The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

God Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent

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...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,230 times Debate No: 56563
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (4)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Omnipotence:all powerful, able to do anything
God: the being that grounds our universe
Round one for accepting only. No trolling.
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

* shock ripples through the crowd *
My, it's the mighty CJK!!
Well, time to prove myself a good debater.

1. Paradox number one-- creating a door
We will assume that God can create a door. We then can automatically assume he can open the door, right? Yes. But-- what if God makes it so that no one, including himself, can open the door? If he can make this impossible-to-open door, then he cannot open the door and he is not omnipotent. If he can open the thought-to-be-impossible-to-open door, then he cannot create a door which he cannot open, and this demonstrates the limits of his powers, thus, God cannot do everything.

2. Paradox number two--surpassing himself
We can assume God can travel back in time. We can also assume he can completely unmake an organism so that it never existed in the first place, and its impacts on the universe is gone. But-- what if he goes back in time and unmakes himself?? Then he could never had gone back in time in the first place! If he could completely destroy his past self and make his further actions null, then he could not have possibly existed in this present time in order to travel back in time in the first place!! If there exist no other beings to interfere with God's crazy plans, then God has successfully made himself unable to do anything. If his past self stopped his present self, then his present self's plan has failed, and he is thus shown in this scene to not be all-powerful, or rather, omnipotent.

3. Paradox number three-- word jumble
We can assume that God can make people say things. We can assume he can also force people to say the truth. Now, in this scenario, we will suppose God put an irreversible curse on a person to force him to always speak the truth. But if this curse is truly irreversible, then God cannot reverse it, and thus he is not omniscient. If God can reverse this curse with his mighty powers, then he is shown to be unable to surpass his mighty powers with his supposed "irreversible curse". This is similar to the previous arguments, and prove that either one way or the other, God is not all-powerful, because he is unable to surpass himself either way.

Onto you, con.
CJKAllstar

Con

Heh, I've always wanted to debate this, I just thought if I was to take on philochristos or zmikecuber on this, I would be absolutely demolished, so this could be an interest bit of practice. I have always had a strong opinion about this.

The Problem of the Omnipotence Paradox

The omnipotence paradox is your argument. Fine, I understand your case. But, this issue has an underlying problem, which all arguments do. This is that the paradox comes with a flawed presupposed notion for God.


Let me use the example of your first paradox. The door. So your question was that, "can God make a door which he cannot pass through?" Now, if you accept that he is omnipotent, then he can. But then, if he can't do something, then he is not omnipotent.

But my answer for this is simple. God can create this door, but he is also able to pass through it, and not pass through it. Okay, it isn't simple but think about it. If God is omnipotent, he is able to do everything, including break the idea of logic. God will create this door, but he both can and cannot pass through it. God is able to create this door and pass through it, and not pass through it, at the same time. This means that overall, he can do both create a door he can't pass through it, and pass through it.

The reason at first it doesn't seem to make sense is that logic does not allow this. But accepting the premise of an omnipotent, transcendent God means he is outside of logic, and outside of the universe. The presupposed notions that this paradox comes with is that you can only either create said door which you can't pass through, or be able to pass through the door. God, being omnipotent by definition can do both.

How? Well that cannot be understood by human logic, but by definition, he can. So let me take your other two paradoxes.

God doesn't have "time", per say as he was always "is". But I will re-phrase the argument as, "can God unmake himself". If he can, then he isn't God as he can be in a state of non-existence, and then cannot do anything. But if he can't, he isn't omnipotent. The answer is, he can both make himself not exist, yet exist at the same time, by definition of omnipotence. He can both be a God in the state of non-existence and exist at the same time, so he can still be omnipotent.

With the final paradox, the same applies. I do love this paradox though. Effectively, if God cursed himself, if he can't revert it, he is not all powerful. If he can, then the curse didn't work and he is not all powerful. The answer for this, is the same. He both can create a curse which cannot be reversed, as well as reverse it.

This is confusing, and to any readers, it will not make any sense at first. But you have to think about it carefully. The large issue which is a secondary problem with this argument is that it dictates omnipotence cannot surpass logic. If we take, "omnipotent", then it is all powerful and omnipotence means that God is of infinite power and can do abslutely anything at the same time. Absolutely anything. This includes, breaking the law of logic and not breaking the laws of logic at the same time.

This includes, doing this out of human understanding and not at the same time. By accepting the definition of omnipotence, he can do anything. Even if God contradicts himself, he can both contradict himself yet still be all powerful by the definition of omnipotence. There can still be a contradiction and not a contradiction at the same time. All of this makes no sense, but by the definition of omnipotence, he therefore must be able to do it.

So in short, the problem with this paradox of omnipotence is that it states firstly omnipotence must be within the realms of logic, and that a contradiction means he isn't. Well, by the definition of omnipotence, it does not have to be within logic, and he can do anything, including contradict himself and still be omnipotent.

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

Now, if God was truly omnipotent, we'd expect him to be able to do anything-- under ANY circumstance. If God was omnipotent, surely he could eat green eggs and ham in a box, with a fox, in a house, wearing a blouse, in a train, eating brains, all at the same time! So now-- what if we limited God to the logic of humans and the understanding of humans?? Then, all our arguments go down the toilet. As far as humans know, there is no way to both open and not open a door but the same time, neither is there a way for him to not exist and still have power, and there is definitely no way for God to create a curse that is reversible as well as irreversible at the same exact time.
Here are three more examples in which God cannot possibly do while following the logic and understanding of humans.
1. The iron ball of doom
God creates an immovable, indestructible iron ball of doom which floats in space. He then teleports himself into the iron ball, and then makes the iron ball nullify his powers. All of them. Now, he cannot run to the "end" of the iron ball, because spheres have no end or beginning. [1] Furthermore, he cannot create an end or beginning, since his powers are nullified. Since under limitations, he cannot run to the end of an iron ball he is within, he is shown to have limited powers and is not omnipotent. In addition, he cannot get out of the iron ball. That just shows one more thing he cannot do.

2. Infinity
God cannot count to infinity under human logic limitations, if he goes up one by one, counting: 1,2,3,4,5,6..... Etc, etc. God will never ever reach infinity by definition of infinity. [2] Therefore God's powers are limited and he is not omnipotent.

3. The trick question test
God takes a test. The test requires him to answer a single question correctly in order to get full score. However, the question states that no matter what God puts as his answer, he will get the question wrong. In this case, there is no loophole or anything around the question. God puts nothing, gets it wrong. God puts everything, gets the question wrong. God copies the question, gets it wrong. God creates an answer, states it is the correct answer, but gets the question wrong. This unfair test gives no chance for anyone, including God, to get a full score, as long as he follows human logic and understanding.
The argument if upheld.

Your turn, con.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

As far as humans know, there is no way to both open and not open a door but the same time, neither is there a way for him to not exist and still have power, and there is definitely no way for God to create a curse that is reversible as well as irreversible at the same exact time.

This is the fatal flaw with your argument. Your argument is based upon the premise of human understanding, but the idea of omnipotence in itself surpasses that. Let me put it this way.

P1: An omnipotent god can do anything.
P2: Breaking the laws of logic is a 'thing'.
C1: Therefore an omnipotent god can break the laws of logic.

Or,

P1: An omnipotent god can do anything.
P2: Contradicting yourself whilst not contradicting yourself, is a "thing".
C1: Therefore an omnipotent god can contradict itself whilst not doing anything.

The fact is, the definition you have posed of omnipotence means whether we understand it or not, he can do everything. Human understanding says we cannot both be and not be, or curse and nor curse, but at one point, human understanding said the sun could not be the centre of the solar system, or gravity could not be a thing. Human understanding is finite with infinite potential, but omnipotence is infinite throughout, and to say that human understanding overpowers infinite power, to even break the laws of logic, places a very large BOP on you, to prove why omnipotence must be within human logic. Because, by its definition it doesn't have to.

It is a fallacy of the argument from ignorance to state that because human understanding doesn't know about being able to do such a thing, it therefore cannot be done. Human understanding as of this point does not know everything, and can only make claims based upon what it does know. It can only assert using information it has. So you cannot make the claim you did above when we don't know if you can both open and not open a door. There simply isn't evidence against or for, so to say that because there is an absence, it means we cannot has no hold in debate.

The information we do know, and have accepted is that the definition of omnipotent is able to do everything. With that definition, God is fully well and able to open and close a door at the same time, fully capable of doing things outside any mortal paradigms, fully capable of out-doing human logic and syllogistically, he can be and not be at the same time. Whether we understand it or not, it does not matter, because by the definiton of omnipotence he can outdo human understanding. For you to nullify this point, you have to prove that:

I) Omnipotence must be within human logic.
II) It is impossible to both do and not do something, completely objectively no matter what, even if you are a deityn (with evidence).
III) Omnipotence doesn't mean you can do anything.

Unless you can prove all of these, then any point you make, which is just a re-iteration of your first point, is null. In short, the definition of omnipotence means that whether it is possible or not, God can do it. Being omnipotent, by definiton, God can break human logic which allows that t happen. So God can be omnipotent.

I urge the floor to side with the side, who is arguing based upon 9spaceking's definition, and solely that.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

Your argument bases strongly on God's ability to break human logic. As I have already stated, if we truly expect God to be omnipotent, then he should be able to do everything we mentioned above with limitations restricted upon him, as I pointed out in my green eggs and ham example. Based on the definition of omniscience, if God cannot possibly do everything I already stated while following human logic and understanding, then he is not omniscient. In simpler words, if God cannot eat "green eggs and ham" while in a "box", then he isn't omniscient. If God was truly omniscient, he'd take on the challenge of opening and closing of a door at the same exact time, as we think of "opening" and "closing" of the door. In conclusion as long as I can prove God unable to do a certain thing under a certain circumstance, he is not omniscient. If we get rid of his advantage in con's arguments-- his ability to go past human logic and understanding-- there is no way for God to be able to do any of these things, under any circumstance, because in paradoxes, things contrast each other and in human logic, there is no way out of these crazy, unfair situations. Because of the definition of omniscience, God must be able to break these paradoxes and follow human logic at the same time, otherwise I have succeeded in showing that God cannot do something, not fitting the definition of omniscience.
I thank con for this debate and urge everyone to vote pro.
CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

Your argument bases strongly on God's ability to break human logic. As I have already stated, if we truly expect God to be omnipotent, then he should be able to do everything we mentioned above with limitations restricted upon him, as I pointed out in my green eggs and ham example. Based on the definition of omniscience, if God cannot possibly do everything I already stated while following human logic and understanding, then he is not omniscient. In simpler words, if God cannot eat "green eggs and ham" while in a "box", then he isn't omniscient. If God was truly omniscient, he'd take on the challenge of opening and closing of a door at the same exact time, as we think of "opening" and "closing" of the door. In conclusion as long as I can prove God unable to do a certain thing under a certain circumstance, he is not omniscient. If we get rid of his advantage in con's arguments-- his ability to go past human logic and understanding-- there is no way for God to be able to do any of these things, under any circumstance, because in paradoxes, things contrast each other and in human logic, there is no way out of these crazy, unfair situations. Because of the definition of omniscience, God must be able to break these paradoxes and follow human logic at the same time, otherwise I have succeeded in showing that God cannot do something, not fitting the definition of omniscience.

I thank con for this debate and urge everyone to vote pro.

This is a really interesting point, and a viable argument. In short, Pro's argument is that if God is truly omnipotent, he should be able to, within the realm of human logic, still successfully fulfill the above arguments. But within the realm of human logic, it is impossible to do that. This argument a good argument, but there is a flaw, which is underlined by this statement.


" as we think of "opening" and "closing" of the door"

This is the problem with your argument. We don't think of both opening and closing the door, because from a human perspective, it isn't possible. Your whole argument for God's lack of omnipotence is based around the idea that it is impossible to both open and close a door, impossible to both do and not do something. Human logic is flawed in that what it cannot comprehend it states as false. Because we don't understand something, we say it is false.


In this, to say that God is not omnipotent because if you put him in human logic he fails, it is shifting the goalposts. It is tantmount to me saying that if you take a paradigm which states that "it is not possible for God to exist", then God, from the perspective of that paradigm cannot even exist, so I can use that to argue for God's non-existence.

It is the same as me using a paradigm which states, "It is possible for God to do anything", to prove his omnipotence. Or using a paradigm which states, "God must exist" to prove God's existence. Or using a paradigm which states that "if God exists, he is not omnipotent", to argue your case. There are infinite paradigms, and ways of logic which you could just as well use. The only reason you use consensus human logic is because it is the most commonly accepted.

It doesn't mean it holds any ground however. This, being the last round means you have failed your BOP to prove why human logic should matter or be used, and why it holds any position over other paradigms. Seeing as you have not proved why human logic should be the paradigm taken into account, and why God should be put into it, I could just as well counter argue with one of the above methods of thought which help my case.

What this means is that your premise is based upon an assertion, and cannot be taken into account. Unless you proved why human logic should be used, it is just another paradigm that can be used to prove/disprove God's omnipotence. I could be using a paradigm which states that if God is real, he is a lobster, to prove that point. Unless you proved that human logic has any dominion, it serves no place here above all others.

Meaning the only thing we can debate on, is the idea of omnipotence. As you have no arguments standing, and as the definition is the only thing on the table, I urge the floor to vote for Con. Because syllogistically, as I said above; if God can do anything, he can do anything. It is within the definition of omnipotence that God can be omnipotent, and that the only way to disprove is to prove the three statements in my last round, which Pro in all cases has not done.

So I urge the floor to read carefully, and see that he has not met his vital BOP and has no points standing, as all of his points relied on a BOP he failed to met. I have refuted this, and proved that with the definition, God can be omnipotent, no matter the situation, and that is obvious. I once again, for a final time, urge the floor to side with Con. But this has been a pleasant, difficult, intruiging and most of all fun debate.

Thanks to 9spaceking.
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dangit, I really should have been more clear and stated that the human logic was a burden God has to follow. :/
oh well
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
I looked at the Wikipedia article "Troll (internet)," and how it defines "troll" fits just about perfectly into your "green eggs and ham " argument.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
read this: http://www.ddofans.org...
Ima says "Trolling, as I see it, is the artful and occasionally sophisticated act of beating/out-arguing an opponent through 1) Unnecessarily confusing but entertaining arguments and lines of reasoning, 2) Hilarious exploitation of mistakes/wordplay the opponent makes/uses, and 3) De-railment of the original conversation by bringing up something completely unrelated that is so random and stupid that your opponent cannot resist talking about that instead of what he originally wanted to talk about."
It's not confusing, it's supposed to make it easier for the audience to understand, since yours truly was confused about my own argument, and I didn't exploit any wordplay, and neither did I de-rail the original conversation, since it is only an example contributing to my argument. -.-
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@9spaceking the "green eggs and ham" argument was completely off-topic and clearly meant to offend people of Abrahamic faith so they'd be like "9spaceking, I'm a Christian/Muslim/Jew and that 'green eggs and ham' thing is rude. You're apparently joking about God's omnipotence." That's trolling. It would make sense for you to troll in a debate where you asked for no trolling because you sir a troll.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
@ lovehismom, why would i troll in a debate I asked for no trolling?? That would make no sense whatsoever.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
now ive no idea wat u guys r talkin bout
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
Ajab, could you explain how a synthetic a priori can exist? Surely that is a contradiction?
And also surely knowledge of God, would be a posteriori. After all, it is by experience that people believed originally in God, and many do today.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (2)
The second paradox bases itself absolutely on Time and causality. If the philosphical proofs do not work, which may be read here http://www.debate.org...
then there is the proof of quantum mechanics where basically causality becomes very weak in certain areas. God is a certain area, since God is transcendent of Time then causality in essence exists in some other form for God, Time does not exist. For if Time existed then God would be mortal to be everlasting God must transcend time. This makes this argument moot since a transcendent argument would simply answer that since time is cyclic (see Brief History of Time by hawkings) if God would do such a thing then human logic which is extremely linked to causality would not be efficient. Therefore the second premise is also incorrect.

The third argument is again based heavily on time and when one takes that out of the equation then none of Pro's arguments seem to work. Also I should clarify that Pro did not lay out a proper argument, while this should have been his basic idea it would have been way better if he had enunciated more and stated in a systematic way what his argument was. His argument is not on these examples his argument is that since the idea of God's omnipotence goes against human logic therefore omnipotence is an inherently flawed concept. This should have enunciated seperately and then should have been supported with the examples given. I am actually quite sad that this did not happen. It could have been easy for Con to simply say that you have not provided an actual argument.

I shall write the rest in a while.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
RFD (1)
This debate is regarding omnipotence in special regards to God's omnipotence where the Proposition makes a claim that God's omnipotence is impossible. This taking up the Latin rule: "Onus probandi incumbet ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" means that the onus rests upon the Proposition. The Spirit of this debate is something more than God it is to debate whether absolute phenomenon can exist as a whole especially since they contradict our synthetic sense. This comes down to the debate of whether, in essence, a priori phenomenon may exist. One excellent part of this is logic, especially Kripkean semantics where it may apply perfectly to a posteriori phenomenon but both Mathematics and Classic Logic fail when God comes into the equation, or more so infinity. Infinity is a confusing topic. Infinity minus infinity is still infinity. Bringing all this together this debate begins.

Let us start with 9's arguments. In the first round he posts the first paradox he has come up with, that of a door which is infinitely heavy, can God open it? This uses three basic assumptions, and this is common to all three paradoxes. These are Time, Space and Number. If Time is not assumed then causality cannot occur and inherently there will be no opening of the door, for to open or close something you need time to transpire and time is a posteriori. Then Space-Number where qualification is considered, this is important because without it a door cannot be judged to be heavy or light. So what does happen? The answer is we don't know, because we need a priori to understand this situation, its like me theorizing about dark matter, since I cannot detect it everything is speculative. However I cannot apply the logic of MACHO's and planets to these WIMP's. So this argument is in fact contradictory to itself.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
@ Ajab no thanks.
With omnipotence God can easily leap over all my arguments, making them null, as CJK has shown. I'm not doing this debate again.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
9spacekingCJKAllstarTied
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 Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
9spacekingCJKAllstarTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets a seven-point forfeit for trolling in round three, even ough he said not to troll. "If God were truly omnipotent, he would be able to eat green eggs and ham, with a fox, in a box, in house, wearing a blouse, in a train, with a brain, all at the same time! Con also pretty munched debunked the omnipotence paradox.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
9spacekingCJKAllstarTied
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: Note the resolution: "God Cannot Possibly be Omnipotent." Even if I completely agreed with Pro's responses to Con's scenario that God can disregard logic and therefore perform to acts at once, these simply address the probability of that deity being omnipotent, not its possibility. It is possible that logic is completely disregarded by said deity, even if it's extremely unlikely. That's sufficient reason for me to vote Con.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
9spacekingCJKAllstarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: con done broke logic, and fulfilled BOP