The Instigator
Esiar
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
XVIII18
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Esiar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 68143
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

Esiar

Pro

What is omnipotence? The ability to do anything.

Does anything mean ANYTHING? Yes.

Are locally impossible things included in ANYTHING? Yes.

Could an omnipotent being do someone locally impossible? Yes, God exist outside of the laws of logic because he created it.
XVIII18

Con

I accept and look forward to this debate.

We must keep your term of omnipotence exactly as you stated: The ability to do anything, this may not change at all as you have it defined. You must also hold true that God can do anything he wants to and has no limits whatsoever as you have defined with no limits.

With these statements clearly defined let me make my first point:

Through your defined terms one can conclude that if God can perform any action (absolutely omnipotent(as defined)) , then he would be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions.

For example:

Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?

If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone.
If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone.
Either way, the allegedly omnipotent being has proven not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers.

One crude example that might help: Can God create a Hotdog so large that he would be unable to consume it? Refer to the above yes and no and you are provided a clear logical contradiction using your laid out terms for the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Pro

What you are saying is exactly my point: It isn't a logical contradiction because omnipotence grants the ability to do logically impossible things (Since God exist outside of logic, he is not bound by it). While we can't conceive how an unliftable rock can be lifted, God can still do it, because he is omnipotent.

Omnipotence is "the ability to do anything", not "the ability to do anything logically possible". I.e., Jesus raised from the dead, which is logically impossible. He is not bound by the laws of logic.
XVIII18

Con

You state:

"God exist outside of the laws of logic because he created it."

but you also do not define whether God must follow rules of logic or not and a God cannot be independent of either.

Essentially, this is an infinite loop of logical contradictions and you cannot defend God is either with what you define. This is because you cannot prove that there are illogical things which create logical things, this does not follow logic.
Debate Round No. 2
Esiar

Pro

"but you also do not define whether God must follow rules of logic or not and a God cannot be independent of either"

I did answer that: I said that God does not have to follow the rules or logic because he exist outside of it.

"Essentially, this is an infinite loop of logical contradictions and you cannot defend God is either with what you define. This is because you cannot prove that there are illogical things which create logical things, this does not follow logic."

I'm basically saying that the cause the rules of logic must exist outside of the rules of logic. For example (Please don't mistake this as a Watch-Maker argument), someone who builds a computer (I.e., the Universe) is not under the rules of the computer (I.e., the Universe). The one who built it can do things that the computer program (I.e., the rules of logic) wouldn't possibly allow.

On thing to note, by the way: I worded "God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction" incorrectly. It causes confusion as to what I was trying to say. It should say, "God Being Omnipotent Is Not Impossible" (I'm only rewording the title, I'm not changing the points I made)
XVIII18

Con

Well, the Pro side has changed his position as from his original title "God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction" to "God Being Omnipotent Is Not Impossible". This is not allowed and is against debate guidelines. This is not the grounds for which I accepted the debate and will therefore continue to argue my position under the original context I accepted, "Not a Logical Contradiction".

With that being said, let me state this in clearer terms. The Pro side is stating that God created a logical universe, but that he is illogical (does not follow the logical world). As anyone can see, this is a logical contradiction as nothing illogical can exist or occur in the universe. If illogical things did exist/occur; physics, mathematics and chemistry which all hold that illogical things cannot exist would crumble absolutely.

The pro side also states an example of someone using logical methods to produce a logical machine which obviously makes sense. If an illogical person tried to produce a computer it would be impossible for it to be logical because the computer would have nothing to base anything on (no facts).

Essentially, if God were to be illogical as pro states (does not have to follow logic) then the modern scientific world would crumble and all scientific laws and constants would mean nothing. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
The last thing I'm leaving here: you stated God lives outside logic so how can you prove he is logical?
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
Not mysticism but not logic, if you were thinking logically you could not apply your statement to your conclusion because nothing can be outside logic. That is just how it is with logic.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
If God is not logical he has to be illogical I am sorry but that is how it is using logic (what we are debating under). What you are using is not logic but mysticism.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
Conclusion thing: My opponent missed my point.

"If an illogical person tried to produce a computer it would be impossible for it to be logical because the computer would have nothing to base anything on (no facts).". This really makes no sense... It's not that God is illogical, but that he exist outside of the Universe, and is thus not bound by the laws of the Universe. It would be illogical for a computer program to have a virtual reality, but that doesn't make our world illogical.

The world God made can be logical, even though God exist outside of logic, because before the Universe was created, there were no laws. I'd be like someone building a computer that can do things that the maker can do, but the computer would also not be able to do things that the maker can do (Since God can do both things we call logical, and things we call illogical, because if he couldn't he wouldn't be omnipotent).
Posted by debater409 2 years ago
debater409
I don't think this debate is getting anywhere.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
he is attempting to prove that an illogical God is logical which is impossible
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
This is a clear win for con, since pro brought up a point which could easily make him lose.

"Since God exist outside of logic, he is not bound by it"

He did not state in the resolution weather god is bond by logic or not. In fact, this entire debate is about logical contradictions.
Posted by XVIII18 2 years ago
XVIII18
I would also accept this debate but the information you are debating is not clear.
Posted by debater409 2 years ago
debater409
dtaylor,

I get that, it's just you need another aspect of God for there to be a contradiction possibility. For example, can God be good and omnipotent at the same time.
Posted by debater409 2 years ago
debater409
To be honest, I think if I get what you mean, this debate is extremely slanted. All you have to do is give a definition of God that states He is all powerful.

If however you mean that His omnipotence does not contradict with what we see today in the world and in history, that would be a much better topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Philocat 2 years ago
Philocat
EsiarXVIII18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty close debate with interesting arguments by Pro, although I believe he should not get points for arguments because he was arguing for a resolution that was not the same as the resolution of the debate. However, pro gets better conduct due to Con asking myself to 'vote con'; it is a debate, not a presidential election.