God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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)
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.