The Instigator
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Resolved: It is logically impossible for the Judeo-Christian Conception of God to Exist.

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 4 votes the winner is...
royalpaladin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,954 times Debate No: 22213
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (4)

 

royalpaladin

Pro

First round is acceptance only. Drops count as concessions, and no new arguments may be presented in the last round.

The following conditions apply to this debate. The opponent who accepts this debate agrees to abide by these conditions.

1. The argument by faith "I have faith so it must be true" is not permissible in this debate.

2. God is constrained by logic. This means that the opponent cannot just claim that God is exceptional and therefore all of my arguments are invalid automatically.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank royalpaladin for starting this debate.

"A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction." (1) In order for a concept to be logically impossible there must be a clear, unanswerable, contradiction present. If there is even a logical possibility the Judea-Christian God could exist, the resolution is defeated.

Also, while this may be obvious, Pro has the entire BOP to show exactly why the Judea-Christian concept of God is logically impossible. Con must refute Pro's arguments.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
royalpaladin

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Case

The Christian conception of God is an omnipotent being who created the universe from virtually nothing but his own ingenuity. In Genesis 1, God creates the material in the Universe, such as the Sun, the fish, and the insects, and "sees that it is good", implying that he had no prior conception of the objects beforehand; rather, he created the creatures and judged their worth afterwards. The fact that God did not have complete knowledge of his creation beforehand becomes more evident when one examines the fact that he attempted to give Adam, the "first human" all of the other creatures as companions BEFORE he decided that Adam needed a female counterpart in the form of Eve.

My contention is that it would have been impossible for God to create anything without any prior conception of it.


I invite my readers to join me in a brief thought experiment. Suppose I ask you to think of an apple. Immediately, the image of the apple is conjured in your mind because you have either seen an apple or have been taught what is was. This is knowledge that you gained through the sense of sight. Similarly, if I ask you to think of ONE apple or TWO apples, you are able to see the proper numbers in your mind because someone was able to take advantage of your senses and impart knowledge of mathematical values in your mind.


It is clear, therefore, that the senses are key to having knowledge of something. Moya K. Mason explains,
"For most types of knowledge, the senses play a major role in the acquisition. Our ability to read the written word or to be able to look at things around us really does help us to learn. To be able to hear sounds and songs of birds and other creatures certainly helps researchers to gather new information: information that can give a clear reading of the reality of a section of the Amazonian rainforest, for example. To be able to look at maps or through telescopes gives us the opportunity to learn many new things. The ability to read Plato's dialogues provides us with knowledgeable insight into a very important philosophical movement. The sense of touch is extremely important for the blind person learning Braille, which has opened up a whole new world of knowledge for the seeing-impaired." [1]

Now suppose, for a moment, that you are an individual who has been locked in a dark room for the entirety of your life, and you have never been introduced to the concept of "apple". If I asked you to picture an apple, you would not be able to simply because you would never have been exposed to the object previously. Moreover, if your eyes had never been exposed to any object at all, you would not be able to conjure images of anything in your mind when asked to. Functionally, having nothing to exercises your senses on is equivalent to not having the senses at all.

In addition, in order to create something, I need to have knowledge of the basic building blocks of the particular subject at hand. If I want to build a bridge, I need to have knowledge of wood, bricks, trees, etc. If I want to build a sand castle, I need to know what sand is. If I want to invent calculus, I have to have a conception of numerial values.

The Christian conception of God is an individual who, although in possession of limitless senses, comes into being in an empty void, meaning that there is nothing for him to exercise his senses on. Language does not exist, matter does not exist, etc. in this Christian conception of the pre-universe. The basic building blocks of the universe did not exist, and since God's senses could not detect anything, it would have been fundamentally impossible for him to actually have created anything. He would have had no means of expression by which to even think about what he wanted to create. Ergo, it is impossible for a sentient, omnipotent being to have created the universe.

Sources

1. http://www.moyak.com...

THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for their well thought out opening argument and will begin.

Before I begin the attack on my opponent's argument I would like to first give the attributes the God in question has. Christians and Jews alike both hold God is a Supreme Being, Eternal, an omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present), and omniscient (all-knowing). (As well as a slew of other attributes which, for the time being, are quite irrelevant). Omniscience, by definition, is to know all things eternally.

My opponent argues "it would have been impossible for God to create anything without any prior conception of it." But, she never provides any proof for why God could not have had any prior conception of it. She cites Genesis in saying "God thought it was good". But, why can an entity not see something is good and also have prior knowledge of the said thing? Simply stating, God caused X to happen then said "it was good" does not mean God had no knowledge of X before God said Y.

The timeless God

My opponent's logic attacks a God which is omnipotent but, not omniscient and eternal. God is totally omniscient in that he knows all which can be known by Him and God exists outside of time. Omniscience, by definition, is to know all thing's eternally. You see, the biblical God was planning "before time began" (2 Timothy 1:9) and "before the creation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). The biblical God predates time, and must have existed in a timeless reality. Therefore, it is completely evident that the biblical God is not bound to the restraints of time (Job 24:1). Since He 1) existed before time and 2) is able to manipulate time (Isaiah 38:8); God has the capacity and does know all, He knows all that did not occur, did occur, is not occurring, is occurring, will not occur, and will occur all outside the scope of time. God conceived the universe's existence before the universe was in existence because he knows what will occur (the universe). God had knowledge He would create the universe before He created the universe. God had a conception of the universe before the universe was in existence therefore, He could have created the universe. Basically, God knows everything all that occurred and will occur. God knows what He will do before He does it.

"For most types of knowledge, the senses play a major role in the acquisition. Our ability to read the written word or to be able to look at things around us really does help us to learn." The problem is, God does not have to learn anything, He knows all. Pro uses the analogy of thinking of an apple but, by definition, the biblical God already could conceive this apple before the apple was in existence. Furthermore, the biblical God does not have "senses" as senses are physiological (1) while God is not physical, rather spirit. (2) But, if God had to have senses to have knowledge God could not be omniscient. By definition of God, God has all knowledge. Since, God knows all, what has been created and what will be created. God could create the universe because He had a conception of the universe before the universe existed.

The omnipresent God

By definition God is omnipresent. This basically means, nothing is hidden from God. He exists in all dimensions, all time, and in every form whether thought, action, or substance. God exists within time and outside of time. Since God is omnipresent He encompasses all that exists, all which does not exist, and all that has the potential to exist. Since God exists in all places and non places, God knows everything. Existing in all times and non-times means God, to reiterate, already had a conception of the universe before creating the universe.

To conclude, this section, my opponent's case rests upon a god which does not have omniscience. The God of the Bible is omniscient; He knows well everything which would include the universe before the universe was in existence. God has no physical senses, yet posses all knowledge. By having all knowledge God has preconceived the universe.

Source:

1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
royalpaladin

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate.


Key Concessions

My opponent drops a variety of important arguments that I made in my first speech. As per the rules that I outlined in round one, dropped arguments are treated as concessions, so for the remainder of the round, all of the arguments that he did not touch are treated as true.


Concession 1: Knowledge is obtained through the senses. This was explained both through the conceded thought experiment as well as through the Mason analysis, which explains that the senses play an integral role in the acquisition of knowledge. This means that a being without senses could not obtain any knowledge whatsoever.

Concession 2: Knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to creation. In order to create an object, I have to have knowledge of its necessary building blocks. I cannot build a sand castle without having a conception of sand, for example. At the most base level, I need langauge in order to describe to myself and to others what I wish to create. If no images exist and no languages exist, I cannot create anything because I do not have an ability to understand what anything is.

Keep in mind that these concessions tie directly back to the rules that I set forth in Round 1. These are very logical rules for the acquisition of knowledge, and unless these guidelines are met, it is impossible for for an individual to gain knowledge and create something.


General Attacks

I will begin with a few general attacks on my opponent's case. First, he uses the Bible as a source by which to prove that God can defy the common bounds of logic. There are a few problems with this. First, the rules of this debate, as outlined in round 1, stipulate that God is bound by the rules of logic. This was something that my opponent conceded to with the mere act of accepting the debate. Second, the Bible cannot be used to prove that something is true; it can only be used to outline the Judeo- Christian conception of a specific idea. If my opponent wishes to prove that it is possilbe to have infinite logic without an exposure to any prior materials, he has to do so logically. He cannot use the Bible as a source to claim that it is possible because the Bible is not necessarily correct. In essence, the vast majority of my opponent's case rests on an appeal to authority logical fallacy, which in turn is based on a bare assertion fallacy. There is nothing in the Bible that logically proves that God is omniscient.


Prior Conception

My opponent claims that I never proved that God did not have any prior conception of matter. This is completely false. The two key concessions that I have highlighted in the beginning of this speech prove that it is logically impossible for an individual to gain knowledge without being exposed to materials. Since the Bible claims that God created the universe and that he was outside of the universe prior to its conception, logically it would have been impossible for him to have any knowledge of the things that my opponent asserts that he created. If it is logically impossible to have knowledge in such a state, as the concessions indicate, then logically God could not have had the knowledge necessary to spark an action of Creation.

Moreover, Genesis 1 actually refutes the notion that God is omniscient. Because God judged that his creations were good after he created them, he did not know prior to the creation that they were good. This means that God is not omniscient, or all knowing, because there were pieces of information that he did not possess. Similarly, God did not initially create a human companion for Adam; instead, he attempted to give Adam the animals as companions before he realized that Adam needed a female human. That further indicates that God is not omniscient because he did not have that information prior to his observations. So, the Bible itself proves that God is not all-knowing. My opponent misrepresents this argument by claiming that it does not prove that he did not have knowledge of the creation. That was not my contention; it was simply that God, like all beings, has to learn because he does not have all knowledge.


Timelessness

My opponent next claims that God is a timeless being. Note that this itself creates logical problems for the existence of a Judeo-Christian God. If God is timeless, then logically he could not have chosen to create anything. This is because the mere act of choice or thought requires time to exist; first, there is a state in which I did not choose to make a decision, and then there is a state in which I choose to make it, and finally there is a stage in which I choose to act on it. As you can see, actions require time in order to occcur. If time does not exist for God, then God could not have been the creator of the Universe because he could not have chosen to create. This means that the Judeo-Christian conception of the creator is not real if God truly is timeless.

Omniscence

His first argument is that the definition of God is a being who has all knowledge. He uses this to claim that my argument is false because it does not account for this fact. The problem with this analysis is that the goal of my argument is to prove that it is impossible for such a being to exist. Quite simply, I am not supposed to make illogical exceptions for such beings because my arguments are supposed to show that they do not exist. I am not certain why I have to make such exceptions.


Second, please cross-apply the two concessions that he makes as well as the Genesis argument that I apply above. Beings are required to gain knowledge through the senses. If a being does not have any senses, then he cannot gain any knowledge. His only response is that God knows all. I have already proven that it is impossible to actually have knowledge without senses. He has not given you any logical proof that it is possible; in fact, he concedes that it is not but that God, by definition, has knowledge. If it is impossible to have any knowledge without senses and God has no senses, then by the definition of God, it is impossible for God to exist. Again, this is not really an argument.

Omnipresent

The last thing that he tells you is that God is omnipresent so he knows everything. The problem with this is that according to the Bible, nothing existed until God created it. He could not have gained knowledge by being present everywhere because "everywhere" did not exist until after he created it. He had to have gained the knowledge somehow, but my opponent is not showing how he gained knowledge if nothing existed.


Possibility of Knowing Everything

Even if I concede that God already knew everything, the Judeo-Christian conception of God still could not exist. This is because the Judeo-Christian conception of God is a being who created everything. Creation implies the spawning of original thought. If all knowledge existed prior to God's creation of the universe, then God did not actually create anything because he did not spawn the original thought; rather, the ideas of man, fish, insects, etc. already existed before God did. This emasculates God by stripping him of all creative powers and is directly in opposition to the Christian conception of God, who is the Creator of all things, including those thoughts. This places my opponent in a double bind. Either God had to learn, which is logically impossible, or he already knew everything and is thus not the true creator. In either case, the Judeo-Christian conception of God does not exist.
THEBOMB

Con

Intro

The full resolution is "Resolved: It is logically impossible for the Judea-Christian conception of God to exist". The resolution states that the Christian God exists, until my opponent proves it is logically impossible for a deity which is eternal, omnipotent (all-powerful), omnipresent (all-present), and omniscient (all-knowing) to exist. My opponent has the BOP to prove a God with these attributes does not exist, it is not my BOP to prove they do exist. That is given until proven otherwise. In other words, God has these attributes until it is proven 1) He does not have these attributes or 2) He does not exist. My opponent is attempting the second option, to show God does not exist. It was never my burden to prove. It was my opponent's burden to disprove.

My opponent has 1) failed to disprove God's omniscience, 2) failed to disprove God's omnipresence, and 3) failed to disprove God is eternal and 4) failed to disprove God's omnipotence. My opponent's conclusion is a God who is omnipotent could not have created the universe because He would not have any conception of what the Universe is. So, in order to defeat the conclusion, I had to prove God had a prior conception of the universe, and I could do so using God's attributes, listed above, simply because my opponent has not disproven them and never will be able to in the course of this debate. Now onto my case:

Alleged Concessions

Knowledge is obtained through the senses

I never dropped this point. You can clearly see in the second paragraph of "The timeless God" I began with your quote and then went on to explain why it did not apply to God. Simply because I did not create an entire section devoted to this point does not mean I did not address it at all. Furthermore, since you did not disprove God's omniscience, God never obtained knowledge because He has always had all knowledge.

Knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to creation

Ok, makes sense.

Prior Conception

"Since the Bible claims that God created the universe and that he was outside of the universe prior to its conception, logically it would have been impossible for him to have any knowledge of the things that my opponent asserts that he created."

Why would is it logically impossible? Can you not look into a bowl from outside a bowl? By being omnipresent, God exists everywhere and in all times as well as before, during, and after time. God exists within and outside of the universe. God will always be. God existed before and during the universe all "at once". Therefore, he had prior conception of the universe before the universe was created. God was exposed to matter "before" the universe was created simply because He existed within the universe.

My opponent then cites Genesis 1 (the creation story), in order to disprove God's omniscience, but, they never logically prove why my round 2 syllogism is incorrect. That God knew before hand, and yet chose not to reveal his knowledge until afterwards. They simply restate their contention and accuse me of misrepresenting their position when, in fact, all I do was disprove their position. Your contention was God had to learn about His creation because He did not have this piece of knowledge beforehand, you never address why God could not have and simply chose not to reveal the knowledge.

The timeless God

My opponent here is committing a straw man fallacy. I apologize if the title in anyway confused my opponent but, I never claimed God was without time, I simply was claiming "He 1) existed before time and 2) is able to manipulate time (Isaiah 38:8); God has the capacity and does know all, He knows all that did not occur, did occur, is not occurring, is occurring, will not occur, and will occur all outside the scope of time[...]God knows everything all that occurred and will occur. God knows what He will do before He does it." God exists outside the scope of time (but, also within the scope of time). I was simply claiming God's conception of time radically differs from man's conception of time.

Omniscience

"His first argument is that the definition of God is a being who has all knowledge. He uses this to claim that my argument is false because it does not account for this fact. The problem with this analysis is that the goal of my argument is to prove that it is impossible for such a being to exist."

Exactly, it was my opponent's goal to prove God could not be omniscient. They have not done so, therefore, God is omniscient. I must remind the readers it is not my burden to prove God is omniscient it is my opponent's burden to prove God is not omniscient.

"cross-apply the two concessions that he makes as well as the Genesis argument that I apply above. Beings are required to gain knowledge through the senses. If a being does not have any senses, then he cannot gain any knowledge."

God does not have to gain any knowledge because He already knows all. My opponent has, once again, failed to prove God does not know all. They have not responded to my attack against their Genesis argument. And the "two concessions" apply to gaining knowledge, God does not have to gain knowledge, He exists with all knowledge.

"I have already proven that it is impossible to actually have knowledge without senses."

My opponent is misrepresenting herself right her, their entire cases basically states it is impossible to GAIN knowledge without sense, not have knowledge. Is my opponent claiming a person in a coma cannot have knowledge? No, they have knowledge they just cannot acquire any more knowledge because they are in a coma. My opponent's source states you cannot acquire knowledge without senses, it says nothing of having knowledge without senses. Seeing how almost my opponent's entire case rests upon that single document, which does not support what my opponent has just said.

Omnipresent

My opponent drops most of my analysis on this point, "He encompasses all that exists, all which does not exist, and all that has the potential to exist. Since God exists in all places and non places, God knows everything. Existing in all times and non-times means God, to reiterate, already had a conception of the universe before creating the universe." My opponent states, "He could not have gained knowledge by being present everywhere because "everywhere" did not exist until after he created it. He had to have gained the knowledge somehow, but my opponent is not showing how he gained knowledge if nothing existed." Once again I will reiterate "He encompasses all[…]that has the potential to exist[…]exists in all places and non places[…]exists in all times and non-times[…]had a conception of the universe before creating the universe." God exists before and after He created the universe at once. My opponent has not disproven this concept.

Possibility of knowing everything

"Creation implies the spawning of original thought."

No. Creation was the creation of the geo-physical universe, and everything inside of it, we live in today simply because that is what the purpose of Creation was. I mean if we are just going to make unsubstantiated claims…

"If all knowledge existed prior to God's creation of the universe, then God did not actually create anything because he did not spawn the original thought; rather, the ideas of man, fish, insects, etc. already existed before God did."

By being omniscient, God posse's all-knowledge. My opponent makes the rather unsubstantiated claim that knowledge existed before God, yet, provides no proof why this is true. Knowledge did not preempt God, God existed/exists with all knowledge. Furthermore, since God has the ability to perceive everything, due to his omnipresence, etc, to God everything already exists, just at a different point in time. Therefore, God knows of nothing that was not in existence (or it would exist), and God knows of everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), God would posses this above knowledge at any point of time and non-time.
Debate Round No. 3
royalpaladin

Pro

Framework
My opponent claims that beause I have the Burden of Proof in this round, he can assert anything that he wishes and I must prove it to be untrue. This is false as per the rule that I outlined in Round 1 that noted that God must follow the rules of logic. If I logically prove that it is impossible for any being to gain knowledge without senses, then he cannot simply use the bare assertion fallacy to claim that God is omniscient. Rather, he has to logically prove that a being can gain knowledge without using any sensory experiences as implied by the rule in Round 1.


My burden is not to to disprove God's Timelessness or potency. I simply have to pick one attribute and demonstrate that God does not have it because, according to my opponent, God has all of the attributes on the list. Therefore, if I demonstrate that it is impossible for a being to have one of the listed attributes, then the Judeo-Christian conception of God does not exist simply because he does not have that one important aspect of his nature. He needs all of the aspects to exist.


Concessions
1. Knowledge is obtained through the senses. He tells us that he responded to this argument by claiming that God has always had knowledge. This is problematic because he never shows that it is possible to obtain any knowledge outside of the senses, whereas I proved that it was not. All he is doing is using the bare assertion fallacy to contend that I have to make illogical exceptions to my proof to fit the definition of God. Note that I also proved through the Genesis analysis that the Bible notes that God did not have all knowledge. This is why God had to search for a mate for Adam among the animals before he decided on Eve. Ergo, God did not have all knowledge and is not omniscient according to the Bible. He never even bothered to touch the Genesis analysis at all; insofar as this is true, God is not omniscienct and you can vote Pro.


2. He concedes that knowledge is a necessary prerequisite to Creation. So, if it is logically impossible for God to have knowledge since my opponent claims that he does not have senses, it would be logically impossible for him to create anything.


Timelessness

My opponent argues that I am strawmanning his argument because I showed that any being who existed outside of time would be unable to act. My opponent has become a moving target; he explicitly stated that God exists outside of time. As quoted from his second speech, "My opponent's logic attacks a God which is omnipotent but, not omniscient and eternal. God is totally omniscient in that he knows all which can be known by Him and God exists outside of time. Omniscience, by definition, is to know all thing's eternally. You see, the biblical God was planning "before time began" (2 Timothy 1:9) and "before the creation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4). The biblical God predates time, and must have existed in a timeless reality. Therefore, it is completely evident that the biblical God is not bound to the restraints of time (Job 24:1). Since He 1) existed before time and 2) is able to manipulate time (Isaiah 38:8); God has the capacity and does know all, He knows all that did not occur, did occur, is not occurring, is occurring, will not occur, and will occur all outside the scope of time. God conceived the universe's existence before the universe was in existence because he knows what will occur (the universe). God had knowledge He would create the universe before He created the universe. God had a conception of the universe before the universe was in existence therefore, He could have created the universe. Basically, God knows everything all that occurred and will occur. God knows what He will do before He does it."


As you can see, my opponent explicitly stated earlier that before the Universe existed, God existed in a timeless reality by himself. Please do not permit him to change his advocacy. Given that he did not refute the argument that I presented against his analysis, since God is Timeless, it is impossilbe for him to have been responsible for Creation because he could not have acted. Insofar as this is true, even if I lose the rest of the analysis, you still vote Pro because God does not have the "Timelessness" attribute.

Prior Conception

He next introduces a new argument that claims that God knows everything because he exists in all times and places, and was thus exposed to matter before matter existed. If this is true, however, God did not create matter because he was exposed to it before he created the Universe. That means that God is not the Creator and you can vote Pro because the Judeo-Christian concept of an original creator does not exist.

His "bowl analogy" fails because the bowl has to actually exist for me to look at it. If there is no bowl in front of me, I cannot look inside of it. His analogy also implies that the Universe existed before God created it, meaning that God did not create the Universe.


Omniscience
He claims that it is my burden to include illogical exceptions to logical rules in my case unless I prove that God does not have those attributes. The problem with this analysis is that the rule in Round 1 explicitly states that God has to follow the rules of logic. If it is impossible to have knowledge without being exposed to materials and detecting those materials through the senses, then it is logically impossible for an individual outside of Time and who existed before anything else existed to have thought because there were no languages, images, etc. for him to experience. His only response to all of this is that I have a burden to prove that God is not omniscient. I already did this. My whole case demonstrates that it is illogical for an individual to have obtained knowledge if nothing else existed. His only response is a bare assertion fallacy that says that God is an exception to that rule. It is not my burden to make exceptions for God. If he wants to claim that a being can have knowledge outside of sensory experiences, then it is his burden to prove it because I explicitly proved that it is not. He cannot win this round on the back of a bare assertion fallacy.

He is going to attempt to extend tha argument that he makes that claims that my case only proves that you cannot acquire knowledge without senses, and not that you cannot have knowledge without senses. The problem with this is that in my first speech, I specifically noted that knowledge has to be obtained through sensory experiences; I cannot describe anything or have thought unless I am exposed to it first. My case, then, explicitly proves that in order to have knowledge, one must acquire it through experience. He is attempting to use semantics to cover the lack of sustance in his responses.


Omnipresence

He claims that I dropped the point that noted that God exists everywehre. Even if I concede that God existed everywhere, including the future, that would simply mean that he could not have created the universe because it existed prior to his conception of it. My opponent is making a nonsensical claim that God went to the future, was exposed to the Universe, and then traveled back to the past and created it. This is impossible for several reasons. First, God is a Timeless being, so he cannot act and has no conception of time because he exists in a timeless reality. Second, if he had to be expoed to the Universe before he could create it, then he did not create the Universe because it already existed without his interference. The fact that he had to travel to the future to see it indicates that the Universe's materials existed independently of God.


Possibility of Knowing Everything
His only response to the emasculation analysis is that Creation implies geo-physical realities and not original thought. This is completely false. Intellectual property rights existed simply because the creation of anything, such as a story or an invention, implies that the creator had an original thought about the substance that he is creating. Plagiarism and academic dishonesty exist for the same reason.
THEBOMB

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. And I thank the readers for reading this debate.

Throughout this debate, the existence of a God has been presupposed. What has been called into question is the existence of the Judea-Christian God (JCG) which has been conceived as having the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc. My opponent cannot simply demand I prove God has these attributes, according to the resolution and the fact they are making the assertion, it was their burden to prove the logical impossibility of a God with these attributes. In other words, God is x, y, and z until my opponent proves God is not x, y, and z. As I observed in Round 1, "Pro has the entire BOP to show exactly why the Judea-Christian concept of God is logically impossible. Con must refute Pro's arguments." My opponent, never even bothered to touch this observation until I again brought it up in Round 2. Therefore, it is binding. The JCG is omnipotent omnipresent, omniscient, eternal, and omnipotent until my opponent proves the converse.

My opponent's case is detonated by this syllogism:

1.The JCG is x, y, and z (x, y, and z being placeholders for it's actually attributes)]
2.The Bible is the basis for the JCG
3.The Bible contradicts (1)
4.Conclusion 1: It is logically impossible for God to be omniscient
5.Knowledge is needed for creation
6.Knowledge must be obtained through the senses
7.God existed somewhere where senses could not be utilized
8.Conclusion 2: It is logically impossible for God to have obtained the knowledge needed to create the universe

Conclusion 2 is dependent upon the truth of Conclusion 1 simply if God was omniscient then He would have this knowledge. Period. God would have existed eternally with all knowledge. (1) and (2) are definitions of the JCG. (3) is where my opponent cites Genesis 1, the creation story, as the logical contradiction needed to disprove omniscience. In response, I stated God had knowledge of X, but, chose not to reveal this knowledge. My opponent has not shown a logical contradiction because of this counter-argument, which went largely unrefuted. Therefore, it is still logically possible for God to have omniscience thus, my opponent's logic fails as it rests on the logical impossibility of God being omniscient.

Now to the rest of the case.

Concessions

I respond by cross applying the above here.

Timelessness

God existed outside of time, as creator, and also inside time, according to His omnipresence. Nowhere is somewhere, and "no-time" is sometime. God existed before the universe thus, in a timeless reality. Therefore, God has the ability to manipulate time and no-time.

Prior Conception

Tying in with omnipresence, by being in existence in all times and non-times God has seen the hypothetical "bowl" before the hypothetical "bowl" exists. My opponent states, to paraphrase, God was no the creator because He was exposed to the universe before the creation of the universe. But, the reverse is true, God was exposed to the universe, to put it in out perceptive, after He, Himself created the universe.

Omniscience

The definition of God is x (x once again being a placeholder) it was my opponent's burden to disprove X. I do not have to prove X exists simply refute your disproof using y which in this case is God's existence everywhere and nowhere as well as in every time in no time meaning God has experienced everything.

Omnipresence

God exists in the future and the past as well as in every time and "non-time" after and before in every possible form. God has experienced everything. I extend and cross-apply my last paragraph of round 3 here as well as Prior Conception. My opponent says God had to travel to the future to see the universe, but, that in itself is wrong, as God exists in the past and the future simultaneously at once.

Possibility of knowing everything

God has experienced all there is to experience, thus, God knows all there is to know from the beginning of eternity to the end of eternity. Cross apply the last paragraph of round 3 here.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Yeah, I just checked again. You did not post anything about the creation of Eve story.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
I never saw anything about that. Did you post something in the last round?
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
@RP

"Suburbia, first of all he never said that, and second of all, he dropped the analysis about God not knowing that Adam needed a female human as a companion."

Actually, I believe I made it quite clear on that point...
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
The Genesis analysis was not an analogy. He dropped the discussion of the creation of Eve and how God had to learn that the animals were not adequate companions for Adam.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
He dropped the analogy, not the point you were trying to make with the analogy.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Interesting debate. Interesting arguments to n as well, I as suburbia was also expecting the POE argument, but this seems every bit as formidable.

Basically this debate boiled to the who/what created god concept [well kinda]. Pro basically won the debate second round, as con had many poor refutations, and his case was not convincing. Basically pro throughout the debate was able to submit the god couldn't have made anything in this void, and seemed to defend it better then con refuted it. Con loses on refutations. Pro wins on defense of arguments.

The omniscient was cleanly refuted by con, with the if he has no senses he cannot do anything anyway, assuming nothing exists. I do not think pro adequately refutes this, well not as well as pro debunked the argument, so cons first argument is now defeated by pro.

Omnipresence was refuted as nothing exists, so god doesn't. Good argument, but the concept as pro pointed out was not the same. This lingered on, I think this point is tied.

---> Pro won

Did I miss anything?
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Suburbia, first of all he never said that, and second of all, he dropped the analysis about God not knowing that Adam needed a female human as a companion.
Posted by FourTrouble 5 years ago
FourTrouble
Interesting debate, haven't seen royalpaladin's argument before.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
I ran out of room, so thank you royalpaladin for this thought provoking debate.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
ok revised statement...it is a logical possibility on earth that acceleration due to gravity is 100 meters per second squared :p

A better on would be it is a logic impossibility that G (the universal gravitational constant) = 2 in this geo physical universe
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 5 years ago
drafterman
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Simply saying "God is omniscient" isn't enough to refute logical limitations on what can be known.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting. I was thinking Pro would use the PoE. Con's win was easy. Seeing that something is good =/= not knowing that that thing was going to be good which is what the debate boiled down too. THEBOMB pointed this out (in his own words, obviously) and thus refuted Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
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: comments
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
royalpaladinTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Countering SS's vote until he actually references arguments used in the debate