That God does not exist
Debate Rounds (3)
In this debate, the burden of proof is on me to show how we can know God does not exist. My opponent needs to show that there is the possibility of God existing despite my proofs to the contrary.
All the standard debate rules apply, although I don't think sources should really be an issue given that metaphysical arguments are no more valid if cited on another website. Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate.
For the purposes of this debate:
* "Exists" shall mean being an entity, according to objective standards.
* "God" shall mean an entity that has the attribute of perfection for eternity. This is to direct this motion at the widest possible range of religions. I will use the neuter pronoun "it" when refering to God for this reason. While I use the singular pronoun, the arguments can be applied to polythiestic religions too.
* "Perfection" shall mean being optimal. Something that is best possible alternative is an attribute of a perfect being.
Argument 1: Omnipotence Paradox
We can know God does not exist because the attribute of perfection, which defines God, is self contradictory. It implies, for instance, omnipotence, that is, the ability to do anything. Omnipotence is clearly better than limited potency and therefore must be a quality of a perfect being.
Hypothetically, then, could a omnipotent being microwave a burrito so hot that it could not eat it? It seems that the answer must be yes, because the being is better if it can cook the burrito that hot. However, it would also be better if the being could eat all burritos. In this hypothetical situation, omnipotence is impossible, because one cannot both create an uneatable burrito and be able to eat all burritos.
Variations on this argument include creating unliftable stones, creating things so indivisible it could not divide them (*cough* atoms *cough*) and my personal favorite - could God create a debate argument so strong that it itself could not rebut it? The general form is, could God create a limitation upon itself.
If omnipotence is hypothetically impossible, then it must be hypothetically impossible to be absolutely perfect, because perfection requires optimal potency, which has no restrictions. My opponent needs to tell you why this hypothesis is plausible, given that a simple burrito proves it wrong. Remember - God needs to maintain its perfection for eternity, not be limited in any way ever. Therefore, hypothetically, God could not create a limitation upon itself. Therefore, God is not perfect. Therefore, God is not God.
Argument 2: Argument from free will
Suppose you're hanging out with God one day and ask it whether Barack Obama will send you a free bus card tomorrow. God will then issue a great profound "NO - he has more important things to do". This is because God must be able to know these kinds of things, because if it couldn't it would be imperfect. Therefore, Barack Obama is compelled (or not compelled) to not send you a free bus card tomorrow.
Here's the problem - Barack Obama may have free will. This is a paradox - therefore, if I can disprove predestination, I have disproved God.
Now let's change the situation a bit. Let's say I get cunning and ask God whether it will send me a tasty blueberry pie tomorrow. God will then issue a great profound "Yes - free blueberry pies for all!" God must know what it will do, otherwise it would be imperfect. God therefore can no longer change his mind. God therefore is predestined to give me a free blueberry pie, just like Obama is predestined to not give you a bus card.
However, free will is desirable to having your actions constrained. God would be more powerful if he could choose to not give us all blueberry pies tomorrow. Therefore predestination must be untrue for God - that is, God has absolutely free will. But if God has free will, he is not all powerful. Therefore God cannot be perfect. Again.
What both of these paradoxes show is that no entity can possibly be perfect. However, this is a fundamental requirement of God's objective reality. Therefore we can know that God does not objectively exist.
I look forward to hearing my opponent's refutations and wish him good luck for the debate.
1.A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.
2.A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.
3.A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
4.Hold that it is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.
5.A deity is able to do anything that corresponds with its omniscience and therefore with its worldplan." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
I am in agreement with definitions 1, 3 and 5; I do not agree with definitions 2 and 4. According to the same source, omnipotence comes from the Latin Omni Potens: "all power," and literally means "unlimited power." Power is a form for energy. Having an unlimited amount of power does not in any way imply that a being can do anything at all. This is not contained in the individual components of the word. It is more rational that having unlimited power would enable a being to do anyting in accord with its nature and plans. To illustrate, there are 40 watt bulbs, and 60 watt bulbs; but what if there was a light bulb that could facilitate an unlimited amount of electricity? No matter how many watts it can use, it doesn't mean the bulb can now fly, speak, print books, shop, or any such thing outside its nature. The power only allows it to shine more brightly, nothing else. God's unlimited power does not enable him to do anything at all. It's against his nature to lie, hence, he cannot lie regardless of how much power he has.
"Hypothetically, then, could a omnipotent being microwave a burrito so hot that it could not eat it? It seems that the answer must be yes, because the being is better if it can cook the burrito that hot. However, it would also be better if the being could eat all burritos. In this hypothetical situation, omnipotence is impossible, because one cannot both create an uneatable burrito and be able to eat all burritos."
God can do both! God's ability to eat the burrito would not depend on how hot the burritto is, but on the body he choses to take. In the Old Testament God became flesh and ate bread. (Gen 18) God could choose a human body whose tongue is unable to bear the heat of the burrito. At the same time, being able to be in more than one place simultaneously (God is omnipresent, see Psalm 138:7-10; Jer 23:23-24), he could materialize in another body that can eat the burrito; so that God is doing opposite things all at once. In fact, he did a similar thing when he became the man Jesus and was born of Mary, experiencing both the limitations of human nature and the unlimitedness of the divine simultaneously. Since God is a Spirit and does not eat, he would have to materialize in a body outside his natue to accomplish this task. Similar comments could be made about the other tasks my opponent offers regarding creating a stone so heavy he can't lift it and so on.
But I think Pro's argument is flawed because he assumes that perfection means the ability to do anything, and that is not the dictinary's definition of perfection, nor is it the Christian concept, or that of many other religions. Christians teach that Adam was created perfect, but that doesn't mean he could cut himself and not bleed, and eat nails and limestone and not get sick, or that he could even do advanced science. Perfection means being complete, without needing any parts, and having no defect. It's not unusual to hear people say, "that performance was perfect," or "those are the perfect shoes to go with that dress," or "he's a perfect musician." It has nothing to do with being able to do anythig whatsoever. One can be perfect withing the confines of what one is desinged to do, or one's nature in case of God. The Wikipedia source I mentioned above also defined perfection:
"The word "perfection" derives from the Latin "perfectio", and "perfect" — from "perfectus." These expressions in turn come from "perficio" — "to finish", "to bring to an end." "Perfectio(n)" thus literally means "a finishing", and "perfect(us)" — "finished", much as in grammatical parlance ("perfect").
The genealogy of the concept of "perfection" reaches back beyond Latin, to Greek. The Greek equivalent of the Latin "perfectus" was "teleos." The latter Greek expression generally had concrete referents, such as a perfect physician or flutist, a perfect comedy or a perfect social system. Hence the Greek "teleiotes" was not yet so fraught with abstract and superlative associations as would be the Latin "perfectio" or the modern "perfection." To avoid the latter associations, the Greek term has generally been translated as "completeness" rather than "perfection."
The oldest definition of "perfection", fairly precise and distinguishing the shades of the concept, goes back to Aristotle. In Book Delta of the Metaphysics, he distinguishes three meanings of the term, or rather three shades of one meaning, but in any case three different concepts. That is perfect:
1. which is complete — which contains all the requisite parts;
2. which is so good that nothing of the kind could be better;
3. which has attained its purpose."
"The general form is, could God create a limitation upon itself."
God is already limited by his own nature from performing acts that are either morally wrong, foolish, or against his purpose. Pro is incorrect to argue that "perfection requires optimal potency, which has no restrictions." Says who that perfection requires having no restrictions? Where does Pro derive this definition? My sources goes on to show there are other definitions and contexts for the word "perfection," but Pro is holding on to his definition arbitrarily. Why? If he embraces other definitions of "perfection" as well as "omnipotence" would he find it more difficult to prove God cannot exist?
Pro argues that God knowing Obama will send him a card means God interfered with the man's free will. Predestanation is a separate issue from God's existence altogether. I don't suscribe to that belief. God does not predestine everyone to make the decisions they do. Pro is confusing predestination with foreknowledge. God's ability to see the future and know what will happen, does not mean that he causes it to happen in every case. Not even most cases. I know the sun will rise tomorrow, does that mean I forced or caused the sun to rise? No. God know Obama will not send that card, does that mean he forced him not to? No; he simply was aware of the choice the man would make before he made it. Knowing what will happen in no ways makes God the cause of what will happen. So God knowing what choice we will make doesn't take away our free will.
"Let's say I get cunning and ask God whether it will send me a tasty blueberry pie tomorrow. God will then issue a great profound "Yes - free blueberry pies for all!" God must know what it will do, otherwise it would be imperfect. God therefore can no longer change his mind. God therefore is predestined to give me a free blueberry pie, just like Obama is predestined to not give you a bus card."
God always keeps his promises, so if God promises that he will give it, he will, but if his giving it is conditional, he will add an "if" clause, such as "if you obey my voice then I will give it to you." If I had a time machine to go to the future and see what you do, does it mean I predestined you to do it? No. My knowing what choice you will make doesn't deny the fact that you had the choice. I am out fo space but I have much more to say in the next round.
I thank my opponent for opening his case.
My opponent qualifies perfection by nature. A lightbulb able to handle any wattage is not perfect because it has one attribute of perfection. If it had all the attributes of perfection, it would not be a lightbulb. I told you that God is perfect, without qualification. The only nature of God, then, is to be perfect - not to be a lightbulb, or a cookie, or our conception of morality (as was the case with his example of lying). Therefore the qualification is meaningless to the debate.
If God's nature is ultimate power, then it logically follows that any expression of power is in the nature of God.
My opponent asserts my definition is contrary to the dictionary or thiestic teaching. Here he is going against the standard debate convention of the affirmative right of definition, something that should really only be done if my definition was unreasonable, which it blatently wasn't. I never said perfection is omnipotence. I said perfection requires omnipotence. My opponent said perfection is completeness, flawlessness and successful (to paraphrase Aristotle). Even if I was to accept this framework, it would still be imperfect to not be omnipotent. That's because any imperfect entity would be more complete, flawless and successful by being able to do more. Every thing that it cannot do is, after all, limiting its completeness, flawlessness and success. To be truely perfect, it must be impossible to improve on an entity's completeness, flawlessness or successfulness. If that's the case, it must be impossible to improve on God's power. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
I simply took the most relevant definition of perfection and built a case on that. That's no grounds for criticism.
2. God can have his cake and eat it too
This is pretty much my opponent's answer to the omnipotence paradox. God can both create a stronger debate argument than he can refute, and then refute it. And how? God simply materialises in some squirrel's body, creates an argument a rhino cannot refute, and then refutes it as a monkey. Clever, but flawed.
The problem with this case is that it gives God limited self-imposed impotence. However, it would clearly be more optimal to not have limited self-imposed impotence. Therefore God cannot do this because - wait for it - it isn't in its nature! God cannot limit itself to being a squirrel because that would go against the nature of perfection (unless this particular squirrel was perfect and therefore could in fact refute the argument). It would be better for God to not self-limit and therefore a perfect entity would not give up its perfection. But, as the paradox states, by being perfect God is imperfect. My opponent's response isn't enough to break my argument.
3. Arise, Sun!
My opponent is right to point out that my prediction the sun will set (it's rising where I am right now) does not make the sun set. However, this isn't the issue. The sun has never said "huh, I don't feel like rising today." It has no free will, so the argument from free will doesn't apply. The laws of the universe force it to rise.
To be free to make a choice is to not be forced. It requires that both options are possible. However, if God can know that one of the options is not possible, because it does not happen, then in fact the will was not free at all. It was restricted by God's all-knowing nature (omniscience). So future knowlege can establish causation when there is a choice involved.
Say we play a game of chess (or substitute your favorite game with choices involved here). Before the game, I check my crystal ball and notice you're going to checkmate me with the fool's mate (I'm not very good). Now I am free to play any move I want. I don't have to play f3 or g4. But I know that no matter what, I am going to make those moves. How is my freedom to choose NOT constrained in this situation? You're going to win the game, and I'm going to let you. There is nothing I can do to change the future because otherwise my crystal ball would be wrong. But we can't have God making wrong predictions now, can we?
My knowing my choice actually does take away my choice. Being forced to take one alternative - the alternative I know I must take - is not a choice. It is predestination. It is slavery.
Very much looking forward to seeing what else my opponent has in store for us.
"A lightbulb able to handle any wattage is not perfect because it has one attribute of perfection. If it had all the attributes of perfection, it would not be a lightbulb."
Pro has not told us what these "attributes" of perfection are. Would you please name them, Pro? While you are at it, would you please tell us from which dictionary or lexicon you found that definition of perfection? I have already shown you where the dictionary defines perfection as simply being "complete," not lacking any parts, and without defects that stop the thing from oeprating the way it was made to. So a lightbulb which is in sound condition, working perfectly (that is, funtioning properly), is perfect. It will no longer be perfect if it is damaged. Pro wants us to accept his made up defintion of perfection but this ain't going to happen.
"My opponent asserts my definition is contrary to the dictionary or thiestic teaching. Here he is going against the standard debate convention of the affirmative right of definition, something that should really only be done if my definition was unreasonable, which it blatently wasn't."
Excuse me, both Pro and Con in any debate have a right to define the terms they are using, but none of them have the right to invent their own definition of words without carefully explaining (1) why they disagree with the standard definitions used the language as found in dictionaries, and (2) by what process did they come to the definition they are using. Pro isn't telling us anything about the phonetics of the ancient terms from which "perfection" comes, nor its early usage, etc. We have no way of knowing that Pro's definition of the word is correct. I have shown where the word came from, what its original meaning was, the syllables in the orginal Latin, etc. All from a well respected source. I guess the voters will have to make up their own minds.
"I never said perfection is omnipotence. I said perfection requires omnipotence."
What encyclopedia can you point to that defines perfection in such a way that it requires omnipotence? First of all, God himself is a subject of religion; so first I'll go to religion for their say on the word "perfection," and there I find that even Islam and Christianity agree that Adam was made perfect, yet, was not omnipotent. Also, I gave you three definitions from an online encyclopedia that do not include omnipotence. It seems that Pro is ignoring the traditional meanings of perfection in order to make his case. Ignoring evidence doesn't win a debate.
"My opponent said perfection is completeness, flawlessness and successful (to paraphrase Aristotle). Even if I was to accept this framework, it would still be imperfect to not be omnipotent."
In Pro's opinion. I'd like to see him quote one grammarian or linguist who agrees that "perfection" must include "omniptence." Christianity teaches that all saints will be perfect in the new heavens and new earth, but they will not be omnipotent. I've never seen a dictionary define perfection as involving omnipotence. But even if it did, I pointed out other definitions of perfection. God, however, is both perfect and omnipotent, so I don't have a problem here.
"That's because any imperfect entity would be more complete, flawless and successful by being able to do more. Every thing that it cannot do is, after all, limiting its completeness, flawlessness and success."
First, I think there was a typo here, I think you meant "perfect," not "imperfect" in the first sentence here. Second, iI disagree that the inability to do something limits a things completeness. A bicycle cannot fly, does that limit its completeness? No! Is it flawless because it can't fly? No; its only flawed if it isn't doing what is is supposed to be doing. Or if its damaged somehow. Success? So because bicycles can't fly they aren't very successful? This is rediculous. Is your success limited because you can't meow exactly like a cat does? Pro has taken the extreme position that anything at all that a being cannot do makes it less successful and complete. So when Leonardo Da Vinci drew the Mona Lisa, her face was incomplete because her painting couldn't bake a cake nor climb a ladder! Artists know that this is a "perfect" work of art, and this is why they value it so highly.
"To be truely perfect, it must be impossible to improve on an entity's completeness, flawlessness or successfulness. If that's the case, it must be impossible to improve on God's power. That's the very definition of omnipotent."
He again confuses perfection with omnipotence.
"I simply took the most relevant definition of perfection and built a case on that. That's no grounds for criticism."
The definition Pro is using is not even the "primary" definiton; but a secondary one. Most relevant? How does a secondary definition become the most relevant? Mose relevant to suiting Pro's argument, but not to objective reasoning and rational thought.
"2. God can have his cake and eat it too
...God cannot limit itself to being a squirrel because that would go against the nature of perfection (unless this particular squirrel was perfect and therefore could in fact refute the argument). It would be better for God to not self-limit and therefore a perfect entity would not give up its perfection. But, as the paradox states, by being perfect God is imperfect."
Says who it would be better for God not to become a squirrel? What does "better" mean? How do we know when something is better or worse? It all depends on the situation. For example, it is better not to jump into a river when the current is too strong and filled with debris; it is better to jump into a river and swim across than to get caught by that maniac with the cutlass chasing you, after all, he can't swim. If becoming a squirrel suited God's purpose and helps bring it to fulfillment, this makes becoming a squirrel "better" than to not become one. After all, God decides the standards of good and bad, not Pro. A thinf being "better" has nothing to do with its perfection. A perfect killer is no better than a loving but imperfect philantrophist.
3. Arise, Sun!
Pro then argues that the sun has no free will and is thus not a good example; is he one? I know that Pro will reply in the next round. Because I know this means I predestined (forced) him to reply? No. Same goes with God.
"To be free to make a choice is to not be forced. It requires that both options are possible. However, if God can know that one of the options is not possible, because it does not happen, then in fact the will was not free at all."
My knowing that you will reply in the next round does not mean you didn't have a choice; you can choose not to reply. God merely "sees" which choice you will make, and he also saw that you had the choice before you, as well as all the limping you did on both options before deciding! So his knowing what choice you will make doesn't prove you had no options. God sees in the future I offer you an apple, and orange, and a banana, and tell you to pick one. He sees which one you pick. So he saw that you had 3 choices, and when it happens, God knowing which choice you will make doesn't prove that I never offered you those 3 options.
You used a chess game to raise a nice question. If God told us what we will do, would that remove our choice? No, it wouldn't! It only means that God knows us better than we know ourselves. And even when we think we will do A in a given situation, God already knows that even given multiple choices, we will chose B. This is why even while Peter claimed he'd never abandon Jesus, Jesus could tell him he'd do it 3 times. I already know that you will reply to my argument. So have I predestined you to reply? No, my knowing which choice you'll make doesn't force your hand. You can still choose not to reply and forfeit. It's like that with God. I look forward to the next round.
Please accept my sincere apologies about being slow to reply to this round. For some reason I didn't get the usual 'it's your turn to debate' email.
1. The attributes of perfection
My opponent states I have not named any. Actually, if he had read my case carefully he would note that I have already named and justified two: omniscience and omnipotence. My opponent has also mentioned one that I have not argued against - omnipresence. Niether my opponent nor myself needed a dictionary to get these. We worked them logically from the dictionary definition. As I said last round: "If God's nature is ultimate power, then it logically follows that any expression of power is in the nature of God."
However, since my opponent insists I cite a source to show my definition, see here: http://dictionary.reference.com... . As you will note, there are 3 definitions. The first is pretty much 'being perfect.' The second is 'the highest degree of potency, skill or excellence' which is exactly what I'm saying. Highest degree of potency = omnipotent. The third is 'a perfect embodiment.' If you look at what religions believe, it is the same. The Catholic Encyclopedia, to use a Christian example, states omnipotence is a divine attribute of God's perfection (http://www.newadvent.org...). That's true for all the Abrahamic, as well as the vast majority of other religions (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - almost all believe that God's perfection lends itself to omnipotence.
When we say 'wow God, that blueberry pie you just gave me was perfect' or 'Adam was made perfect' or anything like that, we are using this third definition. We are referring to specific aspects of their characters - perfect male human, perfect blueberry pie. However, these characters are still limited because they import attributes (ie human attributes, blueberry attributes) that are not perfect. The question is which definition is better.
Obviously that depends on what we are calling perfect. I defined God in two ways - perfection for eternity. Eternal being does not import attributes on perfection. Since there are no attributes to import, we cannot claim them on God. In round one my opponent did attempt to impart additional attributes on God: his own morality. He never told you, however, why following moral codes, which limit you to not do certain things, makes you more optimal. He never told us why his morality is absolute like perfection. Therefore this contention cannot stand. It seems clear, therefore, that the second definition is logically relevant. Since I am using an earlier definition than my opponent, it is more primary than my opponent's too.
If bicycles could fly, they would be more perfect. If bicycles were flying about, then we would also claim the bicycle is more complete than all those silly land-based models because it can both fly AND go on land. If I could meow like a cat I would indeed be more successful because I could accomplish more. Doing more with less is what makes something a success. If I drew a lady so perfect that she could jump out of the painting, say "thanks for making me" and walk away, then that painting would be better than Da Vinci's - and therefore, more perfect.
And finally - "That's because any imperfect entity would be more complete, flawless and successful by being able to do more" is not a typo. For a perfect entity to be able to do more is completely nonsensical.
2. What do you mean I can't be a squirrel!?
Let me run through this one more time. A squirrel is not perfect. By becoming a squirrel, God must limit its perfection. By limiting its perfection, God becomes imperfect, or flawed, in that it is a squirrel. Therefore a perfect entity can't be a squirrel, or any other limiting creature. Besides, it isn't in the nature of being perfect to not be perfect. Even if Satan (or any other malevolent power) was to say to God: "Change into a squirrel or my diabolical plan to destroy Earth will come to fruition," God couldn't meet the demand. It is forced to do something else, like use its omnipotent power to foil the plot. It would not be in the nature of God to not be perfect, even for an instant. Remember God must be continually equally perfect for eternity.
What does "better" mean? I've told you. More optimal. If philanthropy is better than murder, then a philanthropist would be more perfect than a murderer. First you'd have to establish that philanthropy is better than murder, though (what about cases like the death penalty or war). There are some things, however, that are indubitably better than the alternative, such as being all-powerful. Squirrels (at least the kind I know) do not have this feature and so are not perfect. Dieties do have this feature and are perfect.
3. Dammit, now I'm predestined to reply.
I'd like to know how my opponent actually knows the future. I rather suspect he's making an educated guess based on the fact I wrote a rule against it so wouldn't forfeit. However, what if my laptop breaks down? What if I collapse and am rushed to hospital for three days of intensive surgery? What if I discover Narnia and go exploring for 3 days? In all of these circumstances (and many more), I am not going to respond. My opponent doesn't know. It might not even be my choice, as it is not the choice of the Sun to rise.
God is a bit better than that - God actually knows. While my opponent's 'knowing' doesn't rule out the alternative, God's knowing does because it is impossible for God to be wrong. When it comes to elections, God knows who I'm going to vote for. That means I have to vote for that party. I am still offered the voting paper with the choice on it. However, that does not mean I have the choice. I might think I have the choice, but I don't because in seeing the future, God has determined the future. In that chess game, my crystal ball has determined my choice. I still go through the process of deciding, but really the decision has already been made. I am not free to vote for any party other than the party God knows I will vote for. I am not free to make any moves except those leading to fool's mate. If God had said to me "Lars, you will post your next round" I am not free to do otherwise.
As I mentioned, predestination cannot be true for God. God must be able to make its choices because otherwise it would not be all-powerful to choose. But in having the power to make the choice (as opposed to my inability to choose only what is preordained), it contradicts its ability to see the future.
I'm very much looking forward to reading my opponent's final statements. I appreciate the effort he has put in this debate. Nonetheless I urge voters to vote pro - although, of course, you don't really have a choice!
No dictionary, lexicon or encyclopedia defines "perfection" as "posessing omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence." These are merely attributes God posesses "in addition" to being perfect, not because of it. Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it this way: "per�fec�tion noun \pər-ˈfek-shən
Definition of PERFECTION
1: the quality or state of being perfect: as a : freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness b : maturity c : the quality or state of being saintly." This is the primary definition. Here are some examples of how the word is used according to the dictionary: "Examples of PERFECTION
She has achieved a rare perfection in her playing.
His poetry is pure perfection."
Nothing at all here about omniscience, omnipresence or omnipotence. It is clear that "perfection" is legitimately used wihout carrying these connotations.
"If God's nature is ultimate power, then it logically follows that any expression of power is in the nature of God."
Not true; this is a fallacy. The ultimate power may well be a certain type of power eternally more powerful than any other without posesses all other powers withing itself; Pro assumes that it must include these without proof. If God's power is by nature light, and in him there is no darkness, it cannot also have dark power or Satanic power within it. It is "ultimate" power in the sense that it is better than all others, not because it includes all others wihin itself. To illustrate, the ultimate fighting style may well be able to accomplished the same things as Jujitsu style (attack, defense, etc) and more, without incorporating Jujitsu within it.
"However, since my opponent insists I cite a source to show my definition, see here: http://dictionary.reference.com...... . As you will note, there are 3 definitions. The first is pretty much 'being perfect.' The second is 'the highest degree of potency, skill or excellence' which is exactly what I'm saying. Highest degree of potency = omnipotent."
The highest degree of 3 things; potency, skill, or excellence. Let's look at each one. Potency is defined this way:
(1) Potency (pharmacology), a measure of the activity of a drug in a biological system
Potency (stem cell) is a measure of the differentiation potential of stem cells
In homeopathy, potency is a measure of how dilute a substance is" (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
There are things that no man made drug can do, there is a point at which a drug reaches its maximun activity in the body. There is a point at which a panadol tablet can't do anymore, can't work any faster, nor fight against illness any harded, and this is its point of perfection. No matter how much of the same ingredients one adds it won't work any better at this point; and to add new ingredients and take out some, it would cease to be panadol. So this point is panadol at its perfection. Another drug at its perfection may work better than panadol, but this potency carries no thought of omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence. Pro is reading into the words what they don't mean. The highest degree of potency "for panadol" is not omnipotence, the higest degree of potency depends on the nature of the subject.
Virility, "Virility refers to any of a wide range of masculine characteristics viewed positively. It is not applicable to women or to negative characteristics. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED1) says virile is "marked by strength or force." Virility is commonly associated with vigour, health, sturdiness, and constitution, especially in the fathering of children. In this last sense, virility is to men as fertility is to women." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The most viril man, a man at the perfection of virility, is one who can easily impregnate a woman without a second try and probably give her twins or more. It has nothing to do with omniscience, omnipresence and so on...The perfection of masculine characteristics cannot include omniptence because that isn't a masculine characteristic. These examples illustrat the problem with Pro's argument well enough.
(2) Skil, "A skill is the learned capacity to carry out pre-determined results often with the minimum outlay of time, energy, or both." (http://www.google.com...) There is a minimum amount of time in which a tiler can tile a floor of a certain size all by himself wihout making mistakes, and at this point, using the least time, energy and resources that can possibly be used while still obtaining the required results, we can say this is the "perfect" tiler. He has reached the point beyond which he can go no further without the system breaking down.
(3) "Excellence is a talent or quality which is unusually good and so surpasses ordinary standards. It is also an aimed for standard of performance." (same source as above) I could make similar comments about excellence as skill.
"In round one my opponent did attempt to impart additional attributes on God: his own morality. He never told you, however, why following moral codes, which limit you to not do certain things, makes you more optimal."
One can be perfectly evil, or perfectly good, but these are opposites, and certainly God can't be both. I will leave it up to the voters to decide if its more optimal to be perfectly good, or evil. If "good," then the morality that comes with goodness would prohibit God from doing certain things like lying, or any other things which he deems against his righteous character.
Pro talks about lfying bycicles, meowing like a cat and drawing pictures that can get up and talk, but these things can't happen. There are limits, and once a given thing has reach the limit of what it is able to do it has reached the stage of its perfection. Pro also contradicts himself. He argues that squirrels are not perfect and so God can't become one, because this would limit his perfection, thus making him imperfect; then he argues that to be omnipotent God would have to be able to do anything, even become a squirrel. I have shown omnipotence has do do with the level of one's power, not one's abilities to change form etc.
"I'd like to know how my opponent actually knows the future."
God told me. And he told me that your laptop wouldn't break down, that you wouldn't collapse and be rushed to the hospital for three days of intensive surgery, and that you wouldn't discover Narnia and go exploring for 3 days. So, are you denying that you even had a choice? You still could have chosen not to reply; but I knew what choice you'd make, cause God told me in a dream. And for the record, people have forfeited before, so just because there is that rule doesn't mean you wouldn't!
"God knows who I'm going to vote for. That means I have to vote for that party."
No, it doesn't mean you "have to" vote for that party, it simply means that you will. God knows what he will do, so did God predestine himself? This is the kind of childishness Pro is arguing.
"I might think I have the choice, but I don't because in seeing the future, God has determined the future."
No, he hasn't. Knowing what will happen isn't synonymous with making it that way. In fact, God can change the future. He can see that in the future you plan to do X, and he can intervene in time and make you do Y instead. But he won't tell you that in the future you will do X, because then he would be wrong; he plans to change the future he saw, so he tells you you will do Y. So God may see things in the future without causing them. Further, God told Adam not to eat from the tree knowing that he would. So God didn't make him eat, he didn't even encourage him. And how does knowing what you will do equal making you do it anyway?
I thank my oponent for this lively debate; voters, its up to you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This debate seemed to turn more into an analyzation of bad analogies as opposed to the basic ideas of the resolution. In the end I found Pros arguments to be very difficult to follow because his examples were distracting and were refuted effectively by Con. Thus, he did not satisfy the BoP.
Research this debate: Kurt Gödel