The Instigator
ToastOfDestiny
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
McBain
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,796 times Debate No: 8332
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

ToastOfDestiny

Pro

The notion of an omnipotent being is logically flawed. That is, an omnipotent being cannot logically exist. Note that this debate isn't about beings that seem omnipotent, for example ‘my boss is omnipotent', but rather omnipotent as defined as "almighty or infinite power, as God" (www.dictionary.com). To accept this debate is to accept this definition (basically I'm looking to debate "the idea of infinite power has intrinsic logical flaws"). If my opponent is able to show that the idea of a completely omnipotent being is not logically flawed, then he/she wins this debate. The abbreviation "O.B." stands for "omnipotent being"

With that, I'll leave the next post for Con to accept, with the debating occurring in rounds 2-4. Con can post an argument in R1, but I shall only begin in R2.
McBain

Con

Theology always being a topic of interest to me, I want to start off by stating that I am agnostic, and I believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, because it seems almost crazy to me not to. As I understand, this debate is not a run of the mill, intelligent design vs evolution snoozer. So ToastOfDestiny, I accept your challenge under the resolution "A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist."

Pikachu, I choose you!
Debate Round No. 1
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

I stand in affirmation of the resolution "Resolved: a completely omnipotent being cannot logically exist."

Definitions (www.dictionary.com)

1)Completely Omnipotent Being: A living thing possessing absolutely almighty power
-Completely: having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full
-Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God.
-Being: a living thing

2)Logically: according to or agreeing with the principles of logic

3)Exist: to have actual being; be

Under these definitions, the resolution can be viewed as "A living thing possessing absolutely almighty power cannot 'be' in accordance to principles of logic"

Observation: No restrictions can apply to a completely omnipotent being
The idea of an omnipotent being is that it is a being with infinite/almighty power. As such, to impose any restrictions on that being shows that it does not have almighty power. For example, if you were to establish a restriction that prevents an OB from eating strawberries, then the being is not completely omnipotent, as you can take away its power to make decisions. To be completely omnipotent, a being must therefore have no restrictions on what it can do.

Observation: Can an omnipotent being create a task so difficult that it could not complete that task? A common example of this is the stone paradox. It goes 'Can an OB create a stone so heavy that he/she/it cannot lift it?'� The paradox here is evident. If an OB can create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it, it is not omnipotent. If an OB cannot create such a heavy stone, then it is not omnipotent. Similar to the stone paradox, is it possible for an omnipotent being to create a being more powerful than itself? If so, that being was never omnipotent, as there exists a potential power greater than itself. If an OB cannot do so, we have another restriction, therefore not omnipotent.

Contention One: To maintain omnipotence, a being must be bound by logic
-As shown in my observations, an omnipotent being unbound by logic is not truly completely omnipotent, as there exist scenarios in which it removes its own omnipotence.

Contention Two: Such a restriction removes omnipotence
-If the OB is restricted, it is not longer an almighty power, as there is a rule it must bow its head to. If there is a restriction on its actions, it is not almighty, as there is a greater source of power with the ability to bind the OB.

These two contentions show us the logical impossibility of an OB. If a being is to be completely omnipotent, it cannot be bound by logic. In this case, the resolution is affirmed, as the OB does not 'logically' exist. On the other hand, if the being is bound by logic, it is not completely omnipotent.

On to my opponent's case

"Theology always being a topic of interest to me, I want to start off by stating that I am agnostic, and I believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, because it seems almost crazy to me not to. As I understand, this debate is not a run of the mill, intelligent design vs evolution snoozer. So ToastOfDestiny, I accept your challenge under the resolution "A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist.""
-I do agree. This shall be a debate of epic proportions (provided I can access a computer at nationals. I should be able to get some sort of internet access. Somehow.), and I look forward to it.

"Pikachu, I choose you!"
-Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Regardless, I will go with the ultimate form of cheapness, and pull out a Groudon. Or perhaps one of the new-fangled ground-type legendaries. Or for that matter, all of them.
McBain

Con

McBain forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will briefly restate my position. A completely omnipotent being cannot logically exist. For a being to be completely omnipotent, there can be no restrictions on its abilities. If this is the case, we cannot bind an OB by logic. Therefore, the being does not exist logically. If we remove logic from the situation, the being does not logically exist.

The resolution is affirmed.
McBain

Con

McBain forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ToastOfDestiny

Pro

As we are entering this final round (or rather, as I enter this final round. I cannot help but being slightly annoyed at my opponent for taking this debate and forfeiting his two rounds without offering any explanations whatsoever), I will provide a brief flow of this debate. Because Con has neither offered any arguments, nor explained himself, any arguments he brings up in R4 should be discarded. New arguments, especially in R4, should not be tolerated.

Pro Case
1)Completely omnipotent beings cannot be bound in any way.
-Unrefuted
2)If an omnipotent being is bound by logic, it is not completely omnipotent as there is a restriction on its power
-Unrefuted
3)If an omnipotent being is not bound by logic, it does not exist logically.
-Unrefuted.
4)"I do agree. This shall be a debate of epic proportions..."
-A clear lie on my part. Unrefuted nevertheless.
5)Regarding the brief Pokemon battle in Round 1 and 2, I effectively counter Con's Pikachu with its weakness, ground-type Pokemon.
-Unrefuted.
-Casualties: Pikachu

As the body count steadily rises, let us take a look at the Con's side.

Con Case

Moving on, I shall toss in a few sources to pad my argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If we look at these five scenarios, we see that omnipotence in the last four scenarios is limited to logic. This is not complete omnipotence. In the first it is not. This is not logical.

Finally, let me tie up the spelling/grammar point by analyzing Con's few words.

"Theology always being a topic of interest to me, I want to start off by stating that I am agnostic, and I believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, because it seems almost crazy to me not to. As I understand, this debate is not a run of the mill, intelligent design vs evolution snoozer."
-I would like to point out some minor grammatical errors in this argument. Con's first sentence represents a comma splice. The very first comma should either be replaced with a period or semicolon. Also, "run of the mill" should be run-of-the-mill.

At this point, voters, I beseech you to do something you may never have done before. I beseech you to vote Pro in all categories, barring with whom you agreed with prior to this debate. Here is my reasoning:

1)With whom you agreed with after the debate
Con has offered no arguments whatsoever. I do hope that I have convinced you that a completely omnipotent being cannot logically exist.

2)Conduct
This should be self-explanatory. Con has forfeited two rounds after accepting this debate, and has offered no explanations whatsoever.

3)Spelling and Grammar
I have pointed out a few mistakes that Con has made in R1.

4)Convincing Arguments
Con has offered no arguments, so this ought to be a default Pro win.

5)Sources
I have provided a source from Wikipedia. The section I am using has been verified, and is from a reliable source.

Thank you audience, for reading what has been, in large part, my monologue. Please do vote Pro.
McBain

Con

McBain forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Thanks goni - that's the point I'm trying to make.
Posted by Goni 7 years ago
Goni
wjmelements, let my remind you that ToastOfDestiny did not argue that "there is no omnipotent being". He argued that "an omnipotent being cannot logically exist". This difference matters. If something contradict itself it cannot be proved logically.

I will remind you also that by the laws of logic (and that's what we after - a logical conclusion), if every A is B and every A is not B, there is not A. If we assume that an omnipotent being can contradict itself we can say:
Every omnipotent being is omnipotent;
Every omnipotent being is not omnipotent;
So, this being is omnipotent or not?
As I said - the only logical conclusion is an omnipotent being could not exist.

The second solution I offered - that there's a completely omnipotent being but it is not subordinate to the laws of logic, and hence we cannot prove its existence logically - is not a logical conclusion, it is a matter of faith.
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
I'm using the paradox of the stone because I feel it is is one of the most compelling arguments against the existence of an omnipotent being. In its essence it shows the largest problem with the existence of an omnipotent being. If your problem is with me using a popular argument, there are very few original arguments on DDO. Coincidentally, I thought about the resolution before remembering the stone paradox.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Having all powers would include the power to defy logic and to contradict itself.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
"2. There's a completely omnipotent being but it is not subordinate to the laws of logic, and hence we cannot prove its existence logically."
But "omnipotent" is defined logically, so to say that logic does not apply is also to say that omnipotence does not apply.

"A completely omnipotent god can contradict its own omnipotence."
How?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Well, because you have used an uninsightful argument, I will give you a response:

A completely omnipotent god can contradict its own omnipotence. Therefore, it can logically exist.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Congratulations.... You can copy the frame of the Paradox of the Stone. How very creative of you.
Posted by Whitesamari 7 years ago
Whitesamari
You technically have to define "Logical" in order for this debate to work, plus you could debate what "Logic" is...
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Wait...shoot. I have to work this around nationals.

If number two is true, I win.
Posted by Flare_Corran 7 years ago
Flare_Corran
Goni is right.
I believe in Number 2.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
ToastOfDestinyMcBainTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
ToastOfDestinyMcBainTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
ToastOfDestinyMcBainTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
ToastOfDestinyMcBainTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70