The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

No being can posses omniscience as a property.

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 1 vote the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 755 times Debate No: 31796
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

KingDebater

Pro

Resolution: No being can posses omniscience as a property.
I will be arguing that it is logically impossible for any being to posses omniscience as a property. My opponent will be arguing the opposite. The burden of proof is shared.

Definitions
Omniscience - Knowing everything

Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2/3/4/5 - Arguments and Rebuttals

Rules
1. No semantics or trolling.
2. The burden of proof is shared.

ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for hosting this debate, and the debate.org community for reading along and voting. I will be arguing that a being can possess omniscience - although I personally do not have that quality.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

I thank Con for taking up this debate so quickly.

The argument
My argument against omniscience can be summarized as follows:

(P1) Numbers are infinite, meaning that there are therefore an infinite amount of equations and answers to those equations to know.
(P2) An omniscient knows everything, so it would know the answer to every single equation;
(C) Therefore, an omniscient being cannot exist, as there is always one more equation to know the answer to.

Justification of the first premise
Numbers are infinite. Imagine the number 1. I'll add another "1" to it. I can keep doing this forever as numbers are endless. We can come to the conclusion that if numbers are endless, then we can just make the equation that number times zero.

Justification of the second premise
This is pretty self-explanatory.

Justification of the Conclusion
Since there are an endless amount of equations and answers to those equations to know, an omniscient being cannot exist as an omniscient being knows everything but we can always think of one more equation as we have an endless supply of numbers.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

Mathematics is an a priori science. Take the question of adding by one's. I know that this sequence will go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. ad infinitum. Can't it be said that I have an infinite knowledge of equations derived in this manner? Likewise our omniscient being could have solved all such equations, in all patterns, through logical deductive rules, thus knowing all equations by understanding all the elements of mathematics and all the logical rules this science is based on.

Omniscience is possible. What if the universe itself were alive, that the totality of matter and energy existent created a being of such profundity that we could scarcely even imagine it's intellect? How could we possibly dare to challenge it's knowledge, when we are not even an ant in comparison? Of course there is the constant tendency to imagine other beings as if they were simply humans - and who can blame us for that natural tendency - but an omniscient being would be nothing like a human and not limited by our constraints.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

Rebuttals
Con says: Mathematics is an a priori science. Take the question of adding by one's. I know that this sequence will go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. ad infinitum. Can't it be said that I have an infinite knowledge of equations derived in this manner? Likewise our omniscient being could have solved all such equations, in all patterns, through logical deductive rules, thus knowing all equations by understanding all the elements of mathematics and all the logical rules this science is based on.

Yet I do not know the answer to an infinite amount of equations, I know how to work out an infinite amount of equations. If you asked me what is 0*76573876, for example, I would be able to answer it. Why? It's not because I already knew the answer, it's because I know that anything multiplied by zero is zero. You could ask me that question every single week for a year, but the knowledge I use to come to my answer isn't the knowledge that 0*76583876=0, but that x*0=0, and x can be anything. So, I do not know an infinite amount of things.

But isn't it pretty obvious that to know an infinite amount of things is impossible? It is impossible because as my argument explains, there are an infinite amount of numbers and an infinite amount equations with an infinite amount of answers to that infinite amount of equations, and I cannot know all the answers to all those equations because there is always one more to know. 1*1=1, 2*1=2, etc. I can keep going on like this forever, and since it is impossible to know the answer to every single possible equation, omniscience is impossible.

Con says: Omniscience is possible. What if the universe itself were alive, that the totality of matter and energy existent created a being of such profundity that we could scarcely even imagine it's intellect? How could we possibly dare to challenge it's knowledge, when we are not even an ant in comparison? Of course there is the constant tendency to imagine other beings as if they were simply humans - and who can blame us for that natural tendency - but an omniscient being would be nothing like a human and not limited by our constraints.

Here, Con provides no real arguments but he does put a smokescreen around knowing it, saying that we just can't know as we're just human beings, but I could do that to try and support my case, either way it proves nothing. All existent beings must obide by the laws of logic and that is what I am using to support my arguments: logic.

ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

Unfortunately, Con has decided to forfeit. I extend all my arguments.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater

Pro

Unfortunately, Con has decided to forfeit. I extend all my arguments.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
No, there's not "always" one more equation an omniscient being knows the answer to, since an omniscient being knows the answer to every equation. That's ridiculous.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
KingDebaterZakYoungTheLibertarianTied
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: Forfeiture by the Con.