The Instigator
Benshapiro
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
alexmiller887
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

God can't create a rock too big for him to lift and still be omnipotent

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 3 votes the winner is...
Benshapiro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 48996
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Benshapiro

Pro

God can be an omnipotent being but not be able to create a rock too big for him to lift.

Omnipotent means "all-powerful."

God is omnipotent and can never not be omnipotent.

By creating a rock too big for him to lift, this would mean God could do something that limits his power. Since God can never not be omnipotent, then he cannot create a rock too big for him to lift.

Remember, God can't do some things. He can't sin (he can't be imperfect). By doing something that limits his power, he would break his word of being omnipotent and he would sin in the process because it'd be a lie.
alexmiller887

Con

However a common defense is that god can do everything except the logically impossible, for example create a triangle with three sides. I'm not sure I believe this, but it seemed a good enough defense to debate with you!
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ZMowlcher 3 years ago
ZMowlcher
Troll threads need to stop.
Posted by Defender1999 3 years ago
Defender1999
This question would have most Biblical apologists laughing as such. God's one specific attribute can sometimes shared a commonality with another attribute of His. "Omnipotence" would share with "Infinity" of God- without limits. If God is omnipotent and infinite in capability, then why bother saying God can't create and lift a rock too big for Him to lift? The objector commits flaws on the grounds that God cannot be measured objectively like measuring in a ruler since God is above the physical dimension and laws He created. Also, consider on poking the question of "too big" for Him? If God is so infinitely powerful and no limits, why bother with this logically contradicting objection? In fact, this objection is rendered useless because the argument turns on itself than directing against God.

Not to mention also just because God refuse to do something like lie or make a square circle does not render him not omnipotent. The objector has to understand of the Character of God- Goodness always flows from God and what is contrary to God's Nature is evil. It is not because His Nature binds Him but because He is His own nature. Without arbitrariness but always objective at the same time.
Posted by alexmiller887 3 years ago
alexmiller887
Whoop my bad on the triangle thing, it means four sides.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Benshapiroalexmiller887Tied
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: Con was correct when he stated that, being able to do anything doesn't include the logically absurd.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Benshapiroalexmiller887Tied
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: Pro's argument was as standard as it gets, for this kind of debate. Con responded with a slightly unexpected answer, claiming that God can't do logically impossible things, such as create a "three sided triangle". Lol. Even if he said four, this defies Pro's definition of "all-powerful", so the arguments go to Pro.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Benshapiroalexmiller887Tied
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: Pro's argument was convincing.