The Instigator
thegodhand
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
simplymara
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is impossible to prove that God is omnipotent. Christians only.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
thegodhand
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,476 times Debate No: 14425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

thegodhand

Pro


Omnipotence: Infinite, unlimited power, usually to be deployed however wished.


God: A deity of any kind.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is impossible to prove God is omnipotent.

1. So what if God is powerful? A lesser being might describe greatness as omnipotence. We are lesser to God, but is God all-powerful?

2. Infinite means just that. Nothing in the laws of physics can be "infinite." Unless you were omnipotent, but that is impossible, forming a paradox.

3. Since humans cannot comprehend infinity, and what we comprehend forms our reality, infinity is incomprehensible, and thus God cannot be omnipotent, because then God would not be real except in a finite from.

I await your argument.

-The Godhand
simplymara

Con

I accept, and before I start I want to clear that because one cannot prove something it doesn't make it true or untrue.

"Omnipotence:... unlimited power.."

1. Because a lesser being describes greatness as omnipotence doesn't make it so. Omnipotence is what it is, and that is to have unlimited power. Unlimited power is not the same as greatness, therefore that first point is flawed.
We ARE lesser than God, so that already gives Him the advantage of power. He IS all-powerful, and He does have unlimited power.
Who but God can create the whole universe in seven days? Who but God can create mankind with His very own breath? Who but God can open up the Red Sea? Who but God can be dead for three days, yet resurrect? Who but God can do all that and more?
No one. So no one compares in power with Him because only He has that kind of power, that unlimited power, therefore He IS omnipotent.

2. Infinite: never-ending, unlimited, boundless, endless.
Time is infinite.
A paradox is something that contradicts itself. God is infinite and omnipotent. If He was just one or the other, THEN that would be a paradox.

3. What we comprehend forms our reality, true, as individuals, however, that again doesn't make it a fact.
Ex: I'm mistreated all my childhood and rewarded when I steal for whoever is mistreating me. My reality then becomes to steal, and that it is a good thing to steal. Does that make it correct? Or even better, a fact? No.
Inifinity IS incomprehensible because we know a start and an end for everything, so infinity is only comprehensible to an omnipotent being: God.
"God would not be real except in a finite from." Again, time is infinite, so according to you not real. Time is real; your point is flawed.

Thanks for the opportunity to debate this topic!
-simplymara
Debate Round No. 1
thegodhand

Pro

Thank you for your reply. I find it a wholesome distraction to debate the nature of God.

1. It does not take infinite power to do any of those. Creating the universe in seven days in an incredible feat, but not infinite. This would mean God existed before creation, but we are talking infinity, not eternity. All of the things listed can be measured, and thus are not infinite.

2. God, eternal and infinite. Only through eternity can infinity be shown. Since eternity is provable but infinity is not, paradox

3. Infinity cannot be explained by our laws of physics. In this reality, only measurable things are real. So even if God was omnipotent, He would not be omnipotent in our reality, and thus his omnipotence is not real.

Thanks for the chance to debate the nature of the Lord.

-The God Hand
simplymara

Con

Thanks for your reply.

1. It does take infinite power to do all of them. If it didn't, then anyone could've or could now do them, but we don't see people accomplishing similar tasks as part of their "norm". That means no one has that kind of power but God, once again proving God is omnipotent. Eternity is just further prove God is omnipotent since no one else is eternal.

2. "Only through eternity can infinity be shown. ...eternity is provable but infinity is not..."
If eternity is provable, and infinity can be shown only through eternity, then that means that infinity is also provable.
That point then is a paradox, a flawed argument.

3. Third point also flawed. If only measurable things are real, then are our emotions, something we can't exactly measure, not real? The same goes for time. Who can measure time? Does it then become unreal? Once again, time is also infinite, yet not measurable, is it not real? And once again, because something happens in our reality it doesn't make it true or untrue. If the sky is purple in my reality, it doesn't make it so.
Debate Round No. 2
thegodhand

Pro

Thanks for your reply.

1. I think we don't quite understand each other. Omnipotent means absolute infinity. Nothing in this reality can be infinite. From the debate's title, we are debating not the Lord's infinity, but the ability to prove his infinity.

2. Imagine eternity as a container of beef jerky. This container lasts forever, and has infinite beef jerky. We can't see past the container of eternity, so thus we cannot prove infinity because it simply cannot exist in a provable way.

3. Measurable things *in our reality.* We feel emotion every day- that proves it is real. We cannot see nor hear God every day, so He is immune to these rules.

Anyway, thank you for allowing me to debate the nature of the Lord!
simplymara

Con

Thanks for your reply.

1.Maybe I'm not understanding.. Infinity-synonyms include eternity, endless, boundless, and so on. If we agree that God is infinite, and we agree that omnipotent means absolute infinity, then we are agreeing that God is also omnipotent. Proof would include His acts. Some of His acts include those already mentioned.

2. I don't quite understand the beef jerky example, but if time is proof of eternity, and infinity is a synonym of eternity, then how can be and not the other?

3. At first we began talking about comprehending, then about measurable things. There are many things we can't begin to comprehend, nor can we measure them, but that doesn't mean they aren't real, or that they don't exist. God is definately unmeasureble, and we might never comprehend Him and how He is omnipotent, but that is not a strong enough point to be able to argue that He is not omnipotent.

Thank you for your replies and for this debate!
Debate Round No. 3
thegodhand

Pro

Thanks for your reply.

1, Since all those acts occurred in a reality where infinity is unprovable, we still cannot prove thet God is omnipotent.

2. We live in a one-way time. We can only see in front of us. We live in a space that expands in every way, so we cannot see it forever. We can see eternity, but not infinity. So we can't really see past time to find space.

3.He may be omnipotent, and we may never comprehend Him. However, since He cannot be provable in our existence, His omnipotence remains a theoretical, if not metaphorical, figure.

Thank you for the debate.
simplymara

Con

Thanks for your replies!

I guess you're right! You win! You can't prove or un-prove God, so how can you then prove His omnipotence?
If we agree that God is omnipotent, then I believe that is reason enough to 'prove' He is, but maybe I'm wrong, so you win!

But thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Theologically, the bible states God is all powerful, all knowing, and ever-present. But, in godhand's case, his definition of God is any deity, which is not the Christian God. You either refer to Christian God as 'the God', Jehova, Jesus (which practically is the same is Jehova, both meaning savior), or Messiah (also, the savior).
And, this debate is stupid

I agree with this debate being stupid.

Jehovah doesn't mean Savior... it is a derivative from the word YHWH which is an old verbal construction of the verbal process for existence. That is why when Moses asks his name he says "I am who I will be"

Also, Messiah doesn't mean Savior... it means Annointed One. David was a Messiah, so was Saul and so was Solomon.

Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, which means Yahweh Saves... not exactly "Savior."

Please don't say things that aren't true...
Posted by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
Lmao.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Boring...
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
God is defined as omnipotent. The question is can we prove an entity to be God.
Posted by simplymara 6 years ago
simplymara
The point duh is to glorify God by discussing His omnipotence.
Posted by thegodhand 6 years ago
thegodhand
No real point to the debate.
Posted by Rednerrus 6 years ago
Rednerrus
The definition of the Christian God is an omnipotent God. Whats the point of this debate?
Posted by thegodhand 6 years ago
thegodhand
@dazenday

Wow. Moron.
Posted by thegodhand 6 years ago
thegodhand
kl
Posted by Dazedinday 6 years ago
Dazedinday
Theologically, the bible states God is all powerful, all knowing, and ever-present. But, in godhand's case, his definition of God is any deity, which is not the Christian God. You either refer to Christian God as 'the God', Jehova, Jesus (which practically is the same is Jehova, both meaning savior), or Messiah (also, the savior).
And, this debate is stupid.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
thegodhandsimplymaraTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by adealornodeal 6 years ago
adealornodeal
thegodhandsimplymaraTied
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 
Vote Placed by thedude346 6 years ago
thedude346
thegodhandsimplymaraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
thegodhandsimplymaraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
thegodhandsimplymaraTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
thegodhandsimplymaraTied
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