The Instigator
TheTheoreticalPhilosopher
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sonofcharl
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Omnipotence is rational

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 240 times Debate No: 100864
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

TheTheoreticalPhilosopher

Pro

THIS IS A 1 ROUND DEBATE. The purpose of this debate is to make a case that the oxford dictionary website should change its definition of 'Omnipotence' to include the word 'infinite' to be replaced with 'unlimited'. Even though it essentially means the same thing, the latter does not imply the inherent logic "Omnipotence" needs to maintain is the practical use of being a word. Humans are now more imaginative than ever creating new paradoxes to undermine the word "Omnipotence". If we associate the logic behind "Omnipotence" to relate to the logic behind "countable infinity", then we will negate all of those paradoxes finally making it a word that 'makes sense to be a word'.

Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited or very great power.
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...

By changing the word 'unlimited' to 'infinite(countable)', we exactly define the word 'omnipotence'. Countable infinity is restricted to being an object. Infinity is only abstract in the first dimension to what is called uncountable infinity. It is only uncountable in the first dimension, but when moved to multiple dimensions, the concept of infinity becomes countable(simply meaning within the object). With this relation to making 'Omnipotence' an abstract object, the accepted known philosophical view of today, establishing 'Omnipotence' as the quality of having infinite(countable) power. The definition wouldn't even need the second part as the second part was to establish a 'kind of a limit'. This explanation provides a much succinct and accurate definition. I would encourage the voter who votes for me to quote Occam's Razor as an objective measuring reason.
Sonofcharl

Con

Not exactly sure what Pro is trying to achieve here. But I will answer thus.

"Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited or very great power"

This phrase is ambiguous.

"Or very great power" immediately suggests uncertainty.

Completely negating the use of both unlimited or infinite to describe omnipotence.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lord_megatron 10 months ago
lord_megatron
are we debating that changing the definition is rational. or the idea of omnipotence is rational? in case of the latter I can accept
No votes have been placed for this debate.