The Instigator
Gamerfreak1313
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Is omnipotence possible

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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,164 times Debate No: 26967
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

Gamerfreak1313

Con

I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible for any being/entity to be omnipotent. My argument is that any thing that is omnipotent contradicts it self. If I was omnipotent that means I would be invincible and immortal but that means there is something I cant do which is killing my self breaking the concept of omnipotence. Another example is me being able to create something I cant do. If I could do that than I couldn't do something but if I couldn't there is the same effect.
socialpinko

Pro

Con's argument is that omnipotence is inherently contradictory, therefore impossible. However, he has failed to define what exactly that means. I will argue that the two main competing defintiions for the term are both possible.


(1) Omnipotence as ability to do anything with no limits. This type of omnipotence would still be possible considering that omnipotence would therefore entail being aboveand more powerful than the laws of logic themselves. Therefore, Con attempting to limit the existence of omnipotence to within the confounds of logic is inherently self defeating. If an omnipotent God can do anything, than it doens't make sense to attempt to limit it's power.


(2) Omnipotence as ability to do anything within the confounds of logic. This definition has also been forwarded by theologians. Under this definition, Co's refutation wouldn't apply since it rests entirely on God being above logic.
Debate Round No. 1
Gamerfreak1313

Con

(1) Even if it is above logic that does not change the contradictions. If it was above logic or possibly created it doesn't change the fact about it. If I asked a truly omnipotent being to create a rock so heavy that it could not even lift. Or another is that this being is the definition of pure perfection. Could it create something that surpass it or equals it in power. Even when it is above all logic it would still contradict it self.

(2) This would probably not be included since it pertains to nigh-omnipotence which is much more possible.
socialpinko

Pro

(1) The resolution does not argue that omnipotence is contradictory, it argues that it's impossible. Now unless Con has some argument for why the two terms are synonymous, his rebuttal here is more or less irrelevant. Obviously if a being is above logic, one could technically call it "illogical". However, that doesn't mean such a thing is impossible to exist and Con has given us no reason to suppose so.


(2) Con concedes that the second style omnipotence is possible but claims to be arguing off of (1). Therefore, if (1) can be shown to be possible (=/= illogical) then Pro's burden will have been fulfilled.
Debate Round No. 2
Gamerfreak1313

Con

Gamerfreak1313 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

Sad that we couldn't finish this debate. Oh well. Extend refutation, Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Gamerfreak1313 4 years ago
Gamerfreak1313
It is too bad I missed the final round. Stuff came up and I enjoyed the debate. You should all vote pro since I could not beat his argument. I hope to debate him again sometime.
Posted by Gamerfreak1313 4 years ago
Gamerfreak1313
That still does not prove omnipotence is possible
Posted by klatu 4 years ago
klatu
Until very recently I would have said no to the very idea of divine omnipotence, but I have had to change my mind! for I am literally testing such a claim at this very moment. As the first wholly new interpretation for two thousand years of the moral teachings of Christ has been published on the web.

Radically different from anything else we know of from history, this new teaching is predicated upon a precise, predefined, and predictable experience and called 'the first Resurrection' in the sense that the Resurrection of Jesus was intended to demonstrate Gods' willingness to reveal Himself and intervene directly into the natural world for those obedient to His will, paving the way for access, by faith, to the power of divine transcendence and ultimate proof!

So like it or no, a new religious teaching, testable by faith, meeting all Enlightenment criteria of evidence based causation and definitive proof now exists. Nothing short of an intellectual, moral and religious revolution is getting under way. To test or not to test, that is the question? More info at http://www.energon.org.uk...,
http://soulgineering.com...
Posted by Gamerfreak1313 4 years ago
Gamerfreak1313
So than if it is the ability to do all things logically possible I could make something I could not do because that is in the laws of logic to have things that are not possible.
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
This is probably going to come down to the definition of "omnipotence." Most theologians define it as the ability to do all things logically possible. So bringing up scenarios in which performing some act would create a contradiction do not count against omnipotence.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Gamerfreak1313socialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con bailed. Arguments to Pro because they were stronger than Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
Gamerfreak1313socialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I hearby declare a victory
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Gamerfreak1313socialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win.