The Instigator
KthulhuHimself
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
donkey
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A limitless god is impossible.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 94308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

KthulhuHimself

Pro

Because the title of your previous challenge is not specific enough, I had thought it best to challenge the instigator (Donkey) to a formal debate with a more fitting title.

In this debate, I will (yet again) present my mathematical proof that a limitless god is impossible; and will give the instigator a chance to see that it is indeed a proper mathematical proof.

Beyond this, there aren't any more rules to this debate; and so I wish my opponent good luck, for he will need it.

Here it is, in proper form:

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human (or otherwise) perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.

2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.

3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.

4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.

5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).

6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), a limitless God is ill-defined.

7) Following from 2) and 6); A limitless God cannot exist objectively.

8) Following from 1) and 7); A limitless God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.
donkey

Con

Because the title of your previous challenge is not specific enough, I had thought it best to challenge the instigator (Donkey) to a formal debate with a more fitting title.<<

Good.

>>In this debate, I will (yet again) present my mathematical proof that a limitless god is impossible; and will give the instigator a chance to see that it is indeed a proper mathematical proof.<<

Better. Just make sure your proof can be proved. :)

>>Beyond this, there aren't any more rules to this debate; and so I wish my opponent good luck, for he will need it.<<

I don't need luck, I need evidence and logic.

Here it is, in proper form:

1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human (or otherwise) perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level.<<

First,how do you know your statement is valid? Second God is more than a notion or we would not have a universe with life in it, unless your have a better explanation as tot he origin of matter and life. Third, God is independent of anything and everything. What makes you think He is not? To be a God He would have to be independent. God does not need man or the universe. He created both out of love.

>>2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it.<<

The Bible defines God in many ways. Who are you to say the Bible is not correct in its defining God?

>>3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning.<<

A well ordered definition does not have to be identical to those used in mathematics. The definition of words are only dependent on their exact meaning, which most have nothing to do with math. Your statement about not being a paradox is basically true, but not 100%. A paradox is a statement that is seemingly self contradictory. Yet if understood correctly, they can express a truth in a more meaningful way. When you were orn did you start living or dying? Both are ture.

>>4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator.<<

I will take your word for that statement.

>>5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant).<<

One description of God is that He is omnipotent. To be a true God He must have that characteristic.

>>6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), a limitless God is ill-defined.<<

Agreed.

>>7) Following from 2) and 6); A limitless God cannot exist objectively.<<

Agreed.

>>8) Following from 1) and 7); A limitless God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.<<

While your statement is true, what makes you think the God of the Bible is limitless? If He was we would not have a universe with life. What evidence do you have that God is only a notion and is limitless?

You have given me a lot of opinions,. What assurance do I have that you are qualified to make them and how can I know they are valid?

I could be the poster child for "I'M from Missouri".
Debate Round No. 1
KthulhuHimself

Pro

Firstly, I will thank my opponent for accepting this challenge, and for providing a respectfully attempted refutation. Because his attempted refutation regards the steps one by one, I will present my counter-rebuttal in the same manner.

Regarding 1)

In his rebuttal, the contender mentions that the god of the bible must have to be more than just a notion, i.e. exists objectively; and because we both agree on this point, I will move on to his rebuttal of the next step of the proof.

Regarding 2)

In his rebuttal (it isn't entirely a rebuttal, he doesn't even openly disagree with anything I say; just adds something of his own), he states that the god of the bible is defined by the bible "in many ways".

However, because the bible is written in a natural language, i.e. not a formal one; then the definitions brought up in the bible are subjective, and hence are not well-defined.

Even though he pays regards to it, he does not at any stage attempt to refute the points presented in 2); so for the rest of this round, they will be treated as givens (unless he does attempt to refute them).

Regarding 3)

In his rebuttal, the contender states that a well-ordered definition does not have to be identical to those used in mathematics. It is clear that the contender is thinking of definitions in the epistemic sense, and not in the metaphysical/mathematical sense, i.e. definitions that we humans use to help identify terms and establish natural languages for communication.

In my proof, the word "definition" is in the metaphysical sense, i.e. it IS the type of definition used in mathematics; or to be precise, the definitions used in mathematics are in fact the visual/informational manifestation of the more basal definitions, i.e. the connections which are what give meaning to concepts. The remainder of his rebuttal continues to regard to definitions in the epistemic sense, and hence is irrelevant to the proof.

Regarding 4)

The contender agrees with this step.

Regarding 5)

The contender agrees with this step, even though he will slightly contradict himself about this subject on his reply to step 8).

Regarding 6) and 7)

The contender explicitly agrees with these steps.

Regarding 8)

The contender ultimately agrees that a limitless god cannot exist; and instead suggests that if a god exists, it must be limited. Because this is the movement I was supporting all along, and because the contender not only brings no rebuttal to this, but even agrees with me; I can say with certainty that I can rest my case.

Of course, if you believe that God is limited, i.e. not omnipotent yet still immensely powerful; this proof becomes irrelevant.
donkey

Con

"First let me say I do not accept your definitions, especially since you have not provided a source for them nor have you presented any qualifications that that I should consider you more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.

Regarding 2)

>>In his rebuttal (it isn't entirely a rebuttal, he doesn't even openly disagree with anything I say; just adds something of his own), he states that the god of the bible is defined by the bible "in many ways".<<

You are not 100 % wrong. but you seem to want to limit the definition of God to your way of thinking. I'm not sure I can define God and I doubt if you can either. To beleive in God itg is not necessary to define Him. If we take the 3 basic names of God it can help us better understand Him

God: When you see "God" in the Bible, it is Elohim. Elohim is a plural noun with a singular meaning. It intrdouces the mystery of the Trinity. Elohim comes from a word that means "to swear." Ffrom this name we see God's covenant relationship with man. This covenant relationship is based on His love for man. When we see "God" in the Bible the emphasis is on love.

LORD" When you see LORD in all caps, it is "Jehovah." Jehovah comes from the verb "to be", " and means One who is what He is." It was translated to Moses as I AM THAT I AM. Jehovah speaks of the expression of His being.

Lord: Lord is "Adonai" and means "master" and expresses a personal relationship; between God in heaven and His people on earth. In this name God calls us into the closest and most enduring relationship to Himself.

IMO His names define Him. His characteristics, compassionate, just, honorable, etc tell us more about how He treats His children.

>>However, because the bible is written in a natural language, i.e. not a formal one; then the definitions brought up in the bible are subjective, and hence are not well-defined.<<

IMO a natural language is not only adequate but necessary because that is what God used, and He did not give us something that most people would not be able to understand. The words I used are not subjective. they have definite meanings easily understood by all. Why is it necessary to use a formal language? What formal language are you referring to?

>>Even though he pays regards to it, he does not at any stage attempt to refute the points presented in 2); so for the rest of this round, they will be treated as givens (unless he does attempt to refute them).<<

As I sais you are not 100% wrong.

>>Regarding 3)

In his rebuttal, the contender states that a well-ordered definition does not have to be identical to those used in mathematics. It is clear that the contender is thinking of definitions in the epistemic sense, and not in the metaphysical/mathematical sense, i.e. definitions that we humans use to help identify terms and establish natural languages for communication.<<

You have not shown why a definition must be in mathematical terms. I will ask again what are you qualifications to make such a statement? IMO, definitions in a metaphysical sense do not relate to a proper definition of anything except the metaphysical. God is not a metaphysical being.

In my proof, the word "definition" is in the metaphysical sense, i.e. it IS the type of definition used in mathematics; or to be precise, the definitions used in mathematics are in fact the visual/informational manifestation of the more basal definitions, i.e. the connections which are what give meaning to concepts. The remainder of his rebuttal continues to regard to definitions in the epistemic sense, and hence is irrelevant to the proof.<<

Your opinions are just that "your opinions. To be accepted opinions must have have some basis for being true. To date you have not provided any reason for me to accept them. You need to do 2 things; first show me why my reasoning is incorrect and second, provide the evidence that I need mathematical and metaphysical definitions to understand God.

>>Regarding 5)

The contender agrees with this step, even though he will slightly contradict himself about this subject on his reply to step 8).<<

How?

Regarding 8)

The contender ultimately agrees that a limitless god cannot exist; and instead suggests that if a god exists, it must be limited. Because this is the movement I was supporting all along, and because the contender not only brings no rebuttal to this, but even agrees with me; I can say with certainty that I can rest my case.<<

If I said that if God exist, it must be limited,then I have omitted something in my response. A true God could not be limited. Therefore you cant rest yet,. You also net to answer the 2 questions I posed to you.

>>Of course, if you believe that God is limited, i.e. not omnipotent yet still immensely powerful; this proof becomes irrelevant.<<

I do not believe God is not omnipotent. I am going to review my first response to see if that is what I actually said. If I ldid, it was unintentional.
Debate Round No. 2
KthulhuHimself

Pro

I would like to point out that the contender, yet again, regards to definitions in the epistemic sense; and not the metaphysical sense.

Regarding 2)

In his reply, the contender claims that God is defined in the bible, and brings up a number of examples to back his claims. However, because the bible was written in a natural language, and most definitely not in a formal one; none of these definitions are well-ordered or even close to being objective.

Further on in his reply, the contender suggests that a natural language in not only adequate, but also necessary for defining God. The problem with this is obvious; that being, natural languages are subjective, as they are never defined using anything but themselves (which is a circular definition, which is never an objective definition). The reason it is necessary to use a formal language is because without a formal language, the definition can never be well-ordered, hence it can never be objective. (As for the specific formal language "I'm referring to", any one of them will do.)

Regarding 3)

The definition does not have to be in mathematical terms, it just has to be in objective terms. Coincidentally, every objective term can also be interpreted as a mathematical one (broad use of the term "mathematical").

In his reply, the contender states that metaphysical definitions cannot relate to God's existence, because God "is not a metaphysical being". This is obviously wrong, because anything that "exists" must, by definition, relate to metaphysics. That is the very purpose of metaphysics in general.

Later on in his reply, the contender claims that I need to bring "evidence" to support my claims (or in his words, "opinions"); demonstrating his lack of knowledge regarding the difference between a logical proof and an evidence-based proof. My proof is the former, not the latter; making evidence both obsolete and useless.

Regarding 5)

Here; the contender expresses his confusion as to why I said that he would contradict himself later. In reply, I will quote what he had said in round one: "While your statement is true, what makes you think the God of the Bible is limitless? If He was we would not have a universe with life. What evidence do you have that God is only a notion and is limitless?"

Regarding 8)

Here, the contender states that a true god could not possibly be limited. Of course, this statement requires evidence; but even if it were true, it would only mean one thing: GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. If a limited god is impossible, and a god which isn't limited is impossible (as I have clearly proven), then there cannot be any god whatsoever. Also, I am a bit confused about which two questions the contender has posed before me; besides, I am quite certain that they are a subject for another debate, not this one.

CONCLUSION

Because my proof still holds, and because the contender has yet to pose a sound rebuttal for it; I can say with absolute certainty that I can rest my case. Whatever my opponent presents in the last round, I will ask him to keep it conclusive, as it's purpose is for closing remarks.
donkey

Con

I would like to point out that the contender, yet again, regards to definitions in the epistemic sense; and not the metaphysical sense.<<

But you have not explained why the definitions we use must be in the metaphysical sense or what you are qualified to make such a judgment. Until you do I have no reason to accept your conditions. I an not willing to accept your conditions without a reason.

Regarding 2)

In his reply, the contender claims that God is defined in the bible, and brings up a number of examples to back his claims. However, because the bible was written in a natural language, and most definitely not in a formal one; none of these definitions are well-ordered or even close to being objective.<<

Again, what qualifies you to determine what definitions or languages are acceptable and which are not? IMO a natural language is better than a formal one, whatever that is. Why must the definitions we use be based on a formal language?

>>Further on in his reply, the contender suggests that a natural language in not only adequate, but also necessary for defining God. The problem with this is obvious; that being, natural languages are subjective, as they are never defined using anything but themselves (which is a circular definition, which is never an objective definition).<<

That simply is not true. It is only your opinion. The problem is not obvious. So far you have offered no evidence that a formal language is better than a natural one. It would help if you defined "formal language."

>
The reason it is necessary to use a formal language is because without a formal language, the definition can never be well-ordered, hence it can never be objective. (As for the specific formal language "I'm referring to", any one of them will do.)<<

Tahtg is only your opinion, which I reject. IMO a definition can be better well-ordered using a naturel language theat people are familiar with.

Regarding 3)

>>The definition does not have to be in mathematical terms, it just has to be in objective terms. Coincidentally, every objective term can also be interpreted as a mathematical one (broad use of the term "mathematical").<<

Again you have just pontificated and offer not reason(s) why. Remember I coujld be the poster child for "I"m from Missouri."

In his reply, the contender states that metaphysical definitions cannot relate to God's existence, because God "is not a metaphysical being". This is obviously wrong, because anything that "exists" must, by definition, relate to metaphysics. That is the very purpose of metaphysics in general.<<

That is not true either. Basically metaphysics concern the abstract. God is not an abstract being. He is well defined, although we will never fully understand Him or his nature.

>>Later on in his reply, the contender claims that I need to bring "evidence" to support my claims (or in his words, "opinions"); demonstrating his lack of knowledge regarding the difference between a logical proof and an evidence-based proof. My proof is the former, not the latter; making evidence both obsolete and useless.<<

You have not proved anything. So far all you have done is make statements you think are accurate and you have yet to offer you qualification that make your opinions better than mine.

Regarding 5)

Here; the contender expresses his confusion as to why I said that he would contradict himself later. In reply, I will quote what he had said in round one: "While your statement is true, what makes you think the God of the Bible is limitless? If He was we would not have a universe with life. What evidence do you have that God is only a notion and is limitless?"

Regarding 8)

>>Here, the contender states that a true god could not possibly be limited. Of course, this statement requires evidence; but even if it were true, it would only mean one thing: GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. <<

You also need too support your opinion that GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE.

>>If a limited god is impossible, and a god which isn't limited is impossible (as I have clearly proven), <<

You have proven no such thing. You continue to only offer your opinions. What makes you think the God of the Bible is limited? The Bible teaches that God is omnipotent, by any definition that say He is not limited.

>>then there cannot be any god whatsoever.<<

Only if your opinions are valid and you have offered no real evidence they are. The only objective evidence we have that God exists is the existence of matter and life. Matter cannot create itself out of nothing and even if matter is eternal, lifeless elements cannot be the source of even simple life. Actually DNA shows ther is no such thing as a simple life form even more evidence that our Creator is also an Intelligent designer.

CONCLUSION

Because my proof still holds, and because the contender has yet to pose a sound rebuttal for it; I can say with absolute certainty that I can rest my case. Whatever my opponent presents in the last round, I will ask him to keep it conclusive, as it's purpose is for closing remarks.<<

?First you have offered no proof. You have not explained why a formal language is better than a natural one. You have not explained why we must use metaphysical and arithmetic definitions and above all you have not presented your credentials as to why your opinions and are valid and better tha mind.

In conclusion you have failed to explained why it is not necessary to have a Creator for the universe and for life.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BackCommander// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con agreed that a limitless god is impossible in his first round and therefore automatically lost this debate. Their fixation on trying to change the argument to one of gods existence lost them the conduct vote. Con made very few spelling s&g mistakes, but I could find none that Pro made. Cons' argument was one that was completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Pro gets my vote.

[*Reason for removal*] S&G is insufficiently explained. Small differences in the spelling and grammar of the two debaters is never sufficient reason to award this point " only in instances where one side's argument is difficult to read can this be awarded.
************************************************************************
Posted by KthulhuHimself 10 months ago
KthulhuHimself
You're just being stubborn now; I've explained time and time again that a natural language is subjective, meaning that anything defined (only) in it is subjective. Formal languages, on the other hand; ARE OBJECTIVE.
No votes have been placed for this debate.