The Existence of God (Christian)

Rebuttal of Con's Opening Arguments Con states, "Since God is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus losing its perfection." This is true, but one must determine whether created, sentient beings with free will are imperfect. The only standard one could compare them to in such a context is God Himself. If God is perfect and has free will, then it stands to reason that created, sentient beings with free will are also perfect. One must really define what he means by "perfect" as it can mean different things depending on context. I believe a better descriptive adjective to be used in this case is "good." God created all things very good according to Genesis 1. Humans were created in the image of God thus bearing His cognitive capacity for emotion, rational thought, and free will. Con states, "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." Con's designation of perfect "things" as non-existent idealizations of real things is arbitrary and unsupportive of his argument. By what measure do we accept that "perfect things" are unlikely to exist. Perfection is a qualitative claim rather than a measurably quantitative descriptor. Since it is qualitative, we must have some standard which to judge it by. If we judge it by any individual's opinionated standard, we can never be assured of a proper classification of perfection as individual's standards vary from person to person. The only logical way to judge the "perfection" of a thing would be to compare it to God's perfect and unchanging standard, as He is the Creator, Lord and Judge of all things. In either case, perfectionism is a poor defense of either theism or atheism. Con states, "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." 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." Therefore the claim that if God exists, the world should be perfect is flawed. 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." What standard, I wonder, can Con honestly judge the imperfection of the world by? The Bible answers the dilemma of imperfection or corruption in the world by recording the truth of the sin of all accountable men. 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. Con states, "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." 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. Con states, "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." 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. Thus, God's free will is unhampered by His foreknowledge as He has made decisions in advanced. 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. So His decision could really be considered eternal and outside of time, as His His choices would also be considered eternally willed. 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. Another issue to consider is that in order to make such logical statements as Con has, even if they were sound, one must truly concede to the existence of a reliable moral standard. Of course, unless they can identify it, their case does not hold up. 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? At best, one could only dismiss God based on a personal dislike of His qualities/actions. But this is not a truly substantial reason for accepting the non-existence of God. If I rejected evolution merely because I disliked the idea of sharing a common ancestor with apes, my rejection would be opinion-based, not rooted in evidential reason. If the resolution of this debate concerns the logical, rational, evidential "proof" of God, then Con's arguments are negligible since they are based on qualitative, standard-dependent claims. By the way, I of course do not believe God is deceitful or contradictory and it is because I can judge even His actions by the very moral standard which He has established from eternity. If Con's arguments were sound, and stood up to rational scrutiny, then they would pose a problem for the trustworthiness of scripture. But in order for them to be taken seriously, again one must concede to a divine moral standard only works against someone who is attempting to disprove the existence of God. Response to Con's Round 3 Rebuttals Con seems to have completely dropped my argument concerning the information found in DNA, and he has instead opted to make a counter argument. Con states, "I agree. God 'intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it' so using your logic then God has to have a creator. . ." 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. God is a spirit and therefore His existence does not require Him having been created. In addressing my arguments based on the irreducible complexity of DNA, ATP synthase, and RNA polymerase, Con states that my arguments were "good" but then goes on to say ". . .this argument does not prove God’s existence at all." In what way did Con deem it good I wonder then? Regardless, 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. 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. What we can gather from actual scientific observations, not from a lack of knowledge, is that cells must have been created with all of their systems and individual parts functioning together from their inception. Con states, "This is exactly what the primitive people that invented religions did, why does it rain? Because the mighty God does it." Con provides no substantial reason why we should accept this claim beyond his own personal speculation. 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. Con goes on to say, ". . .as history progresses and we discover the real reason of why this happens." 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. Con states, "As science progresses I am sure that this mystery will be solved as well, saying that 'God did it!' is not a logical assumption given the track record of religion." 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. Since I am out of space, 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.