The Instigator
BrainofanIndividual
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
SweetBabycakes
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A God is intrinsically impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
BrainofanIndividual
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 476 times Debate No: 41936
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

BrainofanIndividual

Pro

I affirm the position that it is intrinsically impossible for a God to exist.

Contention One: Cause
The laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly state that is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing. [1][2] This of course means that anything currently existing within space-time must be composed of matter from something else, or converted from other energy. Now, since my definition of God has not been contested, we will be using it, including the part where we define God as having created the universe. The big bang, or any sort of beginning phenomena you care to imagine, would obviously require some type of energy. So God is a being that uses some kind of energy. Again, as we already know, energy does not come from nowhere. Obviously, since the only thing that could have come from nothing is nothing itself, we know that God is synonymous with nothing, or nonexistence. So God is intrinsically impossible.

Contention Two: Omnipotence
Omnipotence has been defined as the ability to do literally everything, as this is even borne out by its roots, omni (all) potence (capability). [3] So we know that under the currently used and currently uncontested definition of God, God has teh ability to do anything. What this entails is a long string of paradoxes. For example, if God can do anything, then God must be able to think of something that He can't do. In which case, He wouldn't be able to do it, and wouldn't be omnipotent. God would have to be able to create a rock that weighed so much that he couldn't move it. If he can't create the rock, He isn't omnipotent. If he can create the rock, then He can't move it and isn't omnipotent. God would have to be able to create another omnipotent God that could beat Him in an armwrestle. Which would mean that since one of the two Gods couldn't beat the other in an armwrestle, one of them wouldn't be omnipotent. So omnipotence itself is intrinsically impossible, and so under our current and uncontested definition, God is intrinsically impossible.

Contention Three: Omniscience
Omniscience is defined as knowing everything that can be known or having infinite knowledge. But knowing everything isn't really as testable as is needed. Firstly, how would a being know that they are omniscient? Well of course they know, after all, they know everything, including their own omniscience. Right? No, that's circular reasoning. Additionally, the being might think they know everything, and could be wrong. For example, if a God knew infinitely many things except one, say that there are aliens in Andromeda, then they wouldn't know that they didn't know there were aliens in Andromeda. And so they would go along thinking they knew everything and in reality not. In fact, the God would have an infinite number of things they didn't know, because they wouldn't know about the aliens, wouldn't know that they didn't know about the aliens, wouldn't know that they didn't know that they didn't know baout the aliens, etc. Which brings me to another point. What is knowledge? Is it a simple fact? If so, then even if you list off everything that God knows in an infinitely long list, you could still create a second list which just adds "God knows this:" in front of everything on the first list, creating a new list of things God doesn't know just as long as the first.

Contention Four: Omniscience/Omnipotence
So assume the following scenario. Some engineers get together and start designing a skyscraper. So God sees this (because he is omnipresent) and says to himself "I know that when the skyscraper is finished, I will have to chop it in half with a meteor." So ten years later the skyscraper is done. So God says to himself "Time to destroy it with meteors." Now God can do one of two things: destroy it with meteors, or not destroy it with meteors. If he decides that he will destroy it, then he was right when he said he knew what he was going to do. However, this means that God cannot not destroy the skyscraper. This refutes the fact of his own omnipotence. And after He destroys the skyscraper, he can't change his mind and undo it, because then he would be wrong when He said he knew he would destroy it. So what if He doesn't destroy it? Then this means that when He said that he knew He was going to destroy it that He was wrong, meaning that God isn't omniscient. So it is intrinsically impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient, meaning it is intrinsically impossible for a God to exist.

These are my four main reasons why I believe that it is intrinsically impossible for a God as we have defined to exist.

[1] wikipedia.org

[2] wikipedia.org

[3] dictionary.reference.com

[4] dictionary.reference.com
SweetBabycakes

Con

I will be arguing in favor of the resolution that a God's existence is indeed possible.

Rebuttals:

Pro's arguments will be rebut subsequently, each concurring with his original statement.

Contention One: Cause

"The laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly state that is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing."

No. According to the laws of conservation of energy[1], energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed.

And if so impossible to be created from nothing, wouldn't that go on my side?

"The big bang, or any sort of beginning phenomena you care to imagine, would obviously require some type of energy. So God is a being that uses some kind of energy. Again, as we already know, energy does not come from nowhere."

God did NOT come into existence. WE did. He is eternal.

"Obviously, since the only thing that could have come from nothing is nothing itself"

If you do not believe in God, the you must believe that the Universe is eternal AND came from nothing.

The other contentions will remain uncontested, as I have to sleep. They will no longer be so after you reply. Thank you.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

alright i let you continue wouldnt be fair if i go
SweetBabycakes

Con

Contentions:

Same rules apply.

Contention Two: Omnipotence

"Omnipotence has been defined as the ability to do literally everything, as this is even borne out by its roots, omni (all) potence (capability). [3] So we know that under the currently used and currently uncontested definition of God, God has teh ability to do anything. What this entails is a long string of paradoxes. For example, if God can do anything, then God must be able to think of something that He can't do. In which case, He wouldn't be able to do it, and wouldn't be omnipotent. God would have to be able to create a rock that weighed so much that he couldn't move it. If he can't create the rock, He isn't omnipotent. If he can create the rock, then He can't move it and isn't omnipotent. God would have to be able to create another omnipotent God that could beat Him in an armwrestle. Which would mean that since one of the two Gods couldn't beat the other in an armwrestle, one of them wouldn't be omnipotent. So omnipotence itself is intrinsically impossible, and so under our current and uncontested definition, God is intrinsically impossible."

That defies logic by definition. Anything that occurs has to be within the limits of logic.

That is not in violation of his existence. It is logical.

If both omnipotent Gods challenge each other in an arm wrestle, it would make sense that neither will win, for both have equal power.

Again, others remain uncontested. I need to sleep.
Debate Round No. 2
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

BrainofanIndividual forfeited this round.
SweetBabycakes

Con

Contentions:

Same rules apply.

Contention Three: Omniscience

Can God know that he knows everything? Pro claims this is circular reasoning but this remains as a bare-assertion. If God knows everything, then the fact that he knows everything is just one of those things. There doesn't seem to be anything circular about this at all. Until Pro shows that this is circular reasoning, I see no reason to accept it off of an unjustified claim.

Now, my opponent states:

"Additionally, the being might think they know everything, and could be wrong." - Pro

If there is omniscient being, he would have to know everything by definition. Thus, if he thinks he knows everything, he has to be right necessarily. This argument from my opponent is a logical absurdity.

"What is knowledge? Is it a simple fact? If so, then even if you list off everything that God knows in an infinitely long list, you could still create a second list which just adds "God knows this:" in front of everything on the first list, creating a new list of things God doesn't know just as long as the first." - Pro

You cannot create a list of things God doesn't know, because if God exists, he knows everything as he is omniscient. This argument from Pro is simply incoherent by default. Any list you can make pertaining to God's knowledge, God would know about them all; no matter how many lists were made. This just means that your first list really wasn't everything that God knows, it was just the label you gave the list (you cannot have infinity +1 anyway, you can only add to a finite number). If the first list really was everything God knows, then it would include everything you could ever potentially say on a second list making a second list logically impossible; you couldn't do it. Also, if there was an infinite amount of facts, you would never be done writing the first list. Thus, the time would never come when you write a second list because you would still be writing the first. Even if you have another person writing a list, God would know both before either of you could ever finish. It wouldn't matter how many lists there are.

Contention Four: Omniscience/Omnipotence

"So assume the following scenario. Some engineers get together and start designing a skyscraper. So God sees this (because he is omnipresent) and says to himself "I know that when the skyscraper is finished, I will have to chop it in half with a meteor." So ten years later the skyscraper is done. So God says to himself "Time to destroy it with meteors." Now God can do one of two things: destroy it with meteors, or not destroy it with meteors. If he decides that he will destroy it, then he was right when he said he knew what he was going to do. However, this means that God cannot not destroy the skyscraper. This refutes the fact of his own omnipotence. And after He destroys the skyscraper, he can't change his mind and undo it, because then he would be wrong when He said he knew he would destroy it. So what if He doesn't destroy it? Then this means that when He said that he knew He was going to destroy it that He was wrong, meaning that God isn't omniscient. So it is intrinsically impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient, meaning it is intrinsically impossible for a God to exist."

Pro argues that if God knows he is going to do X, then he has to do X, because if he doesn't do X, then that means his prior knowledge of doing X was false. However, if God has to do X, then he is causally determined by his prior knowledge and doesn't have have free-will; and is not omnipotent. The problem is that the fact that he is going to do X, is what causes his knowledge of X; it his not his knowledge of him going to do X which causes him to do X. Thus, God is still free as he is not causally determined by his knowledge and omnipotent in this scenario. However, this is another one of those "what ifs". That would never happen because he is omnipresent.
Debate Round No. 3
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

BrainofanIndividual forfeited this round.
SweetBabycakes

Con

SweetBabycakes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BrainofanIndividual

Pro

BrainofanIndividual forfeited this round.
SweetBabycakes

Con

SweetBabycakes forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
KingDebater
BrainofanIndividualSweetBabycakesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to give sources, but the sources he wrote are too vague (e.g: "wikipedia.org") for me to give him the point for reliable sources. Pro's arguments were refuted by Con, followed by Pro conceding. S/g to Pro as Con misspelled some words, such as "i" (It's not capitalized). Sources to Pro as he had a semi-reliable relevant source, the wikipedia page on the conservation of energy. Despite having quite a few forfeits, this was still a pretty good debate.