No being can posses omniscience as a property.
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:  688 times  Debate No:  31796 
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)
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.
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. 

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 selfexplanatory. 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.
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. 

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 forfeited this round. 

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round. 

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round. 
Post a Comment
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NurAbSal 4 years ago
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.
Report this Comment
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NurAbSal 4 years ago
KingDebater  ZakYoungTheLibertarian  Tied  

Agreed with before the debate:      0 points  
Agreed with after the debate:      0 points  
Who had better conduct:      1 point  
Had better spelling and grammar:      1 point  
Made more convincing arguments:      3 points  
Used the most reliable sources:      2 points  
Total points awarded:  3  0 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture by the Con.