An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

3C0A: “I ... apologize for not noticing ... you wanted me to started (sic), hopefully I haven't made ... a bad impression(.)” Not at all, it's a common mistake. Onto the debate! --- Con Case --- 2C1: Burden of Proof Pro seems to accept that they have the burden of proof. To reinforce this, let's look at this through Occam's Razor. Definition of Occam's Razor: "[A]mong competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. " [M]ore complicated solutions may " prove correct, but"in the absence of [evidence]"the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The " principle " shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power," Wikipedia [11]. In a worldview where an OOO entity does not exist, fewer assumptions are made than in any worldview where one does. For example, contrast a Con universe and a Pro universe. Con: "The universe exists." Pro: "The universe exists, and an OOO entity exists."Thus, Pro has the full Burden of Proof. --- 2C2: The Logical Problem of Evil The Logical Problem of Evil shows that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity and the existence of evil form a contradiction, such that only one or the other can exist in a given reality. P1: From definition, an omnipotent entity can perform any action. P2: From definition, an omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil. P3: From P1-2, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil. P4: From P1-3, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, then evil does not. A1: Assume temporarily that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists. P5: From P1-4 and A1, evil does not exist. P6: From observation, evil exists. C1: P6 and P5 form a contradiction; A1 is false, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist. The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity. Because we cannot reject the existence of evil, we must reject the existence of an omnipotent entity. --- 2C3: The Paradox of Omnipotence The Paradox of Omnipotence attempts to prove that it's impossible for an entity to truly be omnipotent, because an omnipotent entity would have to be able to limit itself; however, because it is limitable, it is also not omnipotent. A few variations on the theme: Theme 1: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" If yes: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone. If no: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone. Theme 2: "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" If yes: Jesus's power is limited, because he cannot eat the burrito. If no: Jesus's power is limited, because it cannot microwave the burrito. As such, an omnipotent god cannot possibly exist. --- Rebuttal of Pro Case Different parts of Pro’s statements support different arguments, so I have moved them to multiple sections. Don't expect complete continuity. --- 2P1: the Cosmological Argument 2P1A: “(A)n (OOO) ... entity exists because it explains ... how the Universe was created. ... (T)he Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from ... one, single point. ... (T)he Big Bang theory does not provide a valid explanation for .... (w)here did that hot, dense point come from?” 1: Yes, the Big Bang theory does not provide an explanation for where that point came from; the Big Bang theory merely explains what happened afterward, and it would be outside of its scope to include an origin for the universe. In fact, it is currently impossible to scientifically know what came before the Big Bang [1]. However, just because we don't know why the universe began does not mean that Allah (or any divine entity) must exist, and asserting otherwise falls into the “God of the Gaps” mentality [2], which is a form of the fallacious “argument from ignorance” [3]. 2: Let's also consider that much of modern physics predicts that “time” came into existence with the Big Bang [4][5]. If this is true, then there can be no “before” the Big Bang whatsoever; asking what came “before” the Big Bang is nonsensical. 3: Even if we accept that time did exist before the Big Bang, there are numerous theories that would allow the universe to come “from nothing”. Consider the Zero-Energy Universe theory. All energy in the universe is balanced, with gravity acting as negative energy and particles acting as positive energy [6][7]. Consider two sets of two particles: In Set A, they are close together, and have little potential kinetic energy. In Set B, they are far apart, and have much potential kinetic energy. As such, if the universe has zero energy, then it is entirely possible that it was formed as a random quantum fluctuation. 4: Furthermore, let’s consider the assumption inherent in this argument – that everything that began to exist has a cause. This seems intuitive, but is flawed. First, this belief is an induction, not a philosophical fact, and can never be a philosophical fact, because we cannot have perfect knowledge. Second, it is known that quantum fluctuations have no apparent cause, but are merely temporary energy imbalances that spontaneously form [8]. Furthermore, this assumption requires time to exist to make any sense. 5: For this specific subargument, let’s assume that, in fact, everything that exists requires a cause. (Disregard 2P1A.1, 2, 3, and 4.) Therefore, the OOO must also have a cause, and that cause requires a cause, ad nauseum. As such, this doesn’t solve the problem of infinite causal regress, but just adds extra steps into the already infinite regress. 6: And even if a divine First Cause is required, why must that First Cause be OOO? For example, if it must merely be omnipotent, then the existence of an OOO entity is still unproven. 2P1B: “God ... is ... not bound by ... time, space or matter. ... (H)e is eternal, having no begining and no end.” 1: These are mere assertions. Even assuming that an OOO god exists, there is no given reason why that OOO god must be eternal. --- 2P2: Intelligent Design 2P2A: “(M)iracle that one planet, in our solar system, had a planet that could sustain life.” 1: Why? 2: A lower estimate for the number of stars in our universe is 1*10^24 stars, based on merely the observable universe [9]. If the chance of life existing on any given star is 0.00000000000000000000001%, then it’s probable that life exists. 3: What does “[O]ne planet ... had a planet” mean? 4: I’d recommend a read of http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://rationalwiki.org.... Why is it that we live on Earth? Because we can live on Earth. If we couldn’t, we wouldn’t. 2P2B: “Given the number of particles in the universe, wouldn't the chances of a sustainable planet, with an environment suited to humans ... be slim?” 1: I don’t know why the number of particles in the universe is related to the habitability of any given planet. Wouldn’t more particles mean more chances of habitability? --- 2P3: Accuracy of the Quran 2P3A: “I don't want to completely disprove the Big Bang theory because it ... fits the description in the Quran(.) 1: This seems like skewed logic here. Accept the Quran, then accept the Big Bang because it agrees with it. 2P3B: “In a time where the only astronomy was ... gazing at the night sky, the Final Prophet ... wrote about the universe expanding(.) ... God is expanding the universe.” 1: The modern translation of this verse is quite different from earlier translations. Three examples: “And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample,” (Quran 51:47). 1917 translation from Muhammad Ali. “We have built the heaven with might, and We it is Who make the vast extent (thereof),” (Quran 51:47). 1930 translation from Marmaduke Pickthall. “With power and skill did We construct the Firmament: for it is We Who create the vastness of space,” (Quran 51:47). 1934 translation from Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Only in modern times has the past-tense and positive “we made it big” been changed into the present-tense and comparative “we make it bigger”. Why? (And yes, this is copied from http://rationalwiki.org.... Seeing as I wrote that portion of the page, I don’t think it’s plagiarism.) 2: It's also interesting that scientific discoveries are very rarely "predicted" by the Quran until after science has made the discovery. One would imagine that a book so full of scientific foreknowledge would be used to predict future scientific discoveries, while it appears that the Quran can only vaguely predict currently existing science. This appears to be a manifestation of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy [10]. (And yes, this is copied from http://rationalwiki.org.... Seeing as I wrote that portion of the page, I don’t think it’s plagiarism.) --- 2P4: Lack of Disproof 2P4A: “(T)here is no solid evidence for God's existence - but ... there is no solid evidence to DISPROVE God's existence.” 1: Pro contradicts Proself. In 2P1, 2, and 3, Pro argues that evidence for God's existence exists. In 2P4, Pro argues that no evidence for God's existence exists. Which does Pro truly believe? 2: Evidence is unnecessary to disprove God; see 3C1. 3: Even if evidence is necessary, I have provided it; see 3C2 and 3. --- References: [1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch#Theoretical_ideas [2] rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps [3] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance [4] science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm/printable [5] hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html [6] livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html [7] astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ [8] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation [9] universetoday.com/102630/how-many-stars-are-there-in-the-universe/ [10] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy [11] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor