The Instigator
toolpot462
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
Luggs
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

I am God.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Luggs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,782 times Debate No: 27642
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

toolpot462

Pro

Let us define God as omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. Rather than the first round being acceptance, I'd prefer my opponent to begin his/her argument against the fact that I'm God as defined. I can then respond accordingly and provide whatever evidence is needed. The purpose of this is to iron out any confusions in the fabric of correspondence between us.

Yes, I am sincere.
Luggs

Con

First, let me begin with the fact that I am surprised that this isn't a joke debate, but I will debate you anyways. I would also like to thank Pro for instigating the debate.

Before we do this, shouldn't the BoP be on you?

Anyways, I will, in any case, present an argument that renders you incapable of qualifying for the definition you have given, and that is: can you create a rock, that at no point in your existence, will be able to lift?

If your answer to that question is "yes", then you are not omnipotent, therefore you are not a god, as you can not lift that rock. If you answer "no", then you are also not omnipotent, as you can not create that rock.

As for omniscience, I'm guessing that you didn't know that that paradox existed, because if you did, you probably would not have created this debate. Therefore you are not omniscient.

And finally, for omnipresence, in order to use a computer, you must have a physical form, so that you may use the keyboard. If you have a physical form and are omnipresent, then there would be no room for anything in existence to move while you are in that physical form. Also, that has never happened, because that would have been documented by the news, which has never happened.

Each of these arguments refute the possibility of Pro being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, thus refuting the possibility of Pro being a god (at least, by your definition).
Debate Round No. 1
toolpot462

Pro

All excellent arguments.

First, let's examine things. A thing is typically a collection of matter that is distinct from what it is not. I'm sure we all know, a keyboard is a thing. It has a specific pattern we can discern from other patterns. Things get complicated when one attempts to find their borders, however. The borders of a keyboard's existence seem simple in our experience, but they are nothing but arbitrary labels. In reality, nothing separates you from your keyboard. The keyboard is to the universe as a wave is to the ocean; so it is with all things. In reality there are no separate objects. In reality there are no separate events. These are all myths, or images with which we interpret the world. In reality, there is only a single and complete function of what we, under our roles in the universe, may call inter-dependent systems.

You cannot describe a thing without implying it's environment, and not just it's immediate environment, as such a term is arbitrary - it's whole environment - the universe: all things. In reality, this role is an expression of the universe in the same way that a whirl pool is an expression of a body of water. When I think, I take it for granted as something that I do. The inner and unconscious workings of my mind, however, are easily regarded as that which happens to me. I, in this sense, am a conscious mind. But this is an illusion. My unconscious mind is just as much a part of me as my conscious mind. I beat my own heart just as I breath. And this is taking arbitrary borders that separate myself from the envoronment into account. In reality, I wave the ocean and shine the sun just as I beat my heart. If you ask how I grow the flowers, however, even the Goddess of spring doesn't know.

In effect, I do all things. I encompass all areas of the universe. I even exist and yet don't at the same time. Condradictions are beyond me, you see; as I am all, that which exists implies that which doesn't. Why would one leave such things out of the equation?

I have created such rocks as you described over and again, more times than this role would care to count.

So have you, my friend, as you are merely a similar expression of the true self. Nothing in reality separates me from you. We are not omnipotent, or any of these things, however, under such roles as Josh and whatever you call yourself. There are many rocks we can't lift, and yet we are more than roles being played. This is how we create rocks we can't lift, and yet the true self is very capable of lifting such rocks. And at the same time, we are the true self, who cannot lift such rocks. As I said, contradictions are not beyond me, they are beyond human experience.
Luggs

Con

In would like to thank Pro for continuing the debate with me.

You see, Pro has just contradicted himself, and at the same time, proven his own definition of god wrong.

Pro says: A thing is typically a collection of matter that is distinct from what it is not. I'm sure we all know, a keyboard is a thing. It has a specific pattern we can discern from other patterns. Things get complicated when one attempts to find their borders, however. The borders of a keyboard's existence seem simple in our experience, but they are nothing but arbitrary labels. In reality, nothing separates you from your keyboard. The keyboard is to the universe as a wave is to the ocean; so it is with all things. In reality there are no separate objects. In reality there are no separate events. These are all myths, or images with which we interpret the world. In reality, there is only a single and complete function of what we, under our roles in the universe, may call inter-dependent systems.

When Pro speaks of the keyboard as an arbitrary label is irrelevant. On a molecular level, however, there are indeed separations between the keyboard and, for example, the air particles surrounding it. While these separations are not distinct, these separations are determined by the distance between the particles, as well as the different kind of particles. In any case, Pro avoids answering the question of omnipresence in this paragraph. I will restate my case here. If he was omnipresent and needed to use a physical form to use the keyboard, he would end up taking up all space in the known and unknown universe in doing so.

Pro said: I encompass all areas of the universe. I even exist and yet don't at the same time. Condradictions are beyond me, you see; as I am all, that which exists implies that which doesn't. Why would one leave such things out of the equation?

In saying the latter, Pro claims, in a sense, that he defies logic, which is not possible. He claims that, pardon me if I interpret this wrong, contradictions are irrelevant to him, but that is impossible in every sense. Even a god can not exist and not exist at the same time, for that defies logic, and logic is the basis for facts. As well, he says that he is all, and that he both exists and doesn't at once, so therefore, I am a god, existent and non-existent? Every argument presented in that paragraph is contradictory, and therefore, refutes itself.

Pro said: I have created such rocks as you described over and again, more times than this role would care to count.

As I mentioned in Round 1, this refutes the possibility of omnipotence, as he is incapable of lifting the rocks.

Pro said: So have you, my friend, as you are merely a similar expression of the true self. Nothing in reality separates me from you. We are not omnipotent, or any of these things, however, under such roles as Josh and whatever you call yourself. There are many rocks we can't lift, and yet we are more than roles being played. This is how we create rocks we can't lift, and yet the true self is very capable of lifting such rocks. And at the same time, we are the true self, who cannot lift such rocks. As I said, contradictions are not beyond me, they are beyond human experience.

As I mentioned earlier, there are separations on molecular levels. When he says we are not omnipotent, he contradicts his own definition of god, and therefore, isn't god. Next, my name is not Josh, and please address me in this debate as Con. I spoke earlier about the rock part, and what you say in this paragraph does not refute that. I said that you can not lift it at any point in your existence, which implies both the "true" self, and the "false" self. If you are able to lift the rock as another self, then you can still lift it, and you are still incapable of making a rock that you will never be able to lift.

Back to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
toolpot462

Pro

Yes, my name is Josh. I was referring to myself.

"On a molecular level, however, there are indeed separations between the keyboard and, for example, the air particles surrounding it. While these separations are not distinct, these separations are determined by the distance between the particles, as well as the different kind of particles."

"In any case, Pro avoids answering the question of omnipresence in this paragraph."

This is a way of examining the world by observing patterns. We can distinguish between objects only by observing such patterns; though, even when one examines differences in particles, one can presumably go even deeper, and examine what these particles are made of, and so on, either never finding the primordial "stuff" which we are made of, or doing so. Either way, what "I" am is an arbitrary label that has almost nothing to do with such patterns. I can reasonably be considered to be my mind, my body - excluding perhaps the air in my lungs, until it is absorbed, and maybe bacteria in my digestive system and even on my skin - or the whole of all of these things. See, without my heart, I cannot exist, so it is a part of me. Without the bacteria in my digestive system, I cannot exist, so it is a part of me. Without the sun, I cannot exist. One would argue that it isn't a part of me because I am physically separate from it. This is so clearly an arbitrary label, however, as I am just as physically separate from my heart as I am the rest of the world. Furthermore, where do the borders of the sun lay? In where we visibly see them? What if we looked at it through infrared vision? What if we just go by where we can feel it? One doesn't have to examine deeper the labels of physical borders to see that they are arbitrary.

And this means I am omnipresent. My body implies the whole of my environment. I cannot exist without the air, and the air cannot exist in the way it does without the earth, and this cannot be without the sun, the sun without the space around it, etc. etc. On top of this, everything cannot exist without it's opposite, nothing.

"If he was omnipresent and needed to use a physical form to use the keyboard, he would end up taking up all space in the known and unknown universe in doing so."

Yes, that's what I'm doing. This body doesn't take up the space; rather, "I" do.

As for omniscience, you could say I know so much that I know what it's like to know very little. That's what I'm doing right now. I actually know everything there is to be known, as what I am is inseparable from what the universe is; I know the whole of the sun because I AM the whole of the sun - and there is no better knowing than being. And you cannot say that the universe isn't self-aware. I cannot say that it is self-aware with any real conviction, but I could reason that just as my body, a collection of cells which, surely, by your logic, are physically separate, are self-aware, so may be the entirety of the Earth, or the galaxy, and so on. After all, the distances between stars and different sub-atomic particles, as far as we know, look very similar scale-wise.

When it comes to omnipotence, your argument is very effective at dispelling any such thing in human terms. See, what I am is ultimately the whole, everything that is and isn't. This doesn't mean there is nothing within the universe that calls itself self. We are such things. But we must be a self to call ourselves self, and at the same time must call ourselves self in order to be a self. This seems like a paradox, but there is no such thing in reality. Both things arise at the same time, and just as naturally as you beat your heart, and as flowers grow. I am DOING me, and cannot lift a large boulder. At the same time, I am DOING the universe, and have created such a boulder. I am both things. You think this is impossible because you are so set in what you call yourself. You are a wave in the ocean that believes itself separate. You think that I cannot be and not be at the same time. But I am everything, including superman, which exists only in our minds. I am also that which was never conceived. I am absolutely nothing, because I am all "things" including nothing. And as I am doing myself in every conceivable way, I am doing absolutely everything and nothing, and thus am omnipotent.

Do you consider your conscious and unconscious as parts of you? If so, why do you only know one of these? Why not the other, the one you call unconscious? Children often ask similar questions regarding who they are. Why am I not you? Under what stroke of chance did I become me and not you? Clearly we are separate, because that's how we feel.

Clearly I'm God, because that's how I feel. :P

See, there cannot be a me without a you. As the universe, if I want to do self, I have to do "other" in order to know what self is. It is impossible for the universe as a whole to know other, other than by doing "me." So, in a way, the universe isn't capable of all things - it isn't capable of manifesting without comparisons, and therefore by defenition isn't omnipotent. So, yes, there is a little hiccup in my definition of God. I hope you agree this doesn't diminish the awesomeness of the universe's possibilities.
Luggs

Con

You know what? Just 'cause I feel like it, and I have very little time, I'll only refute a few of Pro's arguments:

Omnipotence: You are incapable of destroying or creating energy. All current scientific knowledge says that it is not possible for energy to be created or destroyed. But, I have a challenge for you. In order to prove your omnipotence, I would like Pro to exceed the 8,000 character limit on this debate. Unless Pro can accomplish that, there is no case supporting that he himself is capable of doing anything. As well, I will offer another argument: You are incapable of creating matter and destroying the same at the exact same time (by exact, i literally mean exact) you are creating it. Let me elaborate: in order to destroy matter, the matter must already exist before it can be destroyed, therefore matter that is being created can not be destroyed at that moment. But, I can also go even further. You cannot destroy matter before it is created. I think the latter is self-explanatory.

Omniscience: There is a difference between knowing what its like to be able to do very little, and actually being able to do very little. This does not support any of your previous arguments.

Omnipresence: I have a technicality here: you say that you have a mind, a body, et cetera. That is not possible, as you are omnipresent, correct? If that is the case, then you would have several bodies as you are everywhere at once.

Pro said: Clearly I'm God, because that's how I feel. :P

That is not how things work. I could easily claim the same, but that won't make it so.

Before I finish, may I suggest leaving Round 5 for closing?

I would like to thank Pro for continuing the debate with me. Now, back to him.
Debate Round No. 3
toolpot462

Pro

I think you don't feel like there is any dispute as to what "I" am. You still think I am this body.

1. There are no separate "things" in reality (only in subjective experience).

The boundaries between objects are not self-evident. Separate "objects" are much like the square in this picture: [IMG]http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp...[/IMG] Even if the particles seem to distiguish between objects, in reality they are a consistency. You can draw a circle around a "thing," but that circle doesn't exist.

2. This body, what you consider to be me, is a "thing."

C. What "I" am is not separate from what the universe is. Ergo, I am the universe, and ominpresent.

"There is a difference between knowing what its like to be able to do very little, and actually being able to do very little. This does not support any of your previous arguments."

True. This doesn't support your claim that I am the latter, though.

1. Being is the truest sense of knowing.

You probably assume that in order to know something, it has to be stored in your memory and available for conscious recollection by this body, and has to be capable of being translated into words. This is a human description of what knowing is.

However, you know what it is to see, but you cannot describe it sufficiently with words. What you'll do is describe the process using arbitrary labels, such as "light," "eye," "brain" and "process." Then you would have to describe what these things are using other words, and it wouldn't end until you came down to such plainly arbitrary labels as "thing."

The reason this is the working human definition is that in order to express what you know, even to yourself, you need to use absract labels.

However, since "I" is not separate from "you," in reality, it is arguable that I know all there is to be known in this sense of the word.

2. I am the universe, in which there is nothing not included.

C. I know everything in the truest sense of the word.

"You are incapable of destroying or creating energy. All current scientific knowledge says that it is not possible for energy to be created or destroyed."

So I'm incapable of doing the impossible, therefore not omnipotent? This is a technicality, and a weak definition of omnipotence, a thing which by this definition is intrinsically non-existent.

If you think you deserve to win this debate under such a technicality (I claimed to be omnipotent, and your argument against this is stating that omnipotence is intrinsically non-existent), you are mistaken.

I suppose I shouldn't have encouraged this argument from the beginning, and plainly stated what I meant by omnipotence. See, if God is capable of all things, then nothing can be impossible. But we know that things are indeed impossible. So capability of all things, including the impossible, cannot be a characteristic of God!

Omnipotence seems to me to imply that something is capable of all things 'except' the impossible. This is a purely practical definiton of omnipotence for the fact that it isn't self-refuting, and therefore a completely useless word.

1. "Being" is a verb that implies the "doing" of self, completely and utterly.

2. I am the universe, and therefore "doing" all within it.

C. I am capable of all things possible, and therefore omnipotent by the intended definition of the word.

Believe me, I know this seems unfair, but this entire debate depends on a working definiton of God, which cannot include a self-refuting condition. Obviously since my resolution was that I am God, I intended God to be a condition that isn't self-refuting.

Think of it this way: if God exists, he can only be doing what is possible. I am doing everything that is being done, and therefore am capable of the same things that God would be capable of.

In a way, I am conceding, because you could argue that, depending on the definition of omnipotence (which is hardly disputable), I am admitting to not be God as defined. I move that this is a very weak case against me, however, as I intended omnipotence to not be self-refuting. In this sense you might consider yourself the victor on a technicality. In fact, I already touched on this point in the end of the last round. Would this be satisfying for you?
Luggs

Con

Well, you heard it here, folks! Pro conceded! He admitted to not fulfilling the definition of omnipotence, and therfore cannot be a god by his own definition. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
toolpot462

Pro

My opponent accepts that using the word omnipotence was a mistake on my part, and apparently sees it fit to deny any possibility of reformation of the definition. This is an act of desparation. Clearly my opponent can't refute the fact that I am God with a slightly modified definition, so he won't allow such a modification, despite how fair it may be.

How is it fair? My intent was to use a word that means "capable of all things," in such a way that it is implied that impossible things are left out. I don't want to debate the definiton of omnipotence, and whether this is implied or not. I wonder, had I used a word completely incorrectly, if my opponent would have held me to such a mistake in order to scrounge up a victory. I'm assuming he would. Is it fair? No, it is capitalizing on the mistake of an opponent with complete disregard for the intent of the debate.

What word should I have used? There is no word specific enough to capture what I meant, if omnipotence indeed does not imply what I thought it did. The weakness of Con's position is blatant.
Luggs

Con

As my opponent has offered a definition of God, we will not change it, that would be semantics. Whether it is out of desperation is irrelevant. Semantics would just complicate things, so a modified definition would be unwise, considering we are at Round 5 now.

If there is a way for you to do the impossible, that would make you truly omnipotent. My point is that omnipotence does not exist, therefore by Pro's definition, gods don't exist. There is something Pro should know about me. Technicalities are my best friends. I can easily get somebody on a technicality, so I could get this debate victory fairly easily.

If there is no word specific enough, why not describe whatever characteristic you were referring to? My point is, definitions are extremely important in debates like this.

Let the voting begin, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
I agree nothing is seprate but it doesn't mean you are God. Look into a Vedic Philosophy Called achyinta bheda abheda. Where God is one and a the same time different with creation.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
My argument is based on nothing being separate in reality. I think that premise would yield a more pertenant debate to be considered.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
In the very least God must be defined as Supreme.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
What would you define as God?
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Pro I would like to debate you on this debate as Con. And show you quite simply why you are not God.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Yes, well... that I am God just as much as anyone else is not my argument, it's a condition of my resolution. Note that as a human being, I'm not claiming to be able to do whatever I want. I'm only saying that what "I" am is a delusion - that I am just as much an organism as an environment. I'm not saying that this particular body is God. I only wish I could have made a more convincing case that separate things are illusory, because it's what I find to be probably true, not out of faith, but through what thought I am capable of committing to the subject of what is.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
toolpot, don't accuse people who've voted of not reading the debate.

My aunt is just as much Napoleon as anyone else, apart from Napoleon and he's dead. It doesn't make my aunt Napoleon, just as your argument doesn't make you God.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
Iam, you obviously didn't read or understand the debate. My resolution was that I am God, sure, but in the debate I clearly stipulate that I am just as much God as anything or anyone else.
Posted by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
If the resolution that my aunt is Napoleon is correct, my aunt is just as much Napoleon as anyone. She doesn't have to understand it or know it to be it.
Posted by toolpot462 4 years ago
toolpot462
If my resolution is correct, you're just as much God as I am. You don't have to understand it or even know it to be it.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
toolpot462LuggsTied
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 successfully disproved Pro's absurd claim that he is God. I'm sure Pro wasn't serious when he claimed this. Either that, or he is just insane.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
toolpot462LuggsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: COUNTER TMR
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
toolpot462LuggsTied
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 doesn't know where i live so he is no god
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
toolpot462LuggsTied
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: See Comments
Vote Placed by Cometflash 4 years ago
Cometflash
toolpot462LuggsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had some good arguments, but as pointed by CON, because of the base that PRO begin such of argument from, that base could not be sustained, and so PRO's argument fell.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
toolpot462LuggsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro contradicted himself and conceeded, but Pro wins sources