The Instigator
jewgirl
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Resolved: The question "can god create a stone he cant lift" does not disprove the existence of god.

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  
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,023 times Debate No: 18685
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (10)

 

jewgirl

Pro

please respond according to what is written in the topic.( as opposed to last time).
shift4101

Con

It disproves the trait of omnipotence, and thus disproves the God described in the bible. You can still substitute him for a lesser version, but the biblical God you would say you believe in still would not be the one described in the Bible.

Omnipotent: Having unlimited power; able to do anything. http://www.google.com...

'Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You. - Jeremiah 32:17 (NKJV)

"For with God nothing will be impossible." - Luke 1:37 (NKJV)

But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases. - Psalms 115:3 (NKJV)


1. If God defines himself as omnipotent, then he is able to do anything and everything.
2. God defines himself as omnipotent.
3. Therefore, God is able to do anything and everything.

So, my opponent states that God either can lift the rock, or provides a reason why he cannot lift the rock but still maintains his omnipotence.

1. If God can create something he cannot destroy, he has limited his own power, removing his trait of omnipotence.
2. God can create something he cannot destroy.
3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

1. If God cannot do something, then he cannot do anything and everything.
2. God cannot create (something) that he cannot appease himself.
3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

I may be drifting a little off course here, but here are more arguments disproving the omnipotence of God:

1. If God has always been omniscient, he knows and has known forever what he is going to do.
2. God is omniscient.
[3]. Therefore, God is defined, and cannot chose what he wants to do.

1. If God cannot chose what he wants to do, then he has limited his omnipotence.
[2]. God cannot chose what to do.
3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

I await my opponents response, vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
jewgirl

Pro

The approach I will use is that of professor gotlieb PhD. The question is not a question since it contradicts itself.
Since god is all powerful, the words, "A stone he can't lift", have no meaning. There can be no such thing; it is like a "square circle" there is no such thing. God cannot create square circles, nor create a stone he can't lift, nor can he check mate with only his king. Bec. Such things are logical impossibilities, and thus make no sense and thus no question has even been proposed.

An alternate approach is even if you say that god cannot create a stone he can't lift. This is not a limitation since it comes from his all powerfulness. There are many things god cannot do such as make a mistake, or improve. This does not show god is not all powerful it's just that there are certain things that only imperfect people can do. And so too is it with the stone.

The rest of what my opponent wrote is not relevant to this debate, but we can debate it another time.
shift4101

Con

My opponent never challenged my claim of God's omnipotence. This being true, if he is unable to do anything, even betray the laws of nature, or geometry, or contradict himself, he has still limited his power. Thus making him not omnipotent.

Realistically, the only way my opponent COULD have won this would have been to successfully challenge that definition I gave God. But since she didn't, I urge a vote to CON.

There are many things god cannot do such as make a mistake, or improve. This does not show god is not all powerful it's just that there are certain things that only imperfect people can do. And so too is it with the stone.

Actually, it turns out my extra argument wasn't to waste.

1. If God has always been omniscient, he knows and has known forever what he is going to do.
2. God is omniscient.
[3]. Therefore, God is defined, and cannot chose what he wants to do.

1. If God cannot chose what he wants to do, then he has limited his omnipotence.
[2]. God cannot chose what to do.
3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

God cannot create square circles

My opponent states he defeat. God cannot create square circles, or more specifically, contradict himself.

God is not omnipotent.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
aparently what I wrote was not at all understood.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
@wiploc I also agree with her, I just like winning debates :D
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Pro, Con got to argue first and last. Tremendous advantage for him. If you say, "First round is for acceptance only, then he wouldn't get to post twice as many arguments as you.
Posted by stubsmagee 5 years ago
stubsmagee
You should have just used the argument that God cannot do anything out of his own charactor. Saying God is all powerful doesnt mean He can do anything. It means there is nothing more powerful than Him. God cannot sin, but that doesnt mean He isnt all powerful.
Posted by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
whats wrong with my presentation.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I do not particularly like the way that PRO outlined her arguments. It is a fact of math that two infinities cannot be quantified. Therefore, the whole argument is invalidated.
Posted by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
"So, my opponent states that God either can lift the rock, or provides a reason why he cannot lift the rock but still maintains his omnipotence."
I said nothing of the sort.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The assumption that the proof of a negative (fallacy) proves and affirmative is irrational. Con had no chance. and those who cast votes for con's position obviously, failed Logic.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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 is correct, the very assertion is a logical impossibility and so is a non-argument.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, jewgirl did contradict herself...If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do ANYTHING, even creating square circles (a logical impossibility) and especially create a stone...Pro's rebuttal was weak and did not take the time to, as Con said, challenge his definition of God or his arguments.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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: you have to limit god to claim it doesn't.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel it does not disprove the existence of god but the con had more convincing arguments (square circles???) and used extensive references to the bible which netted him better sources and arguments
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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: Neither side addressed the other's arguments, so it is hard to judge who did better according to the standards of this web site. Con assumed we are talking about bible god. He pointed out that bible god can't do some things. He said a god who can't do some things isn't omnipotent. This is lucid; it seems to make sense; it wasn't challenged. It was the best argument of the debate. Winner. Even though I agree with her, Pro's arguments just confused me. Not lucid.
Vote Placed by dappleshade 5 years ago
dappleshade
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly won here.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins according to Con's definitions and since Pro conceded to those definitions, Con gets arguments.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
jewgirlshift4101Tied
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: CON refuted pretty much everything PRO said, provided logic for the stone paradox, and has a nice win.