The Instigator
Esiar
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
awr700
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Is Omnipotence Limited?

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 4 votes the winner is...
Esiar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 69496
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

Esiar

Con

Round 1: First Argument and/or Rebuttal
Round 2: Rebuttal
Round 3: Conclusion
----------------------------------
By accepting thing debate, you must go by this definition of Omnipotent: "having unlimited power; able to do anything.". One example I will use is this, "for with God all things are possible." (Mark 10:27).

My position is that this definition of omnipotence means God can do literally anything: Examples of this being - A married bachelor, seeing without eyes.

Since God has completely unlimited power, he is not bound by the rules of logic, thus meaning he can do things we would consider illogical.

If he cannot do things that are considered illogical by mankind, then he is not omnipotent as defined.
awr700

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Con

Burden of Proof is on you to explain why the ability to do anything is limited.
awr700

Pro

THE GOD PARADOX:

If a being is omnipotent, then they can create something too heavy for them to lift.

However, if they can create something too heavy for them to lift, then they are not actually all-powerful. And if they can't create something too heavy for them to lift, then they are also not all-powerful.

This proves that true omnipotence is impossible.
Debate Round No. 2
Esiar

Con

You are limiting an omnipotent being to only being able to do things that humans can logically comprehend - This is self-contradictory. You are making a being with unlimited power to only have limited power. In other words, you are saying, "A being with unlimited power must have limited power.". This would be similar to saying "If someone knew everything, he couldn't know everything."

Pro's argument goes like this:

God has unlimited power, meaning God can do anything.
Anything includes lifting an unliftable rock.
Lifting an unliftable rock is impossible.
Therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist.

It should go like this:
God has unlimited power, meaning God can do anything.
Anything includes lifting an unliftable rock.
Lifting an unliftable rock is impossible according to the rules of logic.
A being with unlimited power is not bound by the rules of logic.
Therefore, lifting an unliftable rock is not impossible for a being with unlimited power.
Therefore, an omnipotent God can exist.
awr700

Pro

"God has unlimited power, meaning God can do anything.
Anything includes lifting an unliftable rock.
Lifting an unliftable rock is impossible.
Therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist."

You misunderstood my argument.

I said that if God is all-powerful, He can *create* an object to heavy for him to lift.
But if there is something He can't lift, God is not all powerful.
But if He can't create something too heavy for Him, then that also means he is not all-powerful.

The important word there is create, because simply lifting an unliftable rock would surely fall under the umbrella of omnipotence. However, having to first create the unliftable rock would create the paradox I described above.
Debate Round No. 3
Esiar

Con

It's only a paradox logically. You cannot apply that to a being with unlimited power, as they are not bound by logic. They could work around all of that.
awr700

Pro

So you agree with me.

If you look at it logically, omnipotence is limited.

If you look at it illogically, omnipotence is not limited.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
@Nathan

Yes, Omnipotence isn't completely logical, but an Omnipotent being cannot be bound by logic.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Posted by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Well as it stands your resolution is a tautology. Change it to "Is God Omnipotent" or "Is God Limited" and you might have better luck.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
A few people I have discussed with on here have done that, which I why I made this debate.
Posted by CaesarsSeizures 2 years ago
CaesarsSeizures
If "omnipotence" has limits, it ceases to be "omnipotence."

It's like saying, "I know everything. Except some things."
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
Yes. I don't remember if it was last week though.
Posted by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Didn't we do this last week?
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I think your title is fine as is, but generally it is preferable to use statements rather than questions.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
"Is Omnipotent Limited?"
I don't think it is, thus I am Con.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
That would make him pro. It would make more sense for him to say, "Omnipotence has limits".
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
Esiarawr700Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: To be clear, the BOP is on pro, which he did not meet. I believe ominpotence is a stupid term and illogical, and if it had been shared you would have won or you as con, you would have run. however the debate shifted the BOP to you.
Vote Placed by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Esiarawr700Tied
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: Pros paradox was refuted with "God is illogical"? Omnipotent: "having unlimited power; able to do anything.". Pro made a valid case of God NOT being omnipotent.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Esiarawr700Tied
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: By definition, omnipotence is unlimited. The result is an irrational deity that can't be logically defined or debated.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Esiarawr700Tied
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: Con's arguments violated the round one definition of "omnipotent", so arguments to Pro.