The Existence of God (Christian)

I am glad that you do not use the Bible as evidence. I look forward to a challenging debate with someone more than 4 times my age. Arguments: We can conclude that God is deemed perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it fits completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Therefore a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of a positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal perfection. Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection. Things that we call "perfect" are usually exaggerations of real things. For example, you might wonder what a "perfect friend" might be like, yet no one has a perfect friend in real life. Anyone who says that they do is probably exaggerating. The same goes for intimate partners, children, pets, parents, bosses and employees, teachers, students, schools, jobs, and so on. Perfection in any of these categories tends to be an idealization of real things, where the good aspects are preserved and perfected while the bad aspects are eliminated. We can infer something said to be "perfect" is unlikely to exist because perfect things tend to be nonexistent idealizations of real things. Since perfect things are unlikely to exist and God is a perfect thing, it follows that it is unlikely that God exists. God is a perfect being that created the universe. If God exists, then the world is perfect before the creation of the universe. God would not make the world worse in virtue of his moral perfection. If God exists, then the world is perfect during and after the creation of the universe. If God exists, then the world is perfect. The world is imperfect. Therefore, God does not exist. Now onto my second point. People seem to believe that God is the most moral being in the universe. Part of this belief is that God does not have certain kinds of feelings. Although God may have the feeling of anger, God does not have the feelings of lust or envy, which would break his moral perfection. Moreover, part of this ordinary concept of God is that God knows more than anyone else. In particular the ordinary man supposes that God knows (at least) all that men know. However these two beliefs, once correctly understood, are logically incompatible. A person who knows lust and envy has at least had the feeling of lust or envy. Since God has all of men's knowledge and more, he must know lust and envy. But to say God has known lust and envy is to say that God has had the feelings of lust and envy. But this is incompatible with God's moral goodness. Hence God does not exist. If God exists, God has not had the feelings of lust or envy therefore not intruding on his moral existence. If God exists, God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows and more. If God exists as a being who knows at least everything man knows, God knows lust and envy. If God knows lust and envy, God has had the feelings of lust and envy. God does not exist. Now onto my last point. The Christian God is defined as a personal being that is all-knowing. According to Christians, personal beings have free will. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is choice. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, you can never know with entire certainty what the future holds since you have free-will. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty. " It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. Conclusion: I would like to thank my opponent very much for accepting this debate. This is the end of my response as I have stated my three arguments. It is now time to hear my opponent’s arguments. I understand that my opponent will not use his visions as evidence of God and do his side in this debate by providing evidence for God or giving arguments for his existence.