The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God Is 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...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 43725
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

My position is the following:

God is omnipotent (can do anything) regardless of whether the following question is true:

"Can God create a rock so heavy that he can't even lift it?"

Good luck to my opponent.
DudeStop

Con

THANK YOU PRO.

1. Provide a definition of the god for which you are arguing. (Or just list traits: Loving, sentient, pure, omniscient, omnipresent, all powerful...etc)

2. I will argue that there is no god to begin with. Pro has the burden of proof for his statement

3. Good luck Pro!!!

I await your response.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I don't have to prove God exists.

This debate focuses on the Stone Paradox:

"Can God create a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it?"

This question is often posed to try to show that the concept of an omnipotent God is illogical.

1. Can't defy logic

Let's assume that God posseses omnipotence where he can do anything that doesn't defy logic.

The answer is “no,” because creating a stone so heavy that an all-powerful being cannot lift is a logical absurdity. This doesn't concede that God isn't omnipotent, as the defintion of omnipotence excludes the ability to defy logic.

2. Can defy logic

God can do anything, even defy logic.

Making a rock so heavy he can't lift it is a logical absurdity... but God can defy logic! God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, yet remain omnipotent because he can defy logic!

Even under this definition, the Paradox of the Stone fails to prove that omnipotence is illogical.

Remember, because God can defy logic doesn't mean that his ability itself is illogical.

DudeStop

Con

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
What do you mean?
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
Please, could this debate not turn out to be something precariously close to sacrilege? That would be great.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
STALIN
GarretKadeDupreDudeStopTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Matt_L 2 years ago
Matt_L
GarretKadeDupreDudeStopTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point goes to Pro because of Con's forfeit. Convincing Argument points go to Pro because Con never offered an argument.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
GarretKadeDupreDudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost conduct by forfeiting. Also, he provided no arguments/rebuttals. Not much to say, really.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
GarretKadeDupreDudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Well...CON never made an argument due to forfeiting. That also gives PRO conduct. Neither side used sources (a picture does not qualify in this case). S&G were even.