The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,431 times Debate No: 56226
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (4)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Rounds:
1st: Acceptance only.
2nd: Opening arguments only.
3rd: Both rebuttals and new arguments.
4th: Rebuttals only.
5th: Summaries only.

Definitions:
Omnipotent: having unlimited power
Omnibenevolent: being all-good and incapable of evil
Exist: to be real
Zarroette

Con

I thank Pro for providing the opportunity to debate this topic. Pro has the BoP to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient being does not exist. I wish him/her strength in argument.
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro


I thank my opponent for this debate.

---

2P1: Logical Problem of Evil
The Logical Problem of Evil attempts to draw a contradiction between the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity and the existence of evil, such that only one or the other can exist in a given reality.

P1. From definition, an omnipotent entity can perform any action.
P2. From definition, an omnibenevolent entity would remove as much evil as possible.
P3. From P1-2, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity would remove all evil.
P4. From P1-3, if an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, then evil does not.
A1. Assume temporarily that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists.
P5. From P1-4 and A1, evil does not exist.
P6. From observation, evil exists.
C: P6 and P5 form a contradiction; A1 is false, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist.

The existence of evil contradicts the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity. Because we cannot reject the existence of evil, we must reject the existence of an omnipotent entity.

2P2: The Paradox of Omnipotence
The Paradox of Omnipotence attempts to prove that it's impossible for an entity to truly be omnipotent, because an omnipotent entity would have to be able to limit itself; however, because it is limitable, it is also not omnipotent.

A few variations on the theme:

Theme 1: "Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" -- RationalWiki
If yes: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone.
If no: The entity's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone.

Theme 2: "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?" -- Homer Simpson
If yes: Jesus's power is limited, because he cannot eat the burrito.
If no: Jesus's power is limited, because it cannot microwave the burrito.

As such, an omnipotent god cannot possibly exist.

2P3: Burden of Proof
My opponent has the Burden of Proof to prove that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, because not believing so is the default position in the lack of evidence, because it is the least complex worldview.

Let"s look at this through Occam"s Razor.

Definition of Occam"s Razor: "[A]mong competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. " [M]ore complicated solutions may " prove correct, but"in the absence of [evidence]"the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. The " principle " shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power," Wikipedia [2].

In a worldview where an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity does not exist, fewer assumptions are made than in any worldview where one does. For example, contrast a Pro universe and a Con universe.

Pro: "The universe exists."

Con: "The universe exists, and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists."

In both worlds, both people assume that the universe exists. However, only in the Con universe do we, additionally, assume that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists.

However, without proof, you should not accept the Con worldview, because it makes unproven assumptions. A similar scenario is given below:

Aunicornism: "The universe exists."

Unicornism: "The universe exists, and unicorns exist."

Clearly one would not accept that the default position is that unicorns exist, and that one must disprove the existence of unicorns in order to not believe in them. This is because we use Occam's Razor in our lives to choose the most simple explanation for events, rather than inventing crazy theories to describe everyday events. The same holds true for religion and philosophy.

Thus, the Pro makes fewer assumptions, and must be assumed true unless a theory with more explanatory power is proven correct. Thus, the Burden of Proof of my opponent is to prove that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent entity exists, which would prove that the Pro position does not have enough explanatory power and must be rejected for a more powerful explanatory theory.
Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Pro.

I remind voters that the BoP is on Pro to prove that such a being does not exist; I am under no obligation to prove that one does exist. I only have to negate. If my opponent is only to prove likelihood (i.e. an omnipotent, omniscient being likely doesn’t exist), rather than the absolute (i.e. such a god does not exist), then I win. It’s a bit silly that I’m not allowed to negate in the first round, since the BoP is on Pro, and I could win if none of my arguments are upheld (i.e. I refute all of my opponent’s arguments, yet fail to defend my own), but those are the rules.

A1: Humans do not know everything

My opponent has yet to prove that humans know everything. In the absence of knowing everything, there could be a piece of information that proves an omnipotent, omniscient being exists. So, my argument:

1) Humans are not sure if we know everything

2) In not being sure, we don’t know something

C) Therefore, humans do not know everything

Humans are learning new things all the time (e.g. scientific discoveries). To argue that ‘God does not exist’, which would basically be upon what humans currently know, which is exceedingly likely not everything there is to know, cannot be justified. Again, to counter this argument, my opponent would have to prove that humans do know everything.

A2: Basic possible worlds argument

“Possible worlds” is basically a fancy way of arguing probability (i.e. if someone exists in a possible world, then there is a chance that he/she exists) [2]. When Pro makes the claim that such a God cannot exist, I have to rebut all arguments that prove this absolute claim. So, in the event that it is possible such a god exists, even if the likelihood is ever so slight, I win.

It is conceivable that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient being. Hence, in a possible world, until my opponent proves that one cannot exist:

1) An omnipotent, omniscient god is conceivable.

2) An omnipotent, omniscient god is not inherently contradictory

C) Therefore, in a possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient god exists

Pro has made claims to the contrary on the second point, however since this round is not for rebuttals, I am not able to address these arguments.


A3: Definition of omnipotence

My opponent has defined omnipotent as: having unlimited power. I will now argue as to what this means. First, let’s define power:

Power: the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way [1].

And now unlimited:

Unlimited: boundless [3].

So, the definition my opponent has provided is ‘omnipotence is having boundless capacity to do something or act in a particular way’. Part of this boundless capacity would involve the ability to restrict oneself, because if an omnipotent god were not able to restrict itself, then it wouldn’t be omnipotent.

It would be like Usain Bolt running on one leg. Sure, both of his legs work, and he could run faster on both, but just because he’s running on one leg doesn’t mean that he can’t run any faster, he is just choosing not to by restricting himself. Similarly, an omnipotent god could create logic, in which it restricts itself by, but that doesn’t mean such a god is eternally bound by such logic, it’s only that it is choosing to restrict itself by the logic. If a god were truly omnipotent, it would not be bound by logic.

A4: Modal Ontological argument (MOA)

Before I make this argument, I would like to note that this argument attempts to prove more than what is required of the resolution; I do not have to show that a god with the trait of moral perfection can exist. The only reason I am not omitting the moral perfection part from this argument, is that it’s a core component of the MOA, and so to take it out would null the argument.



Definitions:

Maximal excellence: To have omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in some world.

Maximal greatness: To have maximal excellence in every possible world.

Alvin Platinga’s Modal Ontological Argument is logically valid, because its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises [7]. The argument is as follows [4]:

  1. 1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in said world; and
  2. 2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
  3. 3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
  4. 4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
  5. 5. Therefore, (by axiom S5 [5]) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
  6. 6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


The mathematical proof is as follows [6]:

Ax=df x is maximally great
Bx=df x is maximally excellent
W (Y) =df Y is a universal property
Ox = df x is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect

1) `74; (W07;x)Ax pr
2) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) pr
3) `33;(x)(BxX35;Ox) pr
4) (Y)[W(Y) iff (`33;(W07;x)Yx W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Yx)] pr
5) (Y)[(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Yx iff `33;Zx)X35; W(Y)] pr
6) (W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx) 2, Existential Generalization
7) [(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx)X35;W(A)] 5, Universal Instantiation
8 ) W(A) iff (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 4, Universal Instantiation
9) W (A) 6, 7 Modus Ponens
10) W(A)X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 8, Equivalence, Simplification
11) `33;(W07;x)Ax (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 9, 10 Modus Ponens
12) ~`74;~~(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;(W07;x)Ax) 11, Communication, Modal Equivalence
13) `74;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)Ax Double Negation, Impl
14) `33;(W07;x)Ax 1, 13 Modus Ponens
15) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx) theorem
16) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 14, 15 Modus Ponens (twice)
17) `33;(x)(Bx X35; Ox) X35; (`33;(W07;x)`33;Bx X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Ox theorem
18) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 16, 17 Modus Ponens (twice)
19) (W07;x)`33;Bx 18, Necessity Elimination


A5: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Before I make this argument, I would to say that this argument tries to prove that god exists, and is likely an omnipotent, omniscient being. I do not have the BoP to prove as such, but in the event that this argument withstands my opponent’s criticism, I win the debate.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument attempts to prove the existence of a creator god (one which would be omnipotent and omniscient). The argument revolves around the idea that metaphysically, it is impossible for an infinite to exist via way of infinite addition, which is accepted by modern mathematicians [9].

Given this mathematically accurate premise, in William Lane Craig’s words [8]:

  1. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
  2. 2. The universe began to exist.
  3. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.


Since there is definitely a cause to the universe (as the Big Bang theory also suggests, which is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe, and could be attributed as ‘god’ [10]), we have to decide upon what type of cause it was. There are two types of causes: personal and impersonal.

Craig argues that the cause cannot be impersonal, for this cause would have to be in a state of dormancy or activity [11]. However, if the state were in dormancy, and since no events are occurring in that state (otherwise, the cause would happen before the first moment of time, which doesn’t make sense), this dormancy would remain permanent. Alternatively, if the cause were in a state of activity, then the universe would be eternal (as would be the effect), which Craig has already proven false. So, the cause cannot be impersonal.

This leaves the cause as personal, as it is the only other type of cause. The personal cause also makes sense as it could conceivably transition from dormancy to activity. For a being to do such a thing, it would require immense power to act freely (could be omnipotence). In order to know how to create everything, this being would have to know a lot (suggests omniscience). Therefore, there is reasonable proof to suggest that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists.

A6: Intelligent Design

I argue that because the universe is so complex, that because it works quite well when it could easily not, that it is highly likely a designer created such a thing. In order for such a creation, a being would have to be:

  1. 1. Omnipotent (so as to be able to do it)
  2. 2. Omniscient (so as to be able to know what to do)

This at least gives a likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists.

Informative conclusion

Again, my opponent has the BoP to prove that God does not exist. My arguments, particularly the latter three, go beyond my task as Con, and attempt to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists. Of course, if I do prove that such a god exists, that means I win this debate anyway, but I don’t have to prove that god exists in order to win this debate. When rebutting my opponent’s arguments, I only have to show the faintest of likelihoods that god could exist.

References:

[1] https://www.google.com.au...

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[4] Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011)."Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://jwwartick.com...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] Craig, as quoted in: ‘Philosophy Now’ magazine, December 2013

[9] Craig, edited by William Lane; Moreland, J.P. (2011). The Blackwell companion to natural theology ([Pbk. ed.] ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 103.

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[11] http://exapologist.blogspot.com.au...

Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Before rebuttals, I would like to apologize. I realized only now that the resolution states "An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist", when I had intended the resolution to be "An Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent Being Does Not Exist". I think that my definitions of omnipotent and omnibenevolent in the first round and use of the Logical Problem of Evil should be proof of my ignorance of my own error. To make certain that all arguments made by my opponent and myself are topical, I request a change of the formal resolution to: "An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent (OOO) Being Does Not Exist".

---

BoP Argument: "BoP is on Pro to prove that such a being does not exist[.] .... I could win if none of my arguments are upheld (i.e. I refute all of my opponent’s arguments, yet fail to defend my own)[.]"

1. Actually, Con does have a (small) BoP within this debate. It is possible for all entities to not exist, while it is only possible for non-contradictory (either with itself or with reality) entities to exist. My opponent must prove that an OOO entity is not contradictory with reality or with itself. Otherwise, it would be impossible for said entity to exist, and we would automatically vote Pro.

---

2C1: "[H]umans do not know everything[.] .... To argue that ‘God does not exist’, which would basically be upon what humans currently know, which is exceedingly likely not everything there is to know, cannot be justified. Again, to counter this argument, my opponent would have to prove that humans do know everything."

1. Actually, in the absence of knowledge, as I pointed out in 2P3, we would assume that an OOO god does not exist.

2. Further, logic is not based on expandable knowledge. If we can disprove something now using only logic and not external observations, that will not change in the future and as such this epistemological problem doesn't matter. (So 2P2, if not 2P1, stands unharmed.)

---

2C2:

"P1: An omnipotent, omniscient god is conceivable.

P2: An omnipotent, omniscient god is not inherently contradictory.

C: Therefore, in a possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient god exists."

1. As my opponent states, I contend that P2 is incorrect. See 2P1 and 2P2 as to why. If 2P1 OR 2P2 stands, then P2 and this contention fall.

2. Additionally, we are not debating over whether an OOO entity CAN exist in a potential reality, but whether it DOES in this reality. While it might be possible for an OOO entity to exist in a reality with no evil (and some way out of the Paradox of Omnipotence), it cannot exist in ours and thus does not.


3. Further, it's rather unlikely (to understate) that we discover something out in the stars that proves that evil doesn't exist.

---

2C3: "[A]n omnipotent god could create logic, in which it restricts itself by, but that doesn’t mean such a god is eternally bound by such logic, it’s only that it is choosing to restrict itself by the logic. If a god were truly omnipotent, it would not be bound by logic."

1. An entity cannot be temporarily (as opposed to eternally) limited, because if it limits itself and then removes that limit, then that limit did not, in fact, limit the entity's power, which means that the entity was unable to actually limit itself.

2. Accepting 2C3.1, let's rephrase the question.

Can an omnipotent entity bound itself by logic?

If yes, then it is not omnipotent, because it would have limited its power.

If no, then it is not omnipotent, because it would be unable to limit itself via logic.

As such, a logically-unconstrained omnipotent entity is not, in fact, omnipotent.

3. Side note: My opponent did attempt to rebut 2P2, but I don't consider this a violation of the rules because I forgot that said rules prevented negation in the first round and would have removed them if I had remembered so. Do not mark my opponent down whatsoever.

---

3C4:

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in said world; and

2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)

4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.

5. Therefore, (by axiom S5 [5]) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

1. Similar proof:

P1: Shangri-La is the greatest place on earth.

P2: A place that exists is greater than one that doesn't.

C: Therefore, Shangri-La exists.

I hope my opponent will defend the existence of Shangri-La. (I know that I didn't word it exactly as the original, but time constraints so screw it.)

2. Existence isn't an attribute, as something non-existent cannot have attributes. Fundamentally, this argument boils down to "show me a god, and I'll show you an existing god." As such, this is circular logic that does not stand.

3. This argument makes the unproven assertion that existence is "better" than non-existence. As such, the premises are invalid.

4. Further, cross-apply 2P1 and 2P2. It is NOT possible for an OOO god to exist.

---

3C5:

"P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

[T]he cause cannot be impersonal, for ... if the state were in dormancy, and since no events are occurring in that state (otherwise, the cause would happen before the first moment of time, which doesn’t make sense), this dormancy would remain permanent. Alternatively, if the cause were in a state of activity, then the universe would be eternal (as would be the effect), which Craig has already proven false. So, the cause cannot be impersonal."

1. Premise one is based on observational evidence that we do not, in fact, know whether applies to the creation of the universe or not or to situations without time. As such, it is not objectively known, but is gathered from living in the universe, and is thus subjective rather than objective or logical. This makes the rest of argumentation against the point unnecessary, as the conclusion is not necessarily valid.

2. My opponent must provide a mechanism through which a "first cause" would come to exist, without in fact ever beginning to exist. (Spot the contradiction yet?) I'm sure my opponent will have an answer to this, and we can debate over just how implausible it is.

3. This is not necessarily proof of an OOO god. A god who created a universe is not necessarily omnipotent (rather merely powerful enough to create a universe), not necessarily omniscient (rather merely intelligent enough to create a universe), and not necessarily omnibenevolent whatsoever. As such, even if the proof stands, it is merely proof of a First Cause, NOT necessarily an OOO god.

4. Cross-apply 2C2. We don't know everything. We don't know if the universe requires a cause or not, or what was before the creation of the universe. As such, this is fundamentally an argument form ignorance.

5. Quantum fluctuations have no known cause, yet pop in and out of existence all the time. (I can find plenty of sources, but I don't have the time.) P1 refuted, and a potential non-OOO cause for the existence of the universe found. (IE; the universe is a quantum fluctuation, balanced by an anti-universe.) Also see Zero Energy Universe theory and various other models that potentially allow for a universe to come, uncaused, from nothing.

6. In all honesty, I don't understand the "personal/impersonal" cause dichotomy. Do explain. Preferably with an explanation with, say, citations to actual physicist who knows about how our universe could have been created, rather than a philosopher.

---

3C6: "[T]he universe is so complex ... works ... well ... likely created ... likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists."

1. My opponent's logic is as follows:

P1: The universe is complex and "works ... well".

P2: An OOO god could create a complex and "well-working" universe.

C: An OOO god could have created the universe.

While it is possible for such a creation to have occurred, this possibility has no relation to the possibility that an OOO god exists, and is thus not evidence for the existence of an OOO god.

2. If complexity and "well-working"-ness are indicative of creation by a more intelligent being, then an OOO god would require a creator even more than the universe, because it is complex enough to design and create a complex and "well-working" universe. As such, this argument would lead to an infinite regression of gods necessary for anything to exist, which is cumulatively less plausible than assuming that a method for universe creation by nonintelligent sources exists and additionally fails to solve the problem.

3. My opponent must provide a method through which "designed-ness" can be objectively determined. (Say, by a computer.) If my opponent cannot provide such a method, then we cannot, in fact, know whether or not complexity and "well-working"-ness are actually attributes of a designed entity, and as such, we cannot know if this statement is valid.

---

Sorry if rebuttals are short, I've been busy. Apologies to Zaroette and all you guys.

Zarroette

Con

I thank FuzzyCatPotato for his response.

I’m going to outline the ramifications of this debate, because my opponent is unfairly changing them:

The resolution:

Firstly, the resolution reads ‘An Omnipotent, Omniscient being does not exist’. This is what I accepted. It is grossly unfair that my opponent changes the resolution mid-debate, not to mention poor conduct. As for the actual logistics of changing the resolution, it makes it far easier for him to disprove such a god, as the god would require more justification due to the extra qualifier (omnibenevolence). As such, I refuse to accept the newly proposed resolution.


BoP:

The BoP rests solely on Pro. He is to show that an omnipotent, omniscient god does not exist. My job is to show, at the very least, that despite Pro’s arguments, there is a chance that such a god exists. That way, if I do show:

  1. 1. God may exist
  2. 2. Then: god may exist =/= god does not exist
  3. 3. Therefore, I would win the debate, based on the resolution, because “god does not exist” has not been affirmed

This is where the BoP lies, in accordance to the resolution. Anything else my opponent says is wrong.


2C1:

1. This is completely wrong. In the absence of not knowing whether god exists, then we assume neither that he does nor he doesn’t exist. You can argue that because there is lack of evidence and highly demanding evidence is required for proof, it’s likely that he does not exist, but that isn’t the same as saying that he does not exist.

2. Here, my opponent begs the question. He assumes that we do know everything about god, and therefore the logic that follows is accurate. Yes, if something is logical, then it will be regardless of the timeframe. Yet you need to reach the conclusion that it is logical first. My opponent’s apparently logical argument is that of the ‘omnipotence paradox’, which I will address later.

2C2:

1. Omnipotence paradox point – addressed later.

2. My opponent thinks that ‘possible world’ means an alternative reality. As I explained, possible world means that something is possible. If I say that god can exist in a possible world, I’m saying that god can exist.

Furthermore, it’s my job to show that god can exist, and it’s my opponent’s job to show that he does not.

Furthermore still, to say that “it cannot exist in ours and thus does not”, is a bare assertion.


3. Proving evil isn’t relevant to the resolution.

2C3:

1. If an entity is holding a stick, even if the entity is omnipotent, the stick’s presence and properties still exist, and thus the entity is bound by them. However, an omnipotent entity could re-arrange the properties of the stick, and even make them disappear, if he so chose. But in holding that stick, the entity is still limited, but also choosing to be.

Similarly, for example, if a god limits himself by the laws of the universe, he is indeed limited because the laws of the universe still apply. The limit is still there, it’s just that the limit doesn’t have to be there, hence god ‘choosing’ to limit himself. Comparatively, a non-omnipotent being wouldn’t be able to choose whether to limit his/herself. See the difference?

2. Being temporarily limited does not mean that you cannot be omnipotent. Again, god is ‘choosing’ to be limited, which is something only an omnipotent god choose to do. I quote myself from the second round:

“So, the definition my opponent has provided is ‘omnipotence is having boundless capacity to do something or act in a particular way’. Part of this boundless capacity would involve the ability to restrict oneself, because if an omnipotent god were not able to restrict itself, then it wouldn’t be omnipotent.

3C4:

I am dropping this contention because I am under no obligation to prove benevolence in this debate, and I don’t want that to be confused.

3C5:

1. Premise one is actually based on rigorous mathematical calculations, which proved for a fact that it is impossible for an infinite to exist via way of multiple addition. My opponent’s claim of ‘not logical’ is egregiously wrong. Yes, it’s not irrefutable proof, but it’s a lot better than evidence to contrary, meaning that premise one is formed upon great likelihood (keep in mind that in order to affirm the resolution, my opponent must eliminate all likelihood).

2. The cause was likely god, as I’m demonstrating here.

3. As I later show, the cause had to be personal, which can be answered by a creator god. Whilst it’s not proof beyond all doubt, there is surmounting evidence in my case to suggest that it was likely an omniscient, omnipotent god.

4. It is likely that this god exists, as I’m demonstrating. Likelihood is all I have to show to win this debate.

5. Just because quantum fluctuations have no known cause, that does not mean the universe cannot have been created. I have given strong evidence to show that it could well have been created. Besides, in the future, we could gather information that shows us why quantum fluctuations exist.

My opponent’s second example is not explained, and is therefore a bare assertion.

6. My opponent provides no valid counter-arguments to the “personal/impersonal” dichotomy. Instead, my opponent attempts to move the goal-posts in order to get me to appeal to authority – two logical fallacies in one. Firstly, I don’t have to cite “an actual physicist” in order for my argument to be valid; an English teacher could solve a mathematics equation without being a mathematics teachers.

Secondly, because I don’t, the argument I’ve provided is substantial.

3C6:

1. The correlation is strong, but yes, not absolute. Since we have the intricate universe which operates, and since we have no irrefutable explanation for it, then an omniscient, omnipotent god is a plausible explanation.

2. “then an OOO god would require a creator even more than the universe, because it is complex enough to design and create a complex and "well-working" universe.”

This is a bare assertion. Not only that, but just because you can turn a noun into a verb and repeat it in a sentence, that doesn’t mean you should. Just because an exam-writer wrote an exam, does it make any sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer?’ Similarly, just because you can ask ‘who created the creator?’-, it doesn’t mean you should.

3. These attributes have the capacity to be designed. Since you are affirming the resolution, it is your job to show that there is no way an omniscient, omnipotent god designed the universe. In the event that there remains a chance, and I show it, I win the debate.

Round 2 Counter-arguments

2P1: Logical Problem of Evil

The PoE has the premise that god is benevolent, which is not relevant to this debate. I only have to show the potential existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god, not a benevolent one.


2P2: The Paradox of Omnipotence

An entity, as I’ve shown before, can be limited by things it could remove, hence it retains omnipotence yet it is limited in that moment.

I’ll provide my example again:

“It would be like Usain Bolt running on one leg. Sure, both of his legs work, and he could run faster on both, but just because he’s running on one leg doesn’t mean that he can’t run any faster, he is just choosing not to by restricting himself. Similarly, an omnipotent god could create logic, in which it restricts itself by, but that doesn’t mean such a god is eternally bound by such logic, it’s only that it is choosing to restrict itself by the logic. If a god were truly omnipotent, it would not be bound by logic.



Theme 1 and 2’s answer depends on which god chooses. Remember also that god would choosing to force logic upon himself by submitting himself to such a scenario, hence intentionally limiting himself, and therefore remaining omnipotent. Remember also non-omnipotent beings wouldn’t be able to refuse submission to such a scenario, whereas god, being omnipotent, could refuse to submit to such rules, and re-write them as he wished.



2P3: Burden of Proof

I’ve outlined where the BoP stands in the first few paragraphs of this round.

If my opponent appeals to Occam’s Razor, then I win, because my opponent would implicitly concede that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god is not likely, meaning that there is a chance that such a god exists, meaning that the resolution is negated and I win.

Again, you don’t have to agree that god exists, or even that its existence is likely. In the chance that there is the slightest doubt as to whether the resolution “god does not exist” can be affirmed, then I win.

Debate Round No. 3
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

My modem's kaputt for now, so I can't post my case or upload to Dropbox.
Apparently 3G works fine, even if it's highway robbery.

I can link you to shrib.com/zarroette , since I usually write my cases there.
However: the case isn't 100% done, and more importantly is editable by everyone.
I've got an offline copy in case the shrib one gets messed up.
I will post a Dropbox copy as soon as possible.
My sincere apologies. It's the best I can do.
Zarroette

Con

I thank FuzzyCatPotato for making the effort to post his round, despite having internet problems.

The resolution:

My opponent has conceded that the original resolution stands.

BoP:

At the risk of playing semantics, my opponent says that, “if I prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god cannot exist, then I win.” Whilst cannot is not quite the same as does not, ‘cannot’ entails ‘does not’, as the latter logically follows, so I think it’s fair that are equated as the same.

Again, I reiterate this because my opponent strays from this later on: my opponent must prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god cannot exist. If I successfully argue doubt, or if my opponent fails to prove the resolution, I win.

Logical Problem of Evil

We have both agreed that this argument is not relevant, and thus it has been dropped.

The Paradox of Omnipotence

This is the only argument, in the entire debate, that my opponent has provided, which could win him the debate. Since we’ve reached the fourth round, my opponent cannot make any new arguments, even in regards to this, as a response to mine. Even if he refutes my other arguments, if this argument does not stand, I win this debate, because my opponent has the BoP to show that an omnipotent god does not/cannot exist.

Firstly, let’s get a working definition of limit to showcase my point:

Limit: The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or may not proceed [6].

It’s entirely possible that god could limit himself, yet at the same time retain the ability to do anything. The limit’s existence and parameters are something that god has control over, so he’s really only supressing himself, rather than being truly limited (i.e. he retains omnipotence). However, he is limited in the sense that he doesn’t allow himself to do something. Do you see the difference? The trait of omnipotence is unaffected, yet god can choose to limit himself.

1:

“If an entity can limit itself, even if it is not currently limited, then it is still fundamentally limited.”

This is not correct, because the entity has the ability to limit itself, which is a part of omnipotence. An entity that cannot limit itself, that cannot submit itself to its own rules, is not omnipotent.

My Usain Bolt analogy

“Could Usain Bolt run on one leg?

If yes, then Usain Bolt's power is limited, because his power is potentially limitable, and thus not infinite.

If no, then Usain Bolt's power is limited, because he can't limit his power.”

The answer is yes, and entails different ramifications to what my opponent suggests. His power isn’t limitable, rather, he allows himself to be limited to his own rules, whilst retaining omnipotence. God could, at any time, unlimit himself; he is not truly limited, only in the instance does he limit himself.



“Could Usain Bolt lower his second leg and run on it after pulling it up?”

Yes, this is how he’d normally run! Your leg goes up, and then it goes down, all whilst leaning forward.


2:
I’m not arguing that god removes his omnipotence. I’m arguing that god limits himself, whilst his omnipotent ability still stays.


My holding a stick analogy

3C3A:


"Choosing" to limit oneself is irrelevant to the fact that one is limited.

We’re to presume that the entity is omnipotent, since my opponent has to disprove the existence of said god. Thus, choosing to limit oneself can be relevant to the fact that one is omnipotent.


“If power is limitable, then power is not limitless.”

My opponent conflates the power with the entity. The entity itself can limit itself, yet the power is not limited. The entity still retains the ability to do anything, but is choosing to limit itself in that moment.


“And if the limit is removed, then the limit wasn't powerful enough, proving lack of omnipotence.”

My opponent assumes that the limit was intended along with permanence. In other words, my opponent is assuming to know what god’s intentions were, when he hasn’t provided any evidence or argument here. For example, it could well be that the limit was intended only for humans. The point is that we don’t know.


3C3B:

1: This deals with two omnipotent beings existing, which is not what the resolution calls for. This is not relevant to this debate.

God can be omnipotent, yet limiting himself at the same time – the trait does not change. Just like Usain Bolt isn’t always the fastest running human in the world, he is still labelled the fastest because he can be.


The appeal to Occam’s Razor loses the debate for my opponent


1: This is where my opponent strays from his BoP. Just because an explanation is simpler, that doesn’t mean that the alternatives do not exist. Might I remind everyone that Pro must prove that god does not exist. In saying that ‘it’s likely that he does not exist’, based on Occam’s Razor, my opponent essentially concedes the debate.


2: Only the Omnipotence Paradox is relevant to my opponent’s BoP. My opponent is conceding the debate by arguing Occam’s Razor, by inadvertently admitting that ‘god does not likely exist’, which fails to meet the BoP ‘god does not exist’.


3C1B:


1: My opponent misses the point. Outside of his omnipotence paradox argument, to say that god cannot exist, he would have to know everything about god, in order to prove that he cannot exist. If you don’t know everything about god, then there could be an aspect of god which could refute your argument to disprove him. All I am saying is that in the absence of knowing god, and the omnipotence paradox failing, my opponent’s BoP is not met.


2: My point was that how do you know when you’re being 100% logical? My opponent doesn’t address this point. It’s fair to assume that you could logically prove that god doesn’t exist, despite limitedness, yet you have to reach that point first to say that it can be done (i.e. god does not exist). Are you smart enough to see? My opponent begs the question.


3C2B:

1: I’ve got to show possibility, my opponent has to prove that god does not exist – this is the bottom line.


Modal Ontological argument

We’ve both agreed that this argument isn’t relevant to this debate, thus it is dropped.


Kalam Cosmological Argument

3C5:

1: I didn’t drop it. I’m arguing that god was the first cause of creation.

3C5A:

1: Since my opponent uses my 2C2 “we don’t know everything” argument, I’ll take it as conceded (seeing as it’s his only defence to my point). Whilst we don’t know everything, there is a strong chance, based on the Kalam Cosmoligcal Argument, that a god created the universe. I don’t have to prove it either, in regards to Pro’s BoP, I only have to show possibility.

2: Via the logical consistency of axiomatised infinite set theory [3]. To put it in simple terms (Hilbert’s Hotel example, because the mathematics itself requires a very advanced understanding of maths):

“Imagine a hotel, which can be fully occupied and yet, through transposition of lodgers, accommodate endless infinities of surplus guests. Now, what would happen if inverse arithmetical operations like subtraction were applied to the hotel? By envisaging differing groups of guests leaving the hotel, Craig argues that one could subtract identical quantities from identical quantities and have non-identical quantities as remainders, which is absurd.Arguing that the mathematical conventions specified to guarantee the logical consistency of transfinite arithmetic have no ontological force, Craig concludes that finitism is most plausibly true. Thus, the series of past events must be finite and the universe began to exist.” [4][5].



3: The ‘personal/impersonal’ argument, which my opponent has dropped, refutes his argument here.

3C5C:

1: Pro concedes that the universe could have been created.

2: See the above point.

3C5D:

1: My opponent merely states the example and its conclusion, rather than explains it. Hence, this bare assertion does not need to be addressed.

3C5D:

1: Appealing to authority occurs when someone discredits work based on it not coming from an authoritative figure [1]. This is precisely what my opponent has done, in arguing that because I haven’t quote an actual physicist, the argument isn’t valid.

2: My opponent not understanding my argument is not my problem, provided that my argument is clear and understandable. Since my opponent is incapable of responding to it, it is conceded. My opponent concedes that the cause of the universe had to be a personal one, which now gives likelihood that it was a god.

3: Saying that a philosopher cannot make a logical argument is now Ad Hominem [2]. My opponent should be addressing the points of the argument, not the person making the argument.

4: Fallacies explained above.


Intelligent Design argument

3C6A:

1: My opponent makes reference to another of his argument – addressed elsewhere.


3C6B:

1: My opponent concedes possibility, hence this point stands.


2: Since my opponent conceded that the universe could have been created, then it’s possible that the universe was created. Pro does not address the example I gave, either. It doesn’t necessarily make any sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer?’ Likewise, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to ask ‘who designed the designer?’ My counter-point has been conceded.


3C6C:

1: My opponent concedes possibility, hence this point stands.

2: BoP quarrels addressed elsewhere.


References:

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...

[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

[3] Craig, edited by William Lane; Moreland, J.P. (2011). The Blackwell companion to natural theology([Pbk. ed.] ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 106–107

[4] Oppy, Graham (1995). "Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument". International Philosophical Quarterly 35(2): 219–221

[5] Reichenbach, Bruce (2010). "Cosmological Argument". In Zalta, Edward N. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 4
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Round 4 argument: https://www.dropbox.com...

---

Summary:

---

General:

---

BOP:

I must either prove that an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot exist or that one does not exist. If I do either, I win the debate.

---

Pro's Arguments:

---

The Paradox of Omnipotence:

If I win the Paradox of Omnipotence, then I have fulfilled my BOP and won the debate.

The Paradox of Omnipotence questions whether omnipotence is truly possible, by asking whether or not an omnipotent entity can both limit its power AND remain omnipotent. If it power is limited, then it is not omnipotent; and if cannot limit its power, then it is not omnipotent.

Con states, "It’s entirely possible that god could limit himself, yet at the same time retain the ability to do anything." However, this fails for two reasons. Firstly, my opponent dropped my question, Could an omnipotent entity permanently and retroactively remove its omnipotence?

If yes, then it's not omnipotent, because it has limited ability and has always had limited abilities.

If no, then it's not omnipotent, because it can't remove its omnipotence.

Secondly, if the god limits itself, but is not limited in power, then it is not limited. It's like if you decided to run a race on only one leg; you aren't actually limited by running only on one leg, and such never truly limited yourself at all. A more comparable example to the one I pose is that of cutting off your own leg. You can't control it after you've done it; you ARE limited.

Con states, "[T]wo omnipotent beings existing ... is not relevant to this debate." This is quite relevant, because it is about the nature of omnipotence. This example proves that an omnipotent entity cannot exist in any world, rather than requiring that two omnipotent entities exist in this world. And if two omnipotent entities are required, why not ask the omnipotent entity to create one -- or perhaps an entity even more powerful than itself?


I have proven that even for a logically unlimited omnipotent entity, even if the results of the paradox are simultaneous, all lead back to mere potence, making ANY omnipotent entity impossible.

I have proven that omnipotence is impossible.

---

Occam's Razor:

If I win Occam's Razor and refute Con's point, then I win the debate.

Through Occam's Razor, when comparing competing hypotheses that fit equally well with the available proof, we choose the less complex one.

Take the example of a fence post falling over. When choosing between (A) its screws were loose and fell out, and (B) aliens traveled millions of miles across the galaxy to unscrew the fence posts's screws, we are going to choose A because it is simpler.

Occam's Razor is similar to the fact nothing can be assumed to be true without proof, and as such we choose the explanation with fewer unsupported assumptions.

So when comparing (A) the universe exists and (B) the universe and an omnipotent, omniscient god exist, we are going to choose A unless there is proof of an omnipotent, omniscient god. (A makes 1 assumption, B makes 2.)

Con claims that this is insufficient to affirm. However, the absence of evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient god is sufficient to deny that an omnipotent, omniscient exists, because an omnipotent, omniscient god is an unnecessary assumption and as such can be denied in the lack of evidence.

To quote Christopher Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

---

Con's Arguments:

---

Limited Knowledge:

Con questions whether the Omnipotence Paradox can be 100% logical, due to the limited nature of knowledge. However, the Omnipotence Paradox does not rely on outside knowledge, because it attempts only to disprove that an omnipotent god exists, which is a given statement (accepted as true) in this debate. Because its only premise is inherent to this debate, it is inherently applicable.

---

Possible Worlds:

Con attempted to prove in Round 2 that Con only needed to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god is possible in some world. As I have proven, and as Con has accepted, Con needs to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god is possible in this (the actual) world.

---

Modal Ontological Argument:

Con has dropped this point.

---

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Con attempted to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god has created the universe.

Con dropped my point that, using Con's logic, an omnipotent, omniscient god would require a creator. Under Con's logic, all non-eternal entities have a creator, and because Con has not proven that this omnipotent, omniscient entity is eternal, it appears to also require a creator. Similarly, the god's creator would require a creator. And because Con has proven infinite creator chains impossible, this is impossible.

Con states that I concede Con's Limited Knowledge argument by using it against Con. This is not true; I am showing an internal inconsistency, rather than accepting its truth.

Further, Con fails to defend against the fact that this argument is an argument from ignorance, because we don't know to a scientific degree of certainty what could have caused the universe, only arguing that maaaybe the universe could have been caused by an omnipotent, omniscient entity.

Con does NOT address my point that possibility of creation does not imply possibility of existence. Con is purposefully confusing these two possibilities, when they are very separate. For example, simply because it is POSSIBLE that a car crash could have been caused by unicorns does NOT mean that unicorns exist, because these two possibilities are totally unrelated. Simply because the universe could have been created by an omnipotent, omniscient entity does not mean that it was or that omnipotent, omniscient entities exist.

Con doesn't deem to attack the Zero-Energy Universe theory, which, based off current knowledge, would make a creator unnecessary.

Con states, "Appealing to authority occurs when someone discredits work based on it not coming from an authoritative figure [1]." To quote Con's source, "This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject." Con is appealing to a philosopher to make claims about how the universe could have began to exist, when a philosopher does not have the necessary experience on the subject.

Con doesn't deem to explain what the difference is between personal and impersonal causes (claiming it to be just so clear that it doesn't require explanation, which I have repeatedly requested), and then fallaciously appeals to authority to back it up.

Con states, "Saying that a philosopher cannot make a logical argument is now Ad Hominem [2]." To quote Con's source, "You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument." Pointing out that William Craig is NOT a physicist isn't Ad Hominem; I'm not attacking him personally.

And most importantly, Con has not answered the fact that, even if it is valid, the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't actually prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists. It merely proves that a powerful god exists, not an omnipotent one, and it doesn't prove anything about the intelligence of the creator whatsoever!

Con has not answered my largest objections to this argument and has fallaciously argued for it. This argument has no impact on the debate.

---

Intelligent Design:

As I have pointed out, possibility of an entity causing something is unrelated to the probability of that entity actually causing said event OR the possibility of that entity's existence.

Con and I agree that "it’s possible that the universe was created." Again, this doesn't impact an omnipotent, omniscient god.

Further, Con fails to defend against the fact that this argument is an argument from ignorance, because we don't know to a scientific degree of certainty what could have caused the universe, only arguing that maaaybe the universe could have been caused by an omnipotent, omniscient entity.

Con dropped my point that, using Con's logic, an omnipotent, omniscient god would require a creator. Under Con's logic, all complex entities have a creator, and because an entity intelligent enough to "be able to know what to do", it appears to also require a creator. Similarly, the god's creator would require a creator. And because Con has proven infinite creator chains impossible, this is impossible.

Con has not answered my largest objections to this argument. This argument has no impact on the debate.

---

Final Summary:

I have dropped the Problem of Evil as irrelevant.

I have proven that the Omnipotence Paradox disproves true omnipotence.

I have proven that, if Con has no supporting arguments, we assume through Occam's Razor that an omnipotent, omniscient god does not exist.

I have proven that Con's Limited Knowledge argument doesn't affect my arguments while it does affect Con's.

I have refuted Con's Possible Worlds point, and Con has accepted this.

Con has dropped Con's Modal Ontological Argument point as irrelevant.

I have refuted Con's Kalam Cosmological Argument point, which had many dropped points and two logical fallacies.

I have refuted Con's Intelligent Design point, which had many dropped points.

I have fulfilled my BOP and proven that an omnipotent, omniscient does not exist.

I have refuted or turned ALL of Con's arguments.

Vote Pro.

Zarroette

Con

Thank you, Pro.


The Burden of Proof:

On this point, I agree entirely with Pro’s final round statement.

Pro's Arguments:

There is only one argument that could win Pro the debate. The other argument is an argument in my favour, and should cost Con argument points, as I'll show you.


The Paradox of Omnipotence:

Throughout the debate, my opponent continually conflates the power of omnipotence with an entity being able to suppress itself. This is a nuanced point, in that superficially, it will not convince you. However, with a bit of deep thought, you will see what I am talking about. All the following points were argued throughout the debate.

Given that final round was mostly a reiteration of his points, rather than addressing all of my counter-points to said points (no mention of either of my analogies, and still making the erroneous multiple omnipotent gods argument), this should give you indication of the strength in my opponent’s arguments.

I did not drop Pro’s question of “could an omnipotent entity permanently and retroactively remove its omnipotence”. I said that the question is not accurate, in that an omnipotent god does not remove omnipotence in limiting himself. In other words, this is a loaded question, meaning that it assumes premises that are not true, or at least have not been proven true [1]. Again, the power is still there, it is just being supressed by himself.

My ‘holding a stick’ example, which disappears in Pro’s final round, shows how god could be limited by the stick’s presence, yet retain omnipotence by having the capacity to do away with the stick, if not change the stick’s properties. Again, limited yourself does not take away the capacity to do anything. If I ever have this debate again, I’ll call it the ‘holding a boomerang’ example, because it’ll be coming back.

My Usain Bolt example has not been mentioned, either. My Usain Bolt example shows that people who are capable of performing highly can limit themselves to mediocrity.

The example in which Pro questions how two omnipotent beings would interact, is irrelevant to this debate. I only have to dismantle Pro’s arguments for there to remain the possibility of ONE god, not anything more. It might well be that two omnipotent beings couldn’t exist, but that doesn’t mean one cannot.

The fact is that an omnipotent entity’s power could never be limited, but the entity could be limited itself. Confusion only arises in conflation of these two, which I have demonstrated, via the definition Pro provided. I ask you, as a voter, to take note of how little Pro actually works with the definition provided, whilst I dedicate a whole section to it. I have shown, via Pro’s definition, how omnipotence is possible, thus refuting the only actual argument Pro made, thereby winning me the debate.

Occam's Razor:

My opponent throws the debate with this argument. As I’ve already argued, the underlying presumption in using Occam’s Razor is that: “Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better” [2]. Notice the ‘in the absence of certainty’ part? How about the ‘more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct’? Yet, the resolution pertains to certainty, ‘An Omnipotent, Omniscient being does not exist’.

This is a colossal blunder on my opponent’s part; he has argued for my side.


Con's Arguments:

Before I summarise these arguments, keep in mind that none of these have to convince you, in order for me to win; it is Pro’s job to affirm the resolution. I’ve already debunked the only argument my opponent has made, that could win him the debate. However, if any of these arguments convince you, then I instantly win the debate, too.

Limited Knowledge:

My opponent’s sole counter-point rests solely on the Omnipotence Paradox. However, since if the paradox is debunked, seeing that it is my opponent’s only argument for the resolution, I would not even require this argument, seeing that I would win default.

Possible Worlds:

My point here was very similar to the limited knowledge. In a possible world, beyond perhaps our knowledge, god could exist in our world.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

This argument first shows that there has to be a cause, AND THEN continues to suggest that it could have been god, even to the point where there is strong evidence that it was god. I am not confusing the two, I am arguing for both separately.

As per the BoP, all this argument must do is indicate the slightest hint of uncontested possibility that God exists, and my opponent loses the debate. This argument does not have to prove anything, as my opponent incorrectly implies.

Pro never addressed my personal/impersonal cause argument, so he concedes that the universe had a personal cause. It was made in the second round, and has not been touched since then. Despite what my opponent says, it was legitimate. If you do not believe me, then look for yourself!

Pro fails to understand how requiring a ‘creator for the creator’ is a nonsensical proposition. Again, as explained already, it does not necessarily make sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer?’ Just because you can turn a noun into a verb, it does not mean that you should. Also, it was not specified whether the omnipotent, omniscient god was eternal, and thus I can assume that he is, and I still negate the resolution.

By solely using my Limited Knowledge argument to refute one of my points, Con either concedes the point I made (that the universe required a first cause), or concedes the Limited Knowledge argument (and concedes the debate). This is a critical error on my opponent’s part, because he has essentially boxed himself into conceding the former argument.

The argument from ignorance is argued here, too. I do not have to show absolutes to win this debate, so again this cry is nullified. I am arguing likelihood, when arguments from ignorance only applies to absolutist arguments.

Pro never begins to explain the argument for the Zero-Energy Universe theory, and then expects me to debunk what he said. He merely states what it is. I have no argument to address here, as, for example, having descriptions of dragons does not mean that they exist.

Pro continues to argue that William Lane Craig’s argument CANNOT be true because he is not a physicist. This is so blatant of an Ad Hominem attack, that I am shocked he continues to make it. Just because someone is arguing philosophically, that does not mean all logic suddenly evaporates. Just because I am not a philosopher, does that mean I cannot argue the Kalam Cosmological Argument correctly? Attack the argument, not the man.

The transition from dormancy to activity would take an immense amount of power, which is an argument of mine Pro dropped, and thus it is conceded. This heavily indicates omnipotence, as what more power could someone have? In order to know how to create everything, god would have to know a lot, which indicates omniscience. Again, Pro dropped this argument. Of course, both of these arguments are at the end of Kalam Cosmological Argument, and since the Kalam has survived up until here, then these conceded premises give a super strong argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being.

Intelligent Design:

As my opponent concedes, it’s possible that the world was created. As such, via an inductive argument, perhaps not giving 100% assurance (yet I do not need that, in this debate), I can make a strong argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god. As such, the argument is not one from ignorance, as it only suggests that god could have been the cause, rather than god being the cause. There is a strong correlation that my opponent tries to unsuccessfully waver.

An omnipotent, omniscient god would not necessarily require a creator, because that is an abuse of the English language. I repeat Ad Nauseum: it makes no sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer?’ Just because you can turn a noun into a verb, that does not mean that you should. Similarly, it does not necessarily make any sense to ask ‘who created the creator?’ My opponent’s argument was addressed several times, and he has dismally missed my response each time.

Concluding comments:

The underlying problem with my opponent’s argument is that it is an absolute claim. Even if it is seriously unlikely to argue that an omnipotent, omniscient god does not exist, this is far easier to do than say he cannot exist. It is a huge BoP, in reality, and it should be clear that my opponent’s argument struggled to cope with it. But of course, that is for you to decide.

I wish to thank FuzzyCatPotato for the debate. However, I would like to note that his conduct may have been less than polite. Firstly, the initial attempt at switching the resolution was poor conduct. Secondly, the impromptu, off-site argument was annoying to deal with. Finally, there was absolutely no ‘thank you’ to anyone in the last round – not for me, and not even for anyone reading. Do you think that this kind of overall conduct is acceptable?

Next, I wish to point to the fact that my sources greatly outweighed my opponent’s. I had seventeen sources, all up, to ensure that my work was academically and factually sound. The only two that my opponent provided, were Wikipedia sources. My sourcing has been far superior to my opponents, and I kindly ask you to consider giving me source points.

Finally, thank you very much for reading our debate :)

References:

[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor

Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IwinYoulose333 2 years ago
IwinYoulose333
Read this argument if you want to understand nothing.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (2)
The next argument is that Omnipotence is self-contradictory. While this seems a logical argument it is in fact not so. You see the simply refutation is that these contentions all make use of three things: Time, Space and Number. For me to make a burrito hotter, I would need Time to transgress, and number to measure the hotness. As it has been ascertained both physically, and philosophically that Time, and Number exist not as a physical entity (http://www.debate.org...) it is suffice to say that it cannot be applied to God. The simple refutation would be that one cannot apply human logic to God, so while I cannot prove omnipotence is not self-contradictory, one cannot prove it is self-contradictory. This is the primary answer, unfortunately I did not get such a response from Zarroette (from now on Catherine or Cathy). Once more it seems that FCP is trying to add in as many arguments he can without enunciating fully on even one. What is the old saying? Jack of all traits, master of none.
I do not understand how Burden of Proof is an argument but it is just as flawed. The Latin rule goes: Onus probandi incumbet ei qui deciet, non ei qui negat. As FCP is Proposition and is affirming the resolution the Burden of Proof falls upon him. FCP has to show that atheism is the default position, and also has to show how Occam's Razor applies here (which it does not). In classic philosophy, the simplest position is no position: which would here be agnosticism. When one negates a thesis, such as when one affirms a thesis one falls into complexities, for which one then gives arguments. Here Occam's Razor cannot be applied because the arguments are not purely speculative. Only when hypotheses are purely speculative can one apply Occam's Razor. FCP first has to show that all the arguments for God are speculative, a near impossible task.
Catherine next then.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (1)
I should start by making it clear that this was a horrible debate in my opinion. In any case let us move onto the appraisal of the resolution. The resolution states: 'An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist'. The Spirit of the Motion is then to debate whether such an entity exists which is both omnipotent, and omniscient. While there could be many such entities, human cognition knows of but one: God. This debate then, as was expected, becomes mostly about God. I will disregard any argument which seeks to establish or de-entangle omni-benevolence as that was not part of the original resolution. It is also noteworthy that Pro has taken an immense burden on themselves, one which is close to impossible. Arguing in negation is difficult, arguing in negation of transcendent a priori phenomenon is even harder, particularly as the same laws of Logic do not apply.
Let us then start with FuzzyCatPatato's (from now called FCP) argument. The first argument that FCP brings to the table is the Problem of Evil. While I will not consider this argument in my vote, I feel the need to appraise it all the same. While it is good you write the argument is pseudo-modal logic it is not enough. You have to explain and connect the premise and the conclusion together. You also need to provide an example of evil. While this is semantical, one should not your definition states an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being is incapable of evil, not that they would reduce/finish evil. As you do not specify religion, and do not specify that you are talking about God, your argument can be answered with immense ease. I do not feel that this was the strongest form of this argument. Premise 2 needs to be connected to Premise 1 and they need to be built together. One could argue Evil existing itself by stating that it is a subjective premise. Also one could say what I find Evil, others might not and end with the assertion that no act is intrinsically evil.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Thanks Fuzzy
I realized that now but the debate title threw me completely as Omniscience is only accentuated and pushed in the Judaic (God of Abraham) religions and most commonly Christianity.

So I've adjusted my score accordingly.
Also your argument increased my wrong concept of the Judaic God being referenced.
Thus I misread the entire debate.
Though you do need good and relevant sources as Zaroette destroys you on the source front.
She plays the game like a Pro, instead of a Con, LOL
:-D~
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
The debate wasn't about any given religion.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Oh, I almost forgot, the God of Einstein and other Naturalists, whose God is simply the laws of Nature and The Universe, their God has no Mind, thus no Omniscience.
Their God is omnipotent, because it creates and provides the rules that control universes and life, but there is no Mind, nor any Predetermination as such.
Einstein made this point when people asked him about his religion.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
In Buddhism and Hinduism you plot your own destiny and in Hinduism you will be reincarnated into whatever your path led you into and in Buddhism you simply may not achieve enlightenment and a position in the spiritual world beside Buddha.
Omniscience of their God(s) isn't an issue.
That was my understanding of those religions when I was studying them as a teenager.
So if you left out the Omniscient, I would have not thought of the Bible God.
As all religions that have a God, pose it as Omnipotent.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I may have misread your intention Zarroette.
Though, it is only the Bible that claims Omniscience, or knowledge of every single blink of an eye of any creature in the universe, even if simultaneous. True Omniscience is fallacious.

My reading of Hindu and Buddhist literature only claims knowledge of the minds of humans which is not really omniscience, as the future is not predestined as the Biblical concept of Omniscience is.
Thus those religions have free will and Christianity (Omniscient/predestined future) actually do not really have free will as free will in a predestined future is fallacious.

No other religions make such claims of omniscience, but the Bible definitely does.
Thus my original reading on the debate.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
@Sagey

"since the debate is obviously regarding the Judaic God of Abraham"

This is not true. It was specifically outlined that the debate was not about a benevolent god (as is implied in your RFD). It is specifically about an omnipotent, omniscient god. Please read the resolution.

"the Problem Of Evil is to me a conclusive argument that fulfills Pro's BOP commitment."

Pro even conceded that this argument wasn't relevant to this debate. Your argument is invalid.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
I am following this.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
FuzzyCatPotatoZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro didn't meet BoP
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
FuzzyCatPotatoZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
FuzzyCatPotatoZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I misread the intentions of the title as it had Omniscient, which is only accentuated in Judaic religions or the God of Abraham and the Bible. So I misread the debate entirely, thus I have altered my voting accordingly. Since I haven' the urge to read the entire debate in a different light, Con is still the only one to provide good sources so those points stand.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
FuzzyCatPotatoZarroetteTied
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: The resolution proposed a negative. pro did not meet BOP. Only Con provided sources.