The Instigator
Cold-Mind
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
WillRiley
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

Omnipotence is impossible

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 6 votes the winner is...
Cold-Mind
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 56607
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

Cold-Mind

Pro

Topic is resolution.
Omnipotence: Having unlimited power; Being able to do absolutely everything.
No arguments in the first round.

Voting rules:
- Who had more reliable sources will not be taken into account.
- Forfeit in round 2 is loss.
WillRiley

Con

I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Cold-Mind

Pro

I will simply list things that no matter how much power someone has, he still can't do; To prove omnipotence is impossible.
- First make himself unable to do A, then do A.
- Create a problem that he can't solve.
- Appear certain time after making himself vanish completely and forever.
- Make both himself immortal and another being that will always be able to kill him.

Obviously, if my opponent does not succeed proving that being can be powerful enough to do every single one of things I listed, I win.
WillRiley

Con

Ok, so the things that you are saying are possible, but if we are talking about God, this is the flaw in your argument-
So God is considered a superior being correct? So superior to us, that He is said to have always existed and will always exist. So in this infinitely higher being, how do you expect your self to understand the mechanics of His power? Furthermore, if God was an infinitely higher being, then we can assume that he can change the past, or even time travel. So, he could make himself unable to do a, then change time so that he could, and do it.
God is all-powerful, so he has the power to redo even his own acts.
Since He has at His command all the power in the universe, God omnipotent can do anything as easily as anything else. All His acts are done without effort. He expends no energy that must be replenished. His self-sufficiency makes it unnecessary for Him to look outside of Himself for a renewal of strength. All the power required to do what he wants is within himself.
Debate Round No. 2
Cold-Mind

Pro

R1) We can't assume past can be changed. You will have to prove that. As far as we know, past can not be changed.
R2) You can't prove God exists.
R3) You can't prove that if God exists, he is omnipotent.

Conclusion: My opponent failed to disprove my argument that no matter how powerful being is, it still can not do all things I listed.
WillRiley

Con

Pro is attempting to say that I have lost because I can not prove the existence of God. However, that is not relevant because the debate is on the possibility of Omnipotence. Every single one of Pro's arguments are under the assumption that with a omnipotent God, he can do all things. Therefore, if this God has the power to do anything, He certainly has the power to change the past. I am not attempting to prove or disprove God's existence, I am attempting to prove the possibility that God could be omnipotent.
Conclusion: After providing a way that God could do all of the things listed, my opponent attempted to change what he himself had said: "Omnipotence: Having unlimited power; Being able to do absolutely everything" which includes the ability to change the past, and or travel through time. Furthermore, an Omnipotent God has the ability to change the past, undoing his previous decisions, and removing the supposed impossible paradoxes. I urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
@WillRiley Paradox definitions:
https://www.google.me...
You basically argued contradiction is ok. Making contradictory arguments is the greatest reason for voters to choose your opponent for winner.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Also, it is important to realize that the burden of proof is on Pro, so they must prove that it is impossible. I don't believe that that has been done.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
@Ajab (voter)
My point still stands that if a person is truly all powerful, then they would have the power to create one of the paradoxes and then change the past so that they did not, therefor, omnipotence is possible.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ejoseph061901 2 years ago
ejoseph061901
Cold-MindWillRiley
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins.
Vote Placed by neutral 2 years ago
neutral
Cold-MindWillRiley
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I have to vote Con - which seems odd. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything, and this became somewhat convoluted. Con position is correct about changing the past (and God being irrelevant, its an assumption that the omnipotent being is God, but it need not logically be so). If an omnipotent being can do anything, then by definition you can do anything - including change the past. If done successfully, how would we know? Again, what can be done and whether an omnipotent being WILL do it are different issues - Con had the better assessment.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Cold-MindWillRiley
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: unlike CJKAllstar, WillRiley did not attempt to suggest that God could suprass human logic and understanding, and thus could not prove him omnipotent. In addition, going back in time only solves one of the paradoxes, not all of them.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Cold-MindWillRiley
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I realize that Pro never mentioned he is taking into conisderations anything metaphysical for he never mentioned God, therefore Con was arguing besides the point and Pro wins. I thank Pro for asking me to re-read this debate.
Vote Placed by revic 2 years ago
revic
Cold-MindWillRiley
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I must make the debate a tie again, because the other vote clearly did not understand the debate here. It would be unfortunate if one side won because a voter was reasoning for himself and let his opinion get the better of him. Hopefully the other voters won't make the same mistake!
Vote Placed by JackFritschy 2 years ago
JackFritschy
Cold-MindWillRiley
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: con cant prove god, but pro cant disprove god. This leaves open the possibility of a metaphysical omnipotent being because you cant disprove the metaphysical