The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

It is impossible to disprove any religion/god that has enough breathing space.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 449 times Debate No: 58274
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Considering that many religions have a god(s) that is powerful and capable of many things, if there is enough room for interpretation, it could be said that they are impossible to disprove.
Though the power and capability of their god(s) is not a main tool for the explanations, and what is more unassailable is the capability of the followers to interpret the texts' meaning, and the gaps in the texts' information.

Take for example, Christianity, the god of this religion is God (which seems to be usually comprised of YHWH, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost)
God is said to be capable of doing all things, and as such, when an area of the texts concerning the religion is questioned, God's ability to do anything can be used to resolve the problem.
One example of this appears in chapters 7 and 8 of the book of Genesis, where the earth is flooded for around 8-10 months, yet a tree grew again after around several weeks or months, though it doesn't say exactly how long it took for the tree to grow.
The explanations for this seem to usually be that either God protected the tree, or that God made the tree grow, though there are many other explanations.
However, they are not said in the book.
As such, the fact, that it was not explained in the book, and God's power were used to explain the problem, which seems to make this indisputable, though not necessarily true.


I accept.

My opponent has mainly used the omnipotence of God as an excuse. However, omnipotence is not logically coherent.

Premise One: God is omnipotent. (Definition of God)
Premise Two: Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible. (Definition of omnipotence)
Premise Three: A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction. (Definition of logical possibility)
a. Any feat that has been done before is logically possible.
Premise Four: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker. (From #3)
Premise Five: Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker. (From #2-4)
Premise Six: Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being. (Definition of "maker" by an omnipotent being)
Premise Seven: For any finite mass of rock, it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field. (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion)
Premise Eight: Therefore, an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock. (From #2 and #7)
Premise Nine: Premise Six and Premise Eight are contradictory.
Premise Ten: Therefore, it is logically impossible to be omnipotent. (From #3 and #9)
Premise Eleven: Therefore, God is logically impossible. (From #1 and #10)

(Argument taken from

Note that this proof dismantles not only omnipotence, but God as well.
Debate Round No. 1


Hmm...that's a good argument.
Though it could be said that the text (Matthew 19:26/Mark 10:27) didn't really mean all things are possible, since God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18)
It could also be said that God made those concepts seem impossible to us, though they are not (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
The former does not necessarily mean that God would not be a god, and, as far as I know, it never says that God is not restrained by anything.
These also use the gaps to solve a problem.


If God cannot lie, this only creates internal inconsistency with the verses supporting omnipotence, which actually strengthens the case against God.

Matthew 19:26
Mark 10:27
Luke 1:37
Jeremiah 32:27
Job 42:2

In any case, the idea that our own logic cannot be trusted because we might be being deceived into thinking it denies us even Descartes' First Certainty, meaning we can literally not know anything for certain. In order to have a reasonable debate, we must accept some basic knowledge as first principles, meaning that apparently valid logic should be accepted as valid unless proven otherwise.

Also, these don't really answer my argument. Can God create a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it?

I would mention other paradoxes like the Epicurean Problem of Evil or the conflict between spacelessness and omnipresence, but I think my point is made.
Debate Round No. 2


Well, you have shown that I was wrong, and I can not think of any non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent and non-omnibenevolent gods.
So, it seems that you have won this debate.


Surrealism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry for the forfeit, I had been a bit busy. In any case you've forfeited the debate. So I will skip.
Debate Round No. 4
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by GeminiContractor 2 years ago
Truly, that god would be malevolent were it to exist.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Omniscience Able to know All.
Omnipotent Able to do All.
If the Biblical God of Abraham had both of those, there would be no need for the Global Flood.
Omniscience: That God would know every bad individual by name and who was going to follow them into badness and where they all sleep. So Targets are all Known to God.
Omnipotence: That God could easily remove all Targeted individuals, possibly while they slept, so not one innocent person, child nor yet to be born individual would be harmed.

But that is assuming the God of Abraham is Benevolent.

But, initiating the Global flood only demonstrated Abraham's God's Extreme Malevolence.
Posted by GeminiContractor 2 years ago
'Omnipotence' is actually from 'omnis' meaning "every"(singular) and "all"(plural), and 'potens' meaning "being able (to), able; potent, mighty, strong, powerful"
So, 'omnipotence' would mean "All powerful" or "Being able to do all", not "the ability to do anything that is not contradictory."
Current definitions seem to give it the meaning "The quality of having unlimited or very great power."
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
Actually, a premise is just a supposition on which logical consequences are found so as to make an argument. Much of the time, logicians use premises assumed or implied to be false so that they can use them to prove a conclusion known to be false, so as to falsify their premises. This is called a subderivation. What you are referring to is an incorrigible premise, which is something else entirely. Additionally, the definition of omnipotence I used perfectly matches the one you gave, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. Also, "able to create a universe" and "able to do anything logically possible" are two different concepts, so saying that God is omnipotent merely by virtue of universe creation is absurd. Even if it wasn't, that still only DESCRIBES God. It doesn't actually justify the coherence of omnipotence, nor does it explain why the argument I gave is invalid. It's not a word game. It's a simple question. Can God create a rock so big that God cannot lift it?
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
Con... A "premise' is SUPPOSED to be something that is undeniably true.... not something you make up just to call illogical. Your basic definition of "omnipotence" is flawed. Augustine in the 3rd Century defined it as "the ability to do anything that is not contradictory." You "rock so big" argument is almost that old and was just as logically contradictory then as it still is now. The fact that you cannot see that I find amazing and says FAR more about you than about God. It is nothing more than a childish word game. I figured that out the very first time I heard it when I was ten, fifty-five years ago. God is said to be the creator of the UNIVERSE... and all the "rocks" in it. Unless you can point to some universe that you have created then that sounds pretty omnipotent to me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
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: CONcess'n.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
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: Frankly I did not find Con's argument for disproof of Omnipotence convincing, but a little fallacious, as subjectively impossible does not equate well to reality. Subjectively we could find another planet to inhabit, but practically, it may be impossible. Subjectively we may prove anything wrong, but actually doing that in reality is a different matter.