An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent Entity Exists

This response is short, possibly badly written. Sorry, not much time. --- 4C0: Pro's arguments The last part of Pro's Round 3 argument is in the comments, due to them extending over the 10,000 character limit. --- Defense of Con Case: --- 4C1: Burden of Proof 4C1A: "(H)ow I can prove ... God exists as humans do not have that kind of power(.)" 1. If Pro truly believes humans cannot prove (with scientific or logical evidence) that Allah exists, then Pro cannot prove that an OOO god exists. If there is no evidence for an assertion, then it can be rejected immediately with Occam's Razor. Pro MUST provide evidence, or else fails to prove that an OOO god exists. 2: In fact, providing evidence is exactly what Pro does in all of Pro's points. Hence, Pro contradicts themself. --- 4C2: Logical Problem of Evil 4C2A: "(W)e have different ideas of ... evil(.)" 1: The fact that different people have different morals is irrelevant to the fact that evil exists. 2: Further, even if we only accept Quranic views on evil as correct, then evil definitely exists. The Quran clearly opposes homosexuality [1]. And yet people commit homosexual acts. Clearly, merely using the teachings of the Quran itself, evil exists. Hence, Islam is not internally consistent. 4C2B: "Those who avoid the fruit will be rewarded(.)" 1: Obviously that's not always how it works out; good people often die young, and bad old. This is true for people of any creed. Why can't Allah fix this? 4C2C: "(F)ree will ... to live ... however we want(.)" 1: Please, prove that free will exists and that humans have it. 2: Why can't an OMNIPOTENT entity force people to be good and also have free will? Why not make everyone freely choose the good, like the perfect saint? 3: Pro believes in Jannah, yes? In Jannah, there is no evil [2]. Yet if free will means that evil is possible, then that must mean that no free will exists in Jannah. Yet Jannah is *better* than Earth. Under Islam itself, it is better to have no free will and no evil. Why doesn't Allah enforce this? 4C2D: "Iblis ... has free will ... uses tempation to convince people to sin. Allah does not stop Iblis because ... free will." 1: Allah is omnipotent; Iblis is not. Why can't Allah stop Iblis? --- 4C3: The Paradox of Omnipotence 4C3A: "If God creates a rock so heavy that even HE can't lift it, couldn't one argue that he has chosen to restrict his abilities?" 1: Yes. That is, in fact, what I am arguing. The difference between Superman and an OOO entity is that Superman's abilities were ALWAYS limited -- he merely increased the limit. For an OOO entity, the abilities were unlimited and unlimitable -- yet the OOO entity placed a limit on said abilities. 2: "Choice" is irrelevant. The limitability of omnipotence is important here, nothing else. 3: Two more questions, to help understand this issue: Could an omnipotent entity permanently and retroactively remove its omnipotence? If yes, then it's not omnipotent, because it has limited ability and has always had limited abilities. If no, then it's not omnipotent, because it can't remove its omnipotence. Could an omnipotent entity create an entity more powerful than itself? If yes, then it's not omnipotent, because it is possible to have more power than the entity. If no, then it's not omnipotent, because it can't create the entity 4C3B: "So yeah, an omnipotent being wouldn't be subject to our logic because God can do whatever He wants, including restricting himself, which is essentially not wanting to do something." 1: Why isn't an OOO entity subject to logic? 2: Even if an OOO entity isn't subject to logic, BOTH answers to any versions of the question (even if they are simultaneous, ignoring the Law of No Contradiction) BOTH make the entity NOT OOO. Hence, it is simply impossible for an entity to be OOO. --- Rebuttals --- 4P1: The Cosmological Argument 4P1A: "[I]f Pro can't explain the origin of the Universe, why am I obligated to provide evidence for something that goes beyond the natural? .... I don't see anything observable to prove that everything sprang into existence by itself." 1: I'm Con. 2: I have offered some explanations for the origin of the universe. However, while it isn't my duty to prove that the universe came into existence without a god, it IS Pro's duty "to provide evidence for something that goes beyond the natural". 3: As stated, evidence doesn't exist because our current system of physics cannot "see" past the very first Planck second. Hence, there is proof neither for nor against the possibility of the universe self-creating. 4P1B: "[A]theism is as much of a faith as Islam[.]" 1: I don't think you understand -- atheism makes no claims about the universe. Islam does, namely the existences of Allah, Jannah, Iblis, etc. Islam requires evidence. Negative atheism does not. Hence, Islam is much, much more of a faith. 2: Even if this were true, this would be equivalent to saying "Yeah, religion sucks, but your religion sucks too". 4P1C: "[W]e're ... assuming ... God exists until ... concrete explanation[.]" 1: That's an incorrect assumption. God is an unnecessary complication, and thus, through Occam's Razor, you should assume that God does not exist until proven otherwise. (ie, the reverse of Pro's beliefs) 4P1D: [B]efore the Big Bang: something outside the scope of space, matter, or time i.e. Allah." 1: Again, you have not proven that the existence of an entity outside space, matter, or time (or any combination of the three) is possible. Hence, it's still not proven that such an entity can actually exist. 2: Again, you have not proven WHY the OOO entity MUST be outside the scope of space, matter, or time. 3: Ideas are great. However, as I pointed out, neither Pro's nor mine is supported by evidence yet. Unfortunately for Pro, Pro has the Burden of Proof to prove Pro's idea. 4P1E: "How do we know God didn't cause this?" 1: Because, without evidence either way, that's an unnecessary assumption. 4P1F: "Pro is implying that particles and anti-particles were formed out of the vaccum of space. ... [F]or a quantum fluctuation to occur, there must be a universe[.]" 1: I'm Con. 2: [[Citation needed]] 3: Why must space exist for quantum fluctuations to exist? 4: Why didn't space exist before the universe existed? 5: Actually, not just the vacuum of space, but everywhere. Minor issue. 4P1G: "[Allah] is able to defy the laws of physics ... exists outside of time, space and matter ... is eternal[.]" 1: See 4C4D.1 and 2. 4P1H: "Muhammad ... said: “God was [before the creation] and there was nothing else.” Everything is linked to God ... including ... quantum fluctuations[.]" 1: This assumes that Muhammad is an accurate source. 2: This assumes that the Quran is an accurate depiction of Muhammad. 3: Pro asserts that quantum fluctuations are caused by Allah without evidence. 4: In addition, Pro is assuming that Allah exists in order to "prove" that everything is caused by Allah. This is circular logic and fallacious. 4P1I: "The Quran says ... God created everything, so we believe ... God created everything, the Quran doesn't describe quantum fluctuations, so based on the Word of Allah, He created the universe and basically everything." 1: This assumes that the Quran is an accurate source. 2: Using the Quran to prove that Allah exists is, again, circular and fallacious. 4P1J: "There must have been something eternal to create or initiate the creation of the universe, no question." 1: Why? Why is self-causality impossible? Why is it impossible for something to form from nothing? 2: See 4C4D.1 and 2. --- 4C2: Intelligent Design 4C2A: "One planet ... of our solar system or the whole of space, can support life[.] .... [W]hy ... only one[?]" 1: Actually, we don't know that either of those statements is true. We haven't sufficiently explored our solar system, much less ALL space, to know that life doesn't exist other than on Earth. 2: Remember the anthropic principle. We live here not because we are lucky, but because we CAN live here. 3: WHY is this proof of Allah? Even if life is improbable, improbable stuff happens. A royal flush has a 1 in 649,740 chance of happening -- yet it happens all the time. 4C2B: "What's to stop Earth from not having life[?]" 1: Nothing. Why does this matter? 4C2C: "That's the probability for each separate star ... chances for each star can't add up." 1: What do you mean? It's very possible to add probabilities. 2: These aren't the actual probabilities -- this is the minimum probability of life forming for life to be 100% likely. --- 4C3: Accuracy of the Quran 4C3A: "[T]he Quran came up with the Big Bang[.]" 1: No, that's Georges Lemaître. 2: I recently wrote on this [3]. Do read. 3: Even if this were true, the "predictions" of the Quran are so vague that they are unscientific. In the Quran, a day can mean as much as 50,000 years or as little as 1 day. Creation myths like this impart little to no information about anything, much less the Big Bang. 4: Muslims didn't predict that the universe began with a gigantic "explosion" until science discovered it, in a form of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Your predictions can't be wrong if you tailor the Qur'an to fit the prediction after the fact, now can they? 4C3B: "[D]ifferent translations ... extremists ... pacifists[.]" 1: Don't Muslims believe that ONLY the original Arabic is correct? 4C3C: "You say these predictions are vague[.] ... [T]here weren't ... names for these ... at the time[.]" 1: Unfortunately, I don't have the character space to debunk these. However, "Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing" is pretty damn vague, and if they meant fingerprints, why not figure out a scientific way to describe them? Was Allah not willing to do detail? --- 4C4: Lack of Disproof 4C4A: "No contradiction ... intended[.]" 1: Intention is irrelevant; the contradiction remains. --- References: [1] islam.about.com/od/islamsays/a/homosexuality.htm [2] islam.about.com/od/heavenhell/g/gl_jannah.htm [3] rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quranic_scientific_foreknowledge#Big_Bang