CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
yep, if the universe was imperfect, we wouldnt be alive right now, so everything is perfect, we are doing a good job making it an imperfect place though...
#2. You don't justify that their belief is not in error.
#4 You just assumed what you were trying to prove (#7). This is the opposite of sound logic.
#5 For the purpose of non circular arguments, you present proofs before using them as statements, or immediately after, and especially not immediately after assuming the thing you are trying to prove.
#6 Invalid, due to lack of justification
#7 See #4, this is redundant, and invalid due to lack of justification.
How can you say that a perfect God exists based on a simple assumption? Yes, your crazy theory does make sense if you don't have to make assumptions along the way. You could not say "this belief is not an error" based on the assumption.
I could tell a mentally challenged person that Humpty Dumpty just became the Prime Minister. Following your logic I could then say "THEREFORE this belief is not an error", and if you want me to make sure I have it right from square one, I'd just tell loads of mentally challenged people the same thing.
In a short piece of what you appear to consider proof you shouldn't be including the word if twice.
To be honest I didn't even write that. I got it of some logic game, I just put it to what people said. Frankly, I think there is a perfect God, but I don't really care.
1) The first, and slightly more obvious reason, is that nobody has actually proven God exists.
In any shape or form, nobody has irrefutably proven that God exists. When someone can supply evidence to prove this case then they can next move on to whether God is perfect. How do I know nobody has ever proven God? Because then 'Does God Exist' debates would be meaningless. If you click on the link you will find that there have been a lot of these debates and such debates will never end because neither side can actually provide irrefutable proof to suggest God's existence.
Nobody has actually proven God to exist - so asking about a perfect one is jumping a bit.
2) God can never always be right; it's an impossibility.
Alfred Whitehead once correctly said:
"What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike"
In the purest form of morality, he is absolutely correct. However some people would not agree with some of the things that are in the Bible (some of the things that God is okay with - or at least, was), such as about how all gays should go to hell, about how stoning children to death is okay if they swear at their parents, etc. That would not be considered okay by the majority of people nowadays, meaning that God could not be considered wholly moral - and if he was God, he'd have to be, because this definition of perfect says:
"Completely free from faults or defects"
If God is wrong in anything, then he is not perfect. Anyway, we could go on speaking of philosophy and morals for ages, but it also implies in the Bible that the Earth is flat - and God would (if we was all-knowing and all-powerful) surely never make that mistake. He would also never contradict himself if he were perfect, and the Bible contradicts itself several times.
1) The first, and slightly more obvious reason, is that nobody has actually proven God exists.
God isn't perfect because his existence hasn't been proven? I believe this is a flawed argument.
Nobody has actually proven God to exist - so asking about a perfect one is jumping a bit.
How? You're basically saying that God is imperfect while under the pretense that God doesn't exist. This makes no sense.
God can never always be right; it's an impossibility.
How so?
In the purest form of morality, he is absolutely correct. However some people would not agree with some of the things that are in the Bible (some of the things that God is okay with - or at least, was), such as about how all gays should go to hell, about how stoning children to death is okay if they swear at their parents, etc. That would not be considered okay by the majority of people nowadays, meaning that God could not be considered wholly moral - and if he was God, he'd have to be, because this definition of perfect says:
"Completely free from faults or defects"
The Bible is not shaped by general societal morality. I don't really understand your point though. Wouldn't the 'right' morals be determined by the Creator of the universe rather than the creation?
If God is wrong in anything, then he is not perfect. Anyway, we could go on speaking of philosophy and morals for ages, but it also implies in the Bible that the Earth is flat - and God would (if we was all-knowing and all-powerful) surely never make that mistake. He would also never contradict himself if he were perfect, and the Bible contradicts itself several times.
The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat, and these supposed contradictions are not God's doing, the source you provided referenced a KJV Bible, which is known for dubious translations and wording.
(1) If an object or entity does not exist then it can have no assigned qualities or characteristics. If the widget has not been made, it cannot have any aspects - no perfection, no imperfection, nothing. Similarly, on cannot ascribe a quality to a non-existent god. The argument then is not that God is imperfect, so much as that God cannot be perfect if god does not exist.
(2) If I understand your argument correctly Troy, you state that there is a universal "right" established by god in the Bible. Effectively, your argument is this then: God is perfect because his morality is perfect. However, you are failing to prove that the moral system of God (whatever it actually is) is itself perfect. Just because a hypothetical God made something doesn't make it perfect, particularly if God is imperfect (consequentially making his creations subject to imperfection). You cannot prove that God exists, let alone that God's morality is perfect.
If an object or entity does not exist then it can have no assigned qualities or characteristics.
Obviously. But you can't say that God does not exist. In fact, I thought we were operating under the assumption that a God does exist and then asking if he is perfect.
If I understand your argument correctly Troy, you state that there is a universal "right" established by god in the Bible.
That is correct.
Effectively, your argument is this then: God is perfect because his morality is perfect.
No, I never gave an argument. As you see above, it was a dispute in response to an argument.
However, you are failing to prove that the moral system of God (whatever it actually is) is itself perfect.
I never attempted this described feat.
You cannot prove that God exists, let alone that God's morality is perfect.
I know this...did I ever say anything to the contrary?
God isn't perfect because his existence hasn't been proven?"
Of course!
If I do not have a chair, can it be perfect? If I have not eaten a pancake, was it a perfect experience? If there is not a God that I worship, can that God be perfect? No.
If God cannot be proven to even exist then we cannot ask the question about how perfect that God could be. There is more evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist than to say that he does.
It is not a "flawed argument" at all.
"I don't really understand your point, though. Would the 'right' morals be determined by the Creator of the universe rather than the Creation"
No.
In the Bible it says that if a child swears at their parents they shalt have blood upon them - or something. Not everyone would agree with such a moral demonstration as this and because of that fact, such a practice would be seen as immoral. However, God appears to have justified it, meaning that God is morally wrong.
Would you really say that if someone curses at their parents they should suffer immense pain? The majority of people do not agree with every single word in the Bible and a lot of it may represent values that are not beneficial for society.
Thus, morality and immorality is dictated by the Creation instead of the Creator.
"The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat"
Yes, it does.
In Isiah 40:22 it describes the Earth as a circle, not a sphere. A circle is not something that is anything like a sphere at all besides the fact that it is round. The defining fact is that we know the Earth is a sphere, whereas in the Bible it says that the Earth is a circle. "He who sits above the circle of the Earth" is a quote that clearly shows that the world is perceived as circular instead of spherical.
It does say in the Bible that the world is flat. Micmacmoc: 1, God: 0.
This is completely irrelevant and an incorrect comparison. You are saying that you know you don't have a chair. You don't know that there is no God.
If I have not eaten a pancake, was it a perfect experience?
Again, wrong.
If there is not a God that I worship, can that God be perfect? No.
Umm...what? You don't know this though.
If God cannot be proven to even exist then we cannot ask the question about how perfect that God could be.
Sure we can. Isn't that the whole point of this debate?
There is more evidence to suggest that God doesn't exist than to say that he does.
I don't agree. Like what?
It is not a "flawed argument" at all.
You really made a weak case for this. You didn't refute my reasoning at all.
In the Bible it says that if a child swears at their parents they shalt have blood upon them - or something.
You don't seem too sure. Maybe give a reference?
The majority of people do not agree with every single word in the Bible and a lot of it may represent values that are not beneficial for society.
But if God is supreme (which he is, according to the Bible), what he says should determine societal values, whether or not some people disagree with it.
Thus, morality and immorality is dictated by the Creation instead of the Creator.
Well, right now it is. And look at the world! Great place, right?
In Isiah 40:22 it describes the Earth as a circle, not a sphere. A circle is not something that is anything like a sphere at all besides the fact that it is round. The defining fact is that we know the Earth is a sphere, whereas in the Bible it says that the Earth is a circle. "He who sits above the circle of the Earth" is a quote that clearly shows that the world is perceived as circular instead of spherical.
First of all, there is a problem with your conclusion. The Hebrews did not have a word the explicitly meant 'sphere' back then. That does not mean that they did not know it was a sphere. Secondly, it is more of a perspective description. It describes God as reigning above the Earth, so it would look circular from his perspective, just like a full moon looks circular to us from Earth. So no, this does not mean the Bible teaches the Earth is flat.
But can you actually prove that there is a God? Could you ever actually prove that God exists? If you can prove to me that God exists then you have beaten me on step one - but step two is indesputible, and it amazes me how you continue to dispute me on that.
There is far more proof and scientific fact to prove that God does not exist. You may supply such evidence as to how people may not have disputed one or two things, but I could just as well reply to any of those statements that nobody has proven Jesus to exist in the first place.
However the fact that a God who does not exist can not have any qualities is equally as relevant.
"Sure we can. Isn't that the point of this debate?"
No, such a thing is illogical.
If God has not been proven to exist then to begin theorising about his possible qualities is something that you simply cannot do.
As I have already mentioned, if a chair does not exist it can have no qualities, and equally if God does not exist theorising about how perfect he is is something that is completely illogical.
"If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head"
Most people will not agree with this, and I think that if you actually believe this then there is a problem. There is no way that parents should be allowed to kill their children just for swearing at them, and why a parent would wish to kill their child is incomprehensible to me, anyway.
There's my reference.
"If God is supreme (which he is, according to the Bible), what he says should determine societal values, whether or not some people disagree with it"
However, as I have already proven, he does not do so.
Anyway I have gained some more evidence to provide an explanation for why God cannot be all-powerful, and thus not perfect. The explanation goes that if you tasked God with making a hammer so heavy that he could lift, and he could not lift it, then he is not all-powerful because he could not lift it. Yet if he could lift it then he still would not be all-powerful because he couldn't make a hammer heavy enough.
I have already proven that God himself does not determine societal values, and that he cannot be all-powerful.
"This does not mean that the Bible teaches the Earth is flat"
The Bible never directly says that the world is flat - it just implies such often.
A list of these implications can be found here and here. One of the most well-known of these quotes describes the "four corners of the Earth".
The Bible doesn't explicitly teach it, but it implies several times that the Earth is flat.
But can you actually prove that there is a God? Could you ever actually prove that God exists? If you can prove to me that God exists then you have beaten me on step one - but step two is indesputible, and it amazes me how you continue to dispute me on that.
No, I can't prove there is a God, but again that doesn't mean he is imperfect. Step two is not indisputable...I just disputed it thoroughly.
There is far more proof and scientific fact to prove that God does not exist.
Let's hear it.
However the fact that a God who does not exist can not have any qualities is equally as relevant.
What about a God that does exist? Your dancing around the question isn't going to change it.
No, such a thing is illogical.
How?
If God has not been proven to exist then to begin theorising about his possible qualities is something that you simply cannot do.
Sure you can. Wouldn't that help in determining a reasonable perspective about God?
As I have already mentioned, if a chair does not exist it can have no qualities, and equally if God does not exist theorising about how perfect he is is something that is completely illogical.
Sigh...I already refuted that argument. Did you ignore that part too?
If nothing exists it can have specific qualities.
Once again, your point is not valid. You have yet to prove that God does not exist, therefore your claim holds no structure.
It says it in Leviticus 20:9:
"If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head"
Yes, but this is old Levitican law. The Bible no longer condones this. Most Old Testament law has been completely wiped out.
However, as I have already proven, he does not do so.
Do what?
Anyway I have gained some more evidence to provide an explanation for why God cannot be all-powerful, and thus not perfect. The explanation goes that if you tasked God with making a hammer so heavy that he could lift, and he could not lift it, then he is not all-powerful because he could not lift it. Yet if he could lift it then he still would not be all-powerful because he couldn't make a hammer heavy enough.
First of all, you didn't come up with that. Traditionally, its a rock not a hammer anyway. This atheist argument has long since been debunked. You're saying that in order for God to be all-powerful, he must be capable of not being all-powerful. Omnipotence does not include or mention failure. God will always be able to life the rock, or hammer.
I have already proven that God himself does not determine societal values, and that he cannot be all-powerful.
I don't recall you doing this. God does not determine societal values, that by no means makes him not all-powerful.
The Bible never directly says that the world is flat - it just implies such often.
No, it doesn't even imply it.
A list of these implications can be found here and here. One of the most well-known of these quotes describes the "four corners of the Earth".
You know what's hilarious? One of your links proved your point. Did you even look at it? "Four corners of the Earth" is a phrase still used today, meaning north, east, west, and south. This does not imply a flat or square Earth.
The Bible doesn't explicitly teach it, but it implies several times that the Earth is flat.
I said that I do not know for sure whether or not God exists. However there is a lot more proof to suggest that God does not exist than there is to suggest that he does.
Anyway, you cannot prove that a perfect God does exist, can you? So your argument is effectively invalid. A perfect God is impossible, however, because of some of the requirements there would be for such a God. Can you prove there is a God? Well "no, I cannot prove there is a God".
Your argument is invalid.
"Let's hear it"
Okay, then.
There are many things that are not scientifically sound in Genesis, as this link explains. There are also some other mistakes in Genesis when it comes to the order of how God did things, or how (according to one Hebrew translation) Gods did things, as depicted here
Feel free to disprove every single one of these whilst you're at it, too.
And there is my proof that God does not exist!
"Sure you can. Wouldn't that help in determining a reasonable perspective about God?"
No, you cannot theorise about what a specific God is like if that God does not exist. If I think of all the good qualities my helicopter has, yet it doesn't exist, then I am wasting my time, aren't I? The same principle applies to theorising about a God that does not exist. You cannot say what qualities the specific God would have.
As you cannot say what qualities something that does not exist would have, you cannot say that God is perfect.
"You have yet to prove that God does not exist, therefore your claim holds no structure"
My claim has no structure?
Well, you have yet to prove that God does exist, so your claim holds no structure.
I don't even think you're trying.
"The Bible no longer condones this"
We are speaking of whether or not a perfect God exists. If a God is perfect then he must have no "undesirable qualities", and must be "completely free from faults or defects". I do not think that a God which says such a thing, whenever it has been done, can be said to be free from faults or defects, especially when God is supposed to love everyone and forgive everyone. You went on to say how almost all Old Testament law has been wiped out, anyway, but Leviticus is New Testament.
A God who says such a thing cannot be perfect.
"Omnipotence does not include or mention failure"
You seem to think that there is a way around this argument, and that it has been debunked.
Well, the definition for omnipotence is: "the state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power", according to Google, other sites have said it means pretty much the same thing: all-powerful, infinite power, etc. Well if God can always be capable of lifting the hammer, or rock, then he is not all-powerful because he cannot create something that is heavy enough for him to not be able to lift. Therefore God can never be all-powerful in every respect, and thus cannot be all-powerful.
"It doesn't even imply it"
Really? I have provided countless examples of when it does imply it. You're not trying, are you?
"I'd say it's more like God: Infinity Micmacmoc: 0"
Based on the fact that you appear to be completely incapable of reading my arguments and registering them as something that is worthy of dispute I do not think that it is quite like that. Simply disregarding my arguments with your point is not valid does not make any sense.
I love how you pick and choose which arguments to dispute. You refuse to answer any questions I ask, and then claim I'm not trying. You're an excellent debater...
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
I said that I do not know for sure whether or not God exists.
Exactly, so if there is a possibility he does exist, how can you legitimately limit his traits with 100% certainty? That's why your argument is invalid. I shouldn't have to say more than this.
However there is a lot more proof to suggest that God does not exist than there is to suggest that he does.
You keep saying this, yet fail to provide any evidence to support it.
Anyway, you cannot prove that a perfect God does exist, can you?
No, but it's certainly a possibility. I'm not trying to prove he is perfect. I'm merely making the point that you wrong in saying its impossible for him to be perfect just because his existence is in question. Big difference there, shouldn't be hard to notice.
So your argument is effectively invalid.
You must be misunderstanding my argument then. I'm not attempting to claim that a perfect God definitely exists. So no, its perfectly valid.
A perfect God is impossible, however, because of some of the requirements there would be for such a God.
Why do you get to decide what is perfect and what isn't? Who are you to contend what qualifies a supernatural being as being perfect? Right off the bat, you're basing all of your conjectures on the assumption that you know better than God. If God does indeed exist, I hardly think this would be the case. Your requirements mean little to his supreme nature.
Can you prove there is a God? Well "no, I cannot prove there is a God".
Again, I'm refuting your reasoning for why you are sure that God is not perfect. This is a straw man. I made no claim regarding this. Congrats.
Your argument is invalid.
See now you're just manipulating my arguments. I honestly don't care how you perceive my argument, but my intent was what you think it is.
There are many things that are not scientifically sound in Genesis, as this link explains
Why do you assume the Bible is meant to be scientific? I already understand that it is in conflict with how modern science claims the universe came into being. If God is truly as described in the Bible, he should be capable of these things. This fails to take into account his omnipotence.
There are also some other mistakes in Genesis when it comes to the order of how God did things, or how (according to one Hebrew translation) Gods did things, as depicted here
This would be true of the Bible was meant to be taken literally. But I'm not totally convinced it is. I can't really say with any certainty what exactly happened obviously, but my understanding is that it may be more of a poetic narrative intended only to give the message that God is the creator and source of everything. But that is all speculation.
Feel free to disprove every single one of these whilst you're at it, too.
Well, read through a good number of these, and literally everything I saw was a trivial mistake. In the dedication, it is noted that these are only potential errors. Honestly, many of these can be answered fairly logically. For example, this shows how this can be done.
And there is my proof that God does not exist!
It's interesting stuff, for sure. But umm...aren't you Catholic? I'm not trying to be rude, but don't Catholics believe in God?
No, you cannot theorise about what a specific God is like if that God does not exist.
That is correct. However this is irrelevant because you cannot conclude for sure that God does not exist, therefore you can't simply eliminate his potential characteristics.
If I think of all the good qualities my helicopter has, yet it doesn't exist, then I am wasting my time, aren't I?
Sigh...again this is an irrelevant and incorrect comparison.
As you cannot say what qualities something that does not exist would have, you cannot say that God is perfect.
Yes you can. God is perfect.
My claim has no structure?
Indeed.
Well, you have yet to prove that God does exist, so your claim holds no structure.
What claim are you referring to? I don't recall making a claim, I'm simply responding to your false claim. Nice try, though.
I don't even think you're trying.
I'm not trying to make that claim, soooooo...yup.
I do not think that a God which says such a thing, whenever it has been done, can be said to be free from faults or defects, especially when God is supposed to love everyone and forgive everyone.
Who says God is supposed to forgive everyone?
You went on to say how almost all Old Testament law has been wiped out, anyway, but Leviticus is New Testament.
Leviticus is the third book in the Old Testament. Have you even read the Bible?
A God who says such a thing cannot be perfect.
Says what thing? Do you even know what you're saying anymore?
if God can always be capable of lifting the hammer, or rock, then he is not all-powerful because he cannot create something that is heavy enough for him to not be able to lift.
That is illogical. Just like God can't make a square circle or a rectangular triangle. You're saying that God must be not all-powerful in order to be all-powerful.
Therefore God can never be all-powerful in every respect, and thus cannot be all-powerful.
Well, if that's how you choose to define omnipotence, go ahead. But clearly nothing is capable of fulfilling that definition, so its rather pointless.
Really? I have provided countless examples of when it does imply it. You're not trying, are you?
Actually, you provided evidence that supported the world is spherical. The 'circle of the Earth' implies a sphere, so this shows that the Bible was correct many, many years before science in this regard. I don't think you're trying. You're the one who provided a link disproving your position, LOL.
Micmacmoc: 3
God: 0
Troy: Disqualified.
What a fun game. Too bad the rules only apply in your inaccurate fantasy world. Haha
I just want to note that the Bible contradictions link is false because some of the verse in that link isn't true because I looked up many of the contradictions in that link and most of them aren't contradictions and they took it out of context without reading anything about it.
Maybe true, but it's not like it matters, anyways; the Bible was written by men. It claims a lot, but it doesn't claim to be a fax straight from god. And anytime the human element is involved in anything there is room for human error. So because the Bible was written by humans, it follows there will be mistakes and contradictions and so on (which is kind of surprising, given how many times it was authored and edited and knowing how many parts were changed and omitted, you'd think they would've got it right by now).
Maybe true, but it's not like it matters, anyways; the Bible was written by men. It claims a lot, but it doesn't claim to be a fax straight from god. And anytime the human element is involved in anything there is room for human error. So because the Bible was written by humans, it follows there will be mistakes and contradictions and so on (which is kind of surprising, given how many times it was authored and edited and knowing how many parts were changed and omitted, you'd think they would've got it right by now).
The Bible was written by man but God spoke through them to tell them to write exactly what God wanted them to write. Knowing full well that the Bible didn't have any contradictions because if it did then someone would have stepped forward already and set the record straight and say that it was false but no one has set the record straight about the Bible being false because they have found archaeological evidence of some of the people and places mentioned in the Bible.
Also there are entire databases dedicated to pointing out the contradictions in religious dogma, like the Bible. Plenty of people have stepped forward in an attempt to set the record straight; it's your choice to listen to them, or ignore them.
And how does archaeological evidence of some of the people and places mentioned in the Bible confirm the wild fairytales depicted in the Bible? That's like trying to say that all of the fantastical events as told in the Harry Potter books are true because Kings Cross Station exist.
no god cannot be perfect, all knowing, and all good at the same time because for this to be true all things "evil" or "imperfect" can't exist. If you care for me to explain, refute me but the logic behind a perfect god isn't sound in conjunction with the world as we know.
refute me but the logic behind a perfect god isn't sound in conjunction with the world as we know.
God doesn't have to be proven through logic, if he exists what difference does it make if he is logical or illogical? You make it sound like in order for a God to exist, humans must prove it through logic. Our logic is inconsequential in relation to a supernatural God.
Within debate, an argument is valid only when proven. Faith is not adequate proof. If it were, then you could end any exchange by asserting that something is right because you believe it to be.
That was rather my point... the fact that one cannot prove that god exists means that one cannot prove a perfect god exists because you cannot ascribe qualities with any certainty to such an entity.
thats the only excuse christians use. "Im sorry but the supernatural cannot be explained!" You can hardly count that as a valid point. If a gods existence is illogical i think staying atheist is a safe bet, lets just leave it at that.
I'm not trying to make a "point" as you suggest. I'm simply saying for us to try to explain God fully is not practical. He doesn't exist because he is logical.
