omnipotence is that the Bible never says God will do that which is contrary to His nature.” But if God does not do what is contradictory to his nature then He is not omnipotent lol. Conclusion: I believe I have rebutted all of my opponent’s points and I look forward to the next round, good luck! http://www.quantumtemporaldynamics.com...