The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Cold-Mind
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Play Devil's Advocate!

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 4 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,292 times Debate No: 59811
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

9spaceking

Pro

RULES
-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)
-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued
-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, etc.
-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules.
-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 1 vote on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less
-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable
-My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments
-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D

Good luck and have fun!
Cold-Mind

Con

Resolution: Omnipotence is impossible.
Omnipotence: Having unlimited power; Being able to do absolutely everything.
I am taking the Con side of the debate. My opponent has BoP.

Link to my previous debate on this same exact topic, but on opposite side: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent creates an interesting topic. Omnipotence (God) is impossible
Here's how my argument goes:
Since Omnipotence means you need to do everything and anything, if merely ONE THING is impossible, then omnipotence is impossible.
So here's the argument summed up:
P1. If merely on thing is impossible, then omnipotence is impossible
P2. One thing is impossible
C. Omnipotence is impossible

So, what is this "thing" that is impossible?
Well, we certainly expect the omnipotent being to be able to do things under certain limitations.
P1. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do everything below
1. God can run a mile
2. God can run a mile with the universe on his shoulders

So far, so good. Everything is fine. No paradoxes or impossibilities yet. However, here's where everything goes interesting; I add a "twist" to the normal paradox argument:
P1. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do everything below
1. God can create a rock that he can somehow "lift and not lift"
2. God can create a rock that he can somehow "lift and not lift" while NOT BREAKING HUMAN BOUNDARIES
3. God cannot be omnipotent because he cannot do point two

As far as our human logic and boundaries go, God cannot somehow "lift and not lift" in a way we understand. While his omnipotence should be able to somehow "lift and not lift", it goes beyond human boundaries. Thus I have put a specific kind of "burden" upon God's shoulders that make it impossible for him to "run a mile", since with the burden of being unable to break human logic or understanding, God can't create a rock that he can somehow lift and not lift at the same time. It is simply impossible to do so as we understand it. Similarly, under these circumstances, God cannot go back and make himself not exist in the first place at all. If he does not exist at all he could not have possibly gone back. God also cannot strip himself of all power, then teleport inside a sphere, then run to the end of the sphere. If he strips himself of all power he cannot teleport. If he somehow manages a way, there is no end of the sphere. He cannot create an "end" due to the definition of a sphere and the lack of power.

Thus, I have shown that under certain burdens, an omnipotent being is impossible.
Cold-Mind

Con

Rebuttals:
premise "Omnipotence means you need to do everything and anything" is false. By definition, omnipotence means "Having unlimited power; Being able to do absolutely everything."

1) I am challenging P1. Refuting by example: It is impossible for ant to eat entire Moon, which does not prove omnipotence is impossible.

We are not arguing about God. To fix this problem, for this debate only, "God" will be defined as: "Omnipotent being"

2) List item 3 is not something that " If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do"

God being irrelevant to list item 1 and 2, rock being lifted and not lifted is illogical. By the laws of logic, everything is logical. So it is, by the laws of logic impossible for something illogical to exist. If I argued that rock that being lifted and not lifted exists, that would be illogical.

Even if God could do something illogical, we can not argue that, because we are bound to laws of logic, and can only argue inside them. This has nothing to do with God; It only has to do with logic itself.
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

As for the premise being false, if you can do everything, certianly you can do anything!

As for point number one, that only helps prove omnipotence is impossible.

Yes, I'm aware. I made a typo. It's supposed to say "C" standing for conclusion. Thank you for pointing that out.
"By the laws of logic, everything is logical." Says my opponent.
Oh, so we're not arguing about whether an omnipotent being exists or not, just omnipotence itself. But if an omnipotent being exists, certainly omnipotence exists. My opponent said it is impossible for something illogical to exist, supporting my point that God cannot lift up the rock and not lift the rock at the same time. Thus he has helped me uphold the resolution that "Omnipotence is impossible". Keep in mind you're arguing con to the topic, and that you have to prove that omnipotence IS POSSIBLE!! Nothing you stated has helped your argument. Perhaps you are confused. Try again.
Cold-Mind

Con

I am reminding: In this debate, God = omnipotent being.

My opponent doesn't understand the issue.

It is by definition illogical to do something illogical. Nothing proves that God can not do something illogical.

Maybe God can do something illogical. But it is by definition illogical.

What my opponent should be proving is that there is something logical, that no matter how much power some being has, it still will not be able to do it.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

FINAL ROUND
My opponent is correct. I am trying to prove that God can't do something illogical--because it has to follow the laws of human logic. My opponent hasn't even inferred as to why God does not have to follow the laws of human logic, while I put it as a burden upon God as one of the challenges, and God is unable to put on the burden of human logic while still creating a paradoxic, illocial situation. Cold Mind has failed to rebut my contentions.
VOTE ME.
Cold-Mind

Con

"I am trying to prove that God can't do something illogical"
Yes, I know, but you can not.

I am not saying either that God does or doesn't have to follow laws of human logic.
If he does, he can do everything that is logical.
If he doesn't, he can even do what is illogical.

"I put it as a burden upon God as one of the challenges, and God is unable to put on the burden of human logic while still creating a paradoxic, illocial situation"
is like everything Pro said so far:
God can not do something illogical, because if he did, it would be illogical.

This is like saying:
Turtles on earth always move in respect to moon.
Turtle on earth can not be stationary in respect to moon, because if it did, it would be stationary in respect to moon.

My opponent has not proven that God can not do something illogical, he only premised it.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
finally, something goes in my way. I feel I upheld my resolution much more clearly than last time: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Cold-Mind 3 years ago
Cold-Mind
@AlexanderOc I copy-pasted definition from my previous debate, on which I was on opposite side, therefore definition is just fine. By your definition, Putin is omnipotent.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Omnipotence can also be defined as most powerful. Which is completely possible.
Oh, well. Pro did let Con cherry pick the definition. That's on him.
Posted by Ozzyhead 3 years ago
Ozzyhead
You should have a rematch with an opponent but switch sides of the debate
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 3 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
It says quite adamantly that 'You cannot accept this challenge because you do not match the Instigator's age and/or rank criteria'

I am rather offended :)
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
Gah, so many ways to snipe, yet so hard to do.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
9spacekingCold-MindTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: SpaceKing stated :"since Omnipotence means you need to do everything and anything"...This would mean logical impossibilities, or defying logic, is possible through omnipotence. Spaceking hurt his own argument.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
9spacekingCold-MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: If we assume logic, lifting the unliftable is impossible.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 3 years ago
Phoenix61397
9spacekingCold-MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro made an argument in round two that stood unrefuted throughout the debate. Con's logic was hard to follow and never attempted to rebut Pro's valid point. This point fulfilled pro's burden, and since it stood unrefuted, pro wins.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
9spacekingCold-MindTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con's argument is confusing. He says that we cannot logically prove that God cannot perform illogical acts, and therefore that an omnipotent being could theoretically exist outside the bounds of logic. The problem is that he never supports this point. Pro makes a logical argument regarding how an omnipotent being cannot exist. I never see any solid response to that logic. Even if I assume that an explanation outside the bounds of human logic could feasibly support omnipotence, Con just leaves the question open of what that explanation could be, and in the meantime Pro provides me with some reasoning that Con never seriously regards. I can either choose to beg the question and vote Con, or I can accept Pro's uncontested arguments and vote his way. I choose the latter.