God Probably Exists

CON CASEThe Problem of EvilMy opponent begins by saying that I am conceding the free will objection to the Problem of Evil. Not so. I merely raised it as a possible rebuttal, and said that it was irrelevant, but did not say that it was a sound rebuttal at all.Pro proceeds to say that God could not have created a perfect world, because in doing so he would be creating himself, so God creates the best possible world He can.Yet, our world is not even close to the best possible world. Some possible world could be infinitely close to being perfect without being perfect, i. e.: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999repeatingforever percent perfect, but is not perfect by 0.00000000000yougettheidea1 pecent. For instance, there is some possible world in which natural disasters do not occur, but people can still get sick. That world would be more perfect than our world, thus our world is not the best possible world that God could have created.He continues by engaging in circular reasoning by saying that if God created our world, then our world must be the best possible world. This argument presupposes that God exists and did create our world, and uses that presupposition to justify how God could have created our world. Pro's own logic can be turned against him: Our world is not the best possible world that God could have created, therefore, God could not have created our world and the resolution is negated.This argument stands even stronger than before.EvolutionPro makes the claim that six days does not have to mean six days as we know them, yet even if time is taken out of the equation, evolution still negates the Genesis account which describes God creating everything on Earth. The Genesis account even describes God creating light and plants before the sun, which contradicts the scientific evidence that concludes that the sun predates the Earth. He continues by writing:"Now assuming evolution occurred refer to point about the best of all possible worlds, if evolution occurred it was because it was the best possible way for everything to occur. It is the only possible way things could occur." This argument uses the same circular logic that was used before: It assumes that God used evolution, and uses this to explain why God would have used evolution. Using evolution is obviously not the best possible way for things to have occurred, as God could have bypassed the flawed process of evolution.It should be noted that my opponent dropped my argument that evolution is a flawed process, so that has already been conceded.Poor DesignMy opponent has misunderstood my argument in this section. I agree with him that God does not have a physical appearance. I am using this idea to say that because of this, our physical design is not based on the way God looks, but rather that God would have had to have chosen that our anatomy is the way it is for a reason. My opponent does not challenge my point that our anatomy is flawed, so he thus concedes that God would have intentionally designed us with flawed anatomy. He could use his "we can't be perfect" argument, but this is rebutted here just as I have rebutted it in the past two sections by pointing out that God could have given us one tiny flaw, and thus we would not have been perfect, yet we have many flaws in our anatomy. For example:In some possible world, humans would not have to eat for 30 days. This would not be perfection as humans would still have to eat, but it eliminates the flaw of having to constantly keep reloading our bodies with energy.As pointed out by Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the video in R2, the universe is poorly designed in a multitude of ways. God could have eliminated all but one of those flaws, and the world would be better than it is now, but not quite perfect.An Immoral GodPro argues that God's actions were justifiable. He argues that the Egyptians deserved punishment. While this may be true, I think he would agree that killing a murderer's child to punish the murderer is not moral. God does not kill all of the Egyptians who were responsible for mistreating the Israelites, but rather he chooses to kill their children. Not only does God choose to kill the innocent Egyptian children, he also kills all of the first born animals. Killing the children of killers is not justice.As for the Amalekite genocide, once again we see that God is not just commanding justice for the people responsible for attacking the Israelites, but the innocent women, children, and animals who are part of the tribe. 1 Samuel 15:3 states that God said: "'Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys’” [1]. In this verse, God is commanding an act of genocide: He is saying kill everyone in this tribe, specifically because they are a member of that tribe. Don't just kill the adults. Kill the children. Kill the infants. Kill the animals. Both of these actions describe God killing innocent children. My argument stands.REBUTTALSArgument from ReasonHere, my opponent provides a number of premises, none of which he backs up with reasoning. For example, I see no reason why the assertion that physical material or combinations of physical material can constitute a rational source must be true. Since he is making this claim, he must prove it to be true, otherwise, it can be discarded, as can his first conclusion. This false conclusion would result in the negation of the entire argument.And even if the entire argument were to be conceded as true, it would not prove the existence of the tri-omni God described in the Bible. All this argument can prove is that there is something beyond the material world.CONCLUSIONIn this round I have successfully defended my arguments against my opponent's attacks by demonstrating that a non-perfect possible world exists that is closer to perfection than ours. Additionally, Pro's offensive case was shown to be nothing more than logic based on an unfounded premise that in no way proves the existence of God. At this point in the debate, Con is clearly winning.Source:[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...