A perfect god does not exist!

It is always refreshing to be able to have a mature, serious discussion about religion without having an opponent resorting to diatribe or ad-hominem. I would also like to remind any voters that in order for the PRO to have "won" this argument, you must percieve that his logical construction is flawless and there is no way that there can even be a CHANCE (however infintessimal that may be) that a God can exist (according to Abrahamic traditions and scriptures). Merely concluding with the PRO that it is "highly unlikely" that God can exist is still a LOSS for the PRO since a logical construction must be absolutely and infallably logically correct to be proven. This is the standard for logical proofs. 1. The PRO's Incorrect Usage and Application of the Term "Perfect" Rather than confronting of even attempting to dispute the correctness of the source which I have presented before (REPRINTED HERE: . http://www.crivoice.org... ), the PRO has ignored it and presented his own counter-factual source which he claims proves that "perfect" and "tamin" are COMPLETELY interchangable. The problem occurs when one applies a common definition of perfect: "without flaw" to the original word which it did NOT have. Here is a Hebrew Lexicon that defines Tamin, notice that the "without fault" are not included anywhere in the definition even though the word "perfect" is. (SOURCE: . http://www.biblestudytools.com... ) Perfect has many meanings as the PRO has pointed out and "without fault" is the one that MUST be true in order for this logical syllogism to be complete. However, just because "perfect" is listed as a synonym does NOT mean that all of the meanings of perfect can be applied to the original hebrew word. For example, at Thesuarus. com (SOURCE: . http://thesaurus.com... ) the word "fair" is said to be a synonym of the word "clean" but that does not mean that all of the definitions of the word clean can also be applied to the word "fair. " It would be confusing and improper to say, "I got my truck fair by going through the car-wash. " 2. The PRO's logical construction depends on the hebrew word for Perfect to mean "flawless" because only in that context does his argument have a semblance of correctness. Here are some questions that could be posed though which effectively poke holes in his construction. A. If the word perfect can correctly be taken to mean "without flaw," what does the bible mean when it says that Noah was "perfect? " (Gen. 6:9). Surely Noah could not have been without fault since he previously sinned by drinking heavily. THEREFORE it is incorrect to conclude that Noah was without any faults ever and that the word "perfect" in its english translation can be taken to mean "without flaw. " B. Why does a God who is "flaw-less" logically have to create a world that is also as flawless as himself? As I've stated before- the translations clearly do not indicate that the world is "flawless" because that is not a definition that can be attributed to them. 3. One could argue that God DID create a world without flaw, in the Garden of Eden. The PRO in this case would be incorrectly applying a description of the Garden of Eden to the modern world. So lets look over the syllogism that the PRO has presented one last time and point out the flaws in its construction: The PRO asserts that: A) The Abrahamic God is perfect and without flaw. B) God was compelled to make the heavens and the earth (incorrect anthropomorphization of God which attributes un-verifiable feelings when there is no evidence of any) C) Therefore God was unhappy prior to this creation This is also a great example of a non-sequitur argument. Why is the creation of a world by a perfect being evidence that said being is not perfect? The answer is that there is no evidence. What evidence is there that the creation of said world is evidence that said being was unhappy? No evidence. Furthermore, (and cruically) why can't a being that is flawless be unhappy? Where is the definition for this? Nowhere. What definition says that a being that is flawless can also not be un-happy? Nowhere. IN CONCLUSION. If ANY SINGLE ONE of my points cannot be effectively parried by the PROs case- the logical syllogism of the PRO is INCOMPLETE and UNPROVEN.