The Instigator
Logician
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Strikeeagle84015
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Pick Your Own Debate #2

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 12287
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Logician

Pro

In the continuing spirit of impromptu debates, this is my second debate in the "Pick Your Own Debate" format that exists here on debate.org. For those of you who don't know what this is, the debate will run as follows:

ROUND 1: Opening introduction and rules. My opponent will post 3 topics s/he wishes to debate, and the position they want to take in that debate. Please provide a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. Make sure to give some basic definitions for any terms that may prove a sticking point as the debate goes on! Also, please make it a generally controversial/debatable issue. I'm sure we all want a reasonably good debate here :)

ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of the three positions my opponent proposed. A normal 3-round debate should thus happen as normal.

Good luck!
Strikeeagle84015

Con

Hello, First off I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me this opportunity to debate with him and I am sure this will be an informative and educational debate for all.

First Topic
Nuclear Power should be the most pursued form of alternative energy
Second Topic
The Marvel Universe superheros could beat the D.C. Universe superheros
Third Topic
The Paradox of the stone disproves the existence of God

I will take the side of Nuclear Power in the First debate
Terms:
Nuclear Power: The energy produced by splitting or combining atoms in a nuclear reactor
http://www.enwin.com...
Alternative Energy:Generally, any source of energy that is not derived from traditional fossil fuels
www.globalization101.org/issue_sub/energy/energyglosary/energy_glossary

I will take the side of Marvel on the second topic

and finally I will take the affirmative position saying that the paradox of the stone does disprove the existence of god
Terms:
Paradox of the stone:The question can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?
http://www.existence-of-god.com...
God:he supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe;
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Omnipotent:having unlimited power
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Unlimited:outright: without reservation or exception
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I have one small favor to ask before we begin can we avoid a definition debates that are often obnoxious and result in little enlightenment occurring on either side
Thank you again for allowing this chance at debate
P.S.
You have one of the most awesome profile pics of all time
Debate Round No. 1
Logician

Pro

I'd like to firstly thank my opponent for some very interesting debate topics. I choose the third topic, namely: "The paradox of the stone disproves the existence of God." As per my opponent's allocation of positions, I will take the negative on this motion, arguing that the so-called "paradox" does not disprove the existence of God.

I accept my opponent's definitions of God and omnipotence in his first round. I however have one caveat to add my to acceptance of his definition of unlimited, which I will outline in my first point below. I have two points to make that support my case, which are as follows:

=== EXTRAPOLATION OF WHAT GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE ENTAILS ===

As my opponent's definition puts it, God is the "originator" of the universe - this means that he is outside of the universe, and created the laws that govern this universe. This must surely mean that, whatever is possible within one kind of reality, he is able to change the laws of reality itself.

I also contend that definitions regarding what can happen within this universe must be restrained to within the current reality of this universe. After all, what may be possible in this universe may be impossible within another, and vice versa. Something that is limitless in this universe may be distinctly limited in another, and vice versa. So when we talk about someone or something having "unlimited" power, that must surely apply only to what that person/thing is able to do within the current reality of this universe.

=== APPLICATION OF THIS TO THE STONE QUESTION ===

The application of the previous section to the so-called paradox of the stone may now be apparent. An omnipotent God is one who is able both to choose which universe exists (and which rules of reality are true within that universe), and able to do whatever is possible within that universe.

This supposition is perfectly consistent with the scenario outlined with the stone. Indeed, it is required by the fact of his omnipotence that he is able to use the laws of gravity such that he can create a stone that not even he can lift, for if he cannot do so then he is not omnipotent.

But when he is then unable to lift that stone, that does not mean that he is not omnipotent - it simply means he is restrained by the laws of the universe that he himself created. His omnipotence means that he is able to change the laws of the universe such that he could lift the stone, if so he desired. He would only no longer be omnipotent, if he were unable to do so. This is, indeed, what makes us not omnipotent and separates God from us - we are bound by the rules of the reality in which we find ourselves, whilst God is in a position to manipulate and change those rules whichever way he so wishes. THIS is true omnipotence, and it is not undermined by the question of the stone.

=== CONCLUSION ===

Omnipotence entails that one is not only able to do whatever is possible in the universe, but also that one is able to change the rules by which the universe functions. God, understood as an omnipotent being, is able to do just that. Therefore, when in the situation that the question of the stone gives us, his omnipotence demands that he be able to create a stone in this universe that not even he can lift. However, his omnipotence also demands that he able to change the laws of this universe such that he would be able, if he so wanted, to lift it.

Nowhere in this scenario is God's omnipotence challenged, meaning that it does not disprove the existence of God. I may as yet have reason to expand my arguments, or introduce new ones, as the debate continues, but for the reasons already mentioned I urge people to negate the motion. I await my opponent's response.
Strikeeagle84015

Con

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Logician

Pro

I have nothing further to add to my arguments. Hopefully, my opponent will be able to respond in time for this round :-)
Strikeeagle84015

Con

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Logician

Pro

In the comments section:

"I apologize for not being able to argue but something came up and I will be gone for the rest of the week river rafting (wahoo) I apologize but you debating skills are quite excellent and I have yet to think of an adequate rebuttal"

I'd like to thank him for his kind words about my arguments, wish him a good time river rafting, and express my regret that it has meant that our debate has been cut short. I'm sure that if it hadn't come up unexpectedly, a very good debate would've been had - I look forward to the possibility of having one in the future.

But until then, vote Pro :-)
Strikeeagle84015

Con

Strikeeagle84015 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Strikeeagle84015 6 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
I apologize for not being able to argue but something came up and I will be gone for the rest of the week river rafting (wahoo) I apologize but you debating skills are quite excellent and I have yet to think of an adequate rebuttal
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Strikeeagle84015 6 years ago
Strikeeagle84015
LogicianStrikeeagle84015Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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