A truly transcendent and infinite God is less likely to operate according to any one religious framework known to man as opposed to manifold frameworks

Round 1

1 of 3

MasterDestroyer

Pro #1

A true transcendent and infinite God knows infinitely more than us and is able to create an infinite multiverse of realities. By assuming any one religion known to man is the only truth, you are limiting the scope of God to the scope of man. For this God to only create one universe where one religion is true would be to only use an infinitely small fraction of his potential, because any limitation at all is infinitely limited relative to the infinitely unlimited potential of God since anything that goes on infinitely is inherently infinitely broader in scope than anything which is finite, no matter how broad the scope of that finite thing is. The truths of all religions known to man are finite in scope, with the sole exception of the truth of the infinite and transcendent God himself. So to disprove the proposition it would be necessary to demonstrate that any one religion is a religion than which it is impossible to conceive of a greater religion, which is impossible because Infinite God can create greater religions ad Infinitum and never exhaust his capacity to create greater and greater realities.

In the previous paragraph I spoke of God having potential as if it were hypothetically possible for him to have unfulfilled potential. The very notion that an infinite God could have unfulfilled potential is impossible though and further demonstrates my point. For God to have unfulfilled potential violates divine simplicity and violates the very notion that he is infinite. An infinite creator creating finitely is a contradiction, he will go on creating endlessly or his creation stops somewhere infinitely before his capacity to create is fulfilled. This is infinitely more ridiculous than a master painter making one brush stroke and then never making another in his life. It is important to grasp that the largest number imaginable is still infinitely smaller than infinity.

Divine simplicity is a theological term that refers to the perfect wholeness of God. God's essence is not made of parts or divisible, for if it were those parts would be more fundamental than him. The wholeness of God is at the very core of reality itself, and God is assumed to be infinite in this debate. Therefore the truth of God goes on forever, no one religion contains the fullness of God and an infinite God is not limited to any one paradigm. Even the greatest religion and the greatest reality is a puny, pathetic speck of dust compared to the fullness of the truth and the creative power emanating from the Infinite creator. If God has unactualized potential, there is a distinction within his essence between the actual and the hypothetical nature of God and thus the divine simplicity of the infinite God's essence is compromised.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #2

Thanks. This is going to be really good.

First, I’m probably just going to tear apart every sentence you said.

A true transcendent and infinite God knows infinitely more than us and is able to create an infinite multiverse of realities.

Just because God is able to doesn’t mean He did or would. Also, creating multiple realities is a contradiction.

By assuming any one religion known to man is the only truth, you are limiting the scope of God to the scope of man.

It’s not limiting to say God can’t lie. Allowing God to create multiple truths that contradict each other would make Him a liar. God cannot lie because He is truth.

For this God to only create one universe where one religion is true would be to only use an infinitely small fraction of his potential, because any limitation at all is infinitely limited relative to the infinitely unlimited potential of God since anything that goes on infinitely is inherently infinitely broader in scope than anything which is finite, no matter how broad the scope of that finite thing is.

God isn’t focused on quantity but on quality.

The truths of all religions known to man are finite in scope, with the sole exception of the truth of the infinite and transcendent God himself.

First, not all religions believe in God. Second, their views on Him are not always consistent.

The very notion that an infinite God could have unfulfilled potential is impossible though and further demonstrates my point.

God doesn’t have unfulfilled potential. He is perfect. He didn’t need to create us.

An infinite creator creating finitely is a contradiction

We are finite because we are not God. God creates things that are not Him. He creates ex nihilo. If He is God, nothing is impossible for Him.

Even the greatest religion and the greatest reality is a puny, pathetic speck of dust compared to the fullness of the truth and the creative power emanating from the Infinite creator.

This is based on the assumption that all religions are false. One religion could be what God has revealed to mankind and what mankind is able to grasp by its limitations. Other religions would then be misunderstandings of this religion or failed attempts to find God.

Overall, your argument contains many fallacies, assumptions, and inconsistencies. You chose to limit God’s potential when it fits you and then make it unlimited when it fits you.

Round 2

2 of 3

MasterDestroyer

Pro #3

If God has unfulfilled potential he isn't infinite. If God has the potential to create something but doesn't, he has unfulfilled potential. Creating multiple realities is not a contradiction, it is 2025 and everyone has heard of multiverse theory. Different things can be true of different universes without contradiction, even within this universe elements of different religions can be true. God does not even have to lie to allow two things to be true at once or allow ideas that aren't true to exist.

You also say God isn't focused on quantity but quality, if that's the case do you think this supposedly only reality is the highest possible quality one? Here you miss my point severely. If God is infinite then he can create an infinitely greater reality than the one we experience, and then create an infinitely greater one than that infinitely greater one. You say that God creates things that are not him, but if God is infinite then he is literally everything. Infinity contains all things, infinity is all things. One religion cannot be the only true one because Infinite God contains and literally IS all religions and this debate presupposes that the God we are talking about is infinite.

SomeDebatePerson

Con #4

First, God had everything He needed before He created the world. Also, the multiverse theory doesn’t really help. It hasn’t been proven, and these universes would still be affect by metaphysics. These universes could not have contradictions, like triangles with 4 sides.

“…it should be realized that some argue for the possibility of many worlds in other ways. In one way, as follows: the world was made by God; but the power of God, since it is infinite, is not limited to this world alone. Therefore it is not reasonable to say that He cannot make yet other worlds. To this it must be said that if God were to make other worlds, He would make them either like or unlike this world. If entirely alike, they would be in vain—and that conflicts with His wisdom. If unlike, none of them would comprehend in itself every nature of sensible body; consequently, no one of them would be perfect, but one perfect world would result from all of them.

Some argue in the following way: to the extent that something is more noble, to that extent is its species more powerful. But the world is nobler than any natural thing existing by itself. Therefore, since the species of a natural thing existing here, for example, of a horse or cow, could perfect many individuals, much more so can the species of the whole world perfect many individuals. But to this it must be answered that it takes more power to make one perfect than to make several imperfect. Now the single individuals of natural things which exist here are imperfect, because no one of them comprehends within itself the total of what pertains to the world’s species. But it is in this way that the world is perfect; hence, from that very fact its species is shown to be more powerful.

Thirdly, some object thus: it is better for the best to be multiplied than for things not so good. But the world is the best. Therefore, it is better to have many worlds than many animals or many plants. To this it must be said that here it pertains to the goodness of the world to be one, because oneness possesses the aspect of goodness. For we see that through being divided some things lose their proper goodness.” St. Thomas, Commentary on Aristotle’s On the Heavens, Book 1, Lecture 19.

Also, you seem to miss my point about religions contradicting each other. If God only chose things that overlapped in every religion, there wouldn’t been anything really strong to reveal. It would just be basic knowledge.

God cannot be all religions. God is not lies, God is truth. Only one religion can be true. Something does not need to fully explain everything to infinity to be the true. For example, a fact is true, but it doesn’t need to be infinite to be true.

Round 3

3 of 3

MasterDestroyer

Pro #5

FORFEITED

SomeDebatePerson

Con #6

My opponent has forfeited the round. I don’t really have anything to say. Vote for the person who you think did a better job.

Fruit_Inspector

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

--Brief Analysis--
PRO's argumentation was just a lot of talking about the infinite nature of God, followed by the constant reiteration that everything must be infinite because God is infinite. PRO gave brief mention to a Thomistic view of divine simplicity, but never really argued for the validity of it. Since this view of divine simplicity is an ironically complex and disputed doctrine, it should have received a little more attention and explanation if that was the basis of an argument. The same can be said for throwing out the idea of the multiverse, as if the current year somehow means we just have to accept it as valid or reasonable.

From PRO in Round 1: "The wholeness of God is at the very core of reality itself, and God is assumed to be infinite in this debate. Therefore the truth of God goes on forever, no one religion contains the fullness of God and an infinite God is not limited to any one paradigm."
Here is the argument where divine simplicity is said to imply that "the truth of God goes on forever." CON points out the absurdity of such an argument, since it would mean that God could create multiple conflicting "truths" (or, as CON points out, a "lie"). This argument is enough to shut down the resolution since PRO did not provide a successful rebuttal. A religion that is true cannot become infinitely more true by way of creating multiple conflicting "truths."

--Conclusion--
PRO gives us a criteria to use in Round 1:
"So to disprove the proposition it would be necessary to demonstrate that any one religion is a religion than which it is impossible to conceive of a greater religion, which is impossible because Infinite God can create greater religions ad Infinitum and never exhaust his capacity to create greater and greater realities."
CON's statement in Round 2 sums up the winning argument, "Only one religion can be true." Simple, but effective. Had PRO showed up for Round 3, there could have potentially been an argument for the ultimate truth about God being found in a few religions rather than just a single one. But PRO chose instead to focus on the infinite nature of truth, as if something could become more true an infinite number of times. Therefore, PRO's arguments failed to prove the resolution. CON wins.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

New comment