The Instigator
A341
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BennyW
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

A Being Cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
BennyW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 811 times Debate No: 61223
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

A341

Pro

First round is for acceptance only.

Definitions:

Omnipotence: "Having unlimited power"

Omniscience: "Having total knowledge".

Being: "A conscious entity"
BennyW

Con

I accept and will be arguing that a being can indeed be both Omnipotent and Omniscient.
Debate Round No. 1
A341

Pro

If a being is omnipotent it can do anything (this itself opens up some issues) essentially it has ultimate power.

If a being is omniscient then it knows everything that it possible to know, what will happen in the future and everything that happened in the past.

This is where the problem comes up. If that omniscient being knows everything then it knows the actions it will perform in the future and is therefore not free to perform any actions that it is not predetermined to do and cannot do everything therefore it is not omnipotent.
BennyW

Con

Thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate.
I will address my opponent's points.

“If a being is omnipotent it can do anything (this itself opens up some issues) essentially it has ultimate power.” Yes, it can do anything that is logically possible to do.

“If a being is omniscient then it knows everything that it possible to know, what will happen in the future and everything that happened in the past.” Exactly correct again.

“This is where the problem comes up. If that omniscient being knows everything then it knows the actions it will perform in the future and is therefore not free to perform any actions that it is not predetermined to do and cannot do everything therefore it is not omnipotent.” I think my opponent is bringing up a problem of free will. Here’s the problem he oversimplifies it. Free will means a will free from something implying there is something greater to be bound to. I anticipate this leading toward a question similar to “Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?” Since the question has an illogical foundation you cannot expect it to have logical answer.

Knowledge is power so an all-powerful being would have to be all knowing. If the being is not omniscient then they truly couldn’t be omnipotent.

So not only is it possible for an omnipotent being to be omniscient, it is necessary if they are truly omnipotent.

Thaks again and I look forward to the next round.

Debate Round No. 2
A341

Pro

(No I'm not going to bring up the "Can god create a rock god cannot lift" conundrum that has little relevance in this debate).

The redefining of omnipotent is something that kind of gets my goat. Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Omni=all Potent= great power. It means all powerful. All powerful is not limited to what is possible in fact it is not limited at all. Yes you are correct that if a being is all powerful then it must have to power to be omniscient in a way I am arguing that omnipotence is self contradictory but I did not frame the debate in this way.

Until we actually agree on the definitions then the debate will be difficult.
BennyW

Con

My opponent brought up several points last round.


First of all, my opponent accuses me of redefining words. However he is the one who is creating a definition that is self-defeating. He is trying to do this, if you say that omnipotence means able to do anything logical or not he will say you can’t do something illogical, if you say an omnipotent being can’t then he will say then they aren’t all powerful. It’s a really dishonest technique. The reason I brought up the God making a rock argument is that it is along the same lines. Another common one is “Can God make a married bachelor?” No? Can he be omnipotent then? Yes because a married bachelor is a contradiction in terms. This is the type of argument my opponent is using. Something that is a logical contradiction does not exist in any possible place. [1] You can’t present an argument that is logically incoherent and expect it to be taken seriously. If however an ultimate being could do things which are contradictory then any argument my opponent presents could be refuted simply by saying the negative would also be true since this being must be able to anything regardless of if it is logical or not. SO anything my opponent could say would be defeated on this way.[2]


On the question of free will which was a central part of my opponent’s argument, free will is a debate for how humans interact. An all-powerful being would not be bound by such a concept. If you want to say that knowing what is going to happen means you can’t have free will then in that sense there wouldn’t be absolute free will on the Omniscient being however as with the argument above this is not a limitation. On the other side of it however is who determined those outcomes in the first place? So then perhaps the ultimate being did have free will to choose what outcomes would ultimately be. Ultimately however free will is a standard that applies to humans not something that is all powerful. [3]



Thanks again to my opponent and I look forward to the next round of debates.



1 http://creation.com...


2 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...


3 http://carm.org...


Debate Round No. 3
A341

Pro

So my opponent is accusing me of changing the definition of Omnipotent. I would like to remind him that the definition I use was the definition used more or less universally used until someone realized that the definition caused more than a few problems for their deity of choice.

The general definition of definition is "a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary." now the common dictionary definition of omnipotent is "(of a deity) having unlimited power.".

So I can more or less assume that since you yourself admit that my use of the word omnipotent would make my position correct that you would also have to make that concession for the dictionary definition meaning it is my opponent who is changing definitions to suit himself.

Also before you make the argument that no definition can be incorrect or correct yes definitions can be correct or incorrect. If I create a debate called "Scotland should vote for independence" and the person who accepts the debate decides that the definition of Scotland is Alabama then he is using the incorrect definition.
BennyW

Con


So I can more or less assume that since you yourself admit that my use of the word omnipotent would make my position correct



No I said just the opposite, no matter what you say you couldn’t wiggle out of this one. Such as where I said this last round ” If however an ultimate being could do things which are contradictory then any argument my opponent presents could be refuted simply by saying the negative would also be true since this being must be able to anything regardless of if it is logical or not. SO anything my opponent could say would be defeated on this way” Therefore my opponent’s arguments are self defeating. Once you have something that can defy logic then any argument you use against it will fail. So my opponent by demanding God act contrary to logic is actually defeating his own argument.



yes definitions can be correct or incorrect. Of course this is definitely however if an omnipotent being cold defy logic than in his eyes he could make Alabama and Scotland be the same thing.



My opponents arguments actually defeat his own case. I thank him for this debate. Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
He defined the terms and that is pretty much what they mean.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I think that a clear interpretation of those two terms are needed for a debate.
Posted by A341 2 years ago
A341
It says "First round is for acceptance only."
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
I have accepted anyway, do you want me to just use the first round as acceptance rather than my actual argument?
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
I really want to take this but I am not sure I have the time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
A341BennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Contender defined and defended the presentation better than the instigator. By show a failure in logic, it adequately demonstrated a self defeating premise.