God's existence is intrinsically impossible
Debate Rounds (3)
Contention One: Cause
The laws of conservation of matter and energy clearly state that is impossible for matter and energy to be created from nothing or destroyed into nothing.  This of course means that anything currently existing within space-time must be composed of matter from something else, or converted from other energy. Now, since my definition of God has not been contested, we will be using it, including the part where we define God as having created the universe. The big bang, or any sort of beginning phenomena you care to imagine, would obviously require some type of energy. So God is a being that uses some kind of energy. Again, as we already know, energy does not come from nowhere. Obviously, since the only thing that could have come from nothing is nothing itself, we know that God is synonymous with nothing, or nonexistence. So God is intrinsically impossible.
Contention Two: Omnipotence
Omnipotence has been defined as the ability to do literally everything, as this is even borne out by its roots, omni (all) potence (capability).  So we know that under the currently used and currently uncontested definition of God, God has teh ability to do anything. What this entails is a long string of paradoxes. For example, if God can do anything, then God must be able to think of something that He can't do. In which case, He wouldn't be able to do it, and wouldn't be omnipotent. God would have to be able to create a rock that weighed so much that he couldn't move it. If he can't create the rock, He isn't omnipotent. If he can create the rock, then He can't move it and isn't omnipotent. God would have to be able to create another omnipotent God that could beat Him in an armwrestle. Which would mean that since one of the two Gods couldn't beat the other in an armwrestle, one of them wouldn't be omnipotent. So omnipotence itself is intrinsically impossible, and so under our current and uncontested definition, God is intrinsically impossible.
Contention Three: Omniscience
Omniscience is defined as knowing everything that can be known or having infinite knowledge. But knowing everything isn't really as testable as is needed. Firstly, how would a being know that they are omniscient? Well of course they know, after all, they know everything, including their own omniscience. Right? No, that's circular reasoning. Additionally, the being might think they know everything, and could be wrong. For example, if a God knew infinitely many things except one, say that there are aliens in Andromeda, then they wouldn't know that they didn't know there were aliens in Andromeda. And so they would go along thinking they knew everything and in reality not. In fact, the God would have an infinite number of things they didn't know, because they wouldn't know about the aliens, wouldn't know that they didn't know about the aliens, wouldn't know that they didn't know that they didn't know baout the aliens, etc. Which brings me to another point. What is knowledge? Is it a simple fact? If so, then even if you list off everything that God knows in an infinitely long list, you could still create a second list which just adds "God knows this:" in front of everything on the first list, creating a new list of things God doesn't know just as long as the first.
Contention Four: Omniscience/Omnipotence
So assume the following scenario. Some engineers get together and start designing a skyscraper. So God sees this (because he is omnipresent) and says to himself "I know that when the skyscraper is finished, I will have to chop it in half with a meteor." So ten years later the skyscraper is done. So God says to himself "Time to destroy it with meteors." Now God can do one of two things: destroy it with meteors, or not destroy it with meteors. If he decides that he will destroy it, then he was right when he said he knew what he was going to do. However, this means that God cannot not destroy the skyscraper. This refutes the fact of his own omnipotence. And after He destroys the skyscraper, he can't change his mind and undo it, because then he would be wrong when He said he knew he would destroy it. So what if He doesn't destroy it? Then this means that when He said that he knew He was going to destroy it that He was wrong, meaning that God isn't omniscient. So it is intrinsically impossible to be omnipotent and omniscient, meaning it is intrinsically impossible for a God to exist.
These are my four main reasons why I believe that it is intrinsically impossible for a God as we have defined to exist.
Contention One: Cause
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change"it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. The law of conservation of mass, or principle of mass conservation, states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy (both of which have mass), the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. The law implies (requires) that during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products. You argue that everything has to have a cause. Otherwise, its existence is intrinsically and scientifically impossible. However, energy (The strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity) and matter (Physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy) (According to its laws of conservation) neither came from something, nor can be destroyed into nothing.
So therefore, this would be self-contradictory.
Contention 2: Omnipotence
"God cannot do something that is a violation of his own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can't pick it up, or make something bigger than himself." - Matt Slick 
So, until done, it would not be contradictory to the claim that God has virtually unlimited authority or influence.
Contention 3: Omniscience
We define omniscience as the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge. So therefore, there is absolutely nothing he does not know.
Contention 4: Omniscience/Omnipotence
God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. In theism, God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. In deism, God is the creator (but not the sustainer) of the universe. In pantheism, God is the universe itself. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. Monotheism is the belief in the existence of one God or in the oneness of God. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal (immaterial), a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent". Many notable medieval philosophers and modern philosophers have developed arguments for and against the existence of God. So therefore, that wouldn't be possible.
My opponent presented four contentions in an attempt to show that God is impossible; all four are fatally flawed. I am an Atheist as well as my opponent, but these arguments are outdated and no good.
The resolution has not been established.
We're is a contraction of we are. Were is second person singular past, plural past, and past subjunctive of be. So therefore, judging from your sentence, we're is more appropriate for use.
Also, you clearly made no attempt to refute my arguments. So therefore, victory is close at hand.
You still haven't proved that God's existence is not intrinsically impossible.
"you clearly made no attempt to refute my arguments"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
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.