The Instigator
MyDinosaurHands
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

The Concept of Omnipotence Causes Logical Contradictions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
MyDinosaurHands
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,228 times Debate No: 67414
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)

 

MyDinosaurHands

Pro

Resolution:
The concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions.

logical
"of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument."
"characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning."
"(of an action, development, decision, etc.) natural or sensible given the circumstances."

contradiction
"combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another."
"a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present."
"the statement of a position opposite to one already made."

First round will be for acceptance. If a potential opponent has any questions, he/she should ask before accepting. Any blame for confusion that arises which could've been resolved with the asking and answering of a simple question should fall on my opponent.

10,000 character limit, 72 hour response times.
1Credo

Con

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank Pro for creating this debate. My opponent will be responsible for carrying the burden of proof; he must show that there is a logical contradiction with the concept of omnipotence in order to win the debate.

I look forward to a good discussion!
Debate Round No. 1
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

I forgot to define omnipotence in the first round, so I'll do that now.
omnipotence
"the quality of having unlimited power"

To get to my final point, I need to start with the question of the origin of the universe. As of right now, there is no scientific explanation as to how the universe came to be. Yes, there is the Big Bang theory, which has been thoroughly vindicated[1], but even that cannot propose what caused the Bang. As far as the theory goes, a singularity either existed for all eternity until it suddenly expanded, or it popped into existence and immediately began to expand. Either way, it seems impossible.

Proponents of theism would look at that and say, "How could that possibly happen without something causing it? How could it just happen, with no will behind it?"

To which an atheist might respond, "It makes no more sense than your god existing without cause. Something had to make him exist the way he does."

At this point, a theist might say, "God is all-powerful. He willed himself to exist the way he does."

"How could he do that? Deciding something implies that there is a period of time before the decided event takes place. You claim he's existed for all eternity. How could he have decided before the beginning of eternity that he wanted to exist the way he does? And even if he could do that, what willed him to exist in that pre-eternity state where he willed himself to exist in his eternity state? How can something cause itself? Things cannot cause themselves, because to cause something, they need to be in existence, and once they're in existence, something has naturally caused that."

"When you're all powerful, you can transcend logic. Your arguments are invalid."

Now, this conclusion might seem kind of silly, and I'm sure if I allowed my split personalities to keep typing the atheist half would say something to that effect, but it is true. Omnipotence literally denotes unlimited power. If one has unlimited power, one can break the rules of logic.. because they have infinite power.

So an omnipotent being can cause itself to exist, because it can say f*ck logic, because it's all powerful. If this is true, then it logically follows that when one is talking about an all powerful being, the odds of chance do not apply. We think of existence beginning in terms of one thing already in existence bringing another into existence. For instance, there is a chance that you will have a baby with another person (if you're a determinist, you would rather say that you either will or will not have a baby, and that you're just unable to determine that outcome as of yet), because you, as an already existing being, might cause another to come into existence, or you might not. This concept is broken by omnipotence; in omnipotence, the caused thing controls the cause. This would be like the baby controlling his parents having sex and fertilizing the egg that becomes him. It doesn't make sense, but when we're dealing with omnipotence, 'sense' can be transcended by infinite power. This fact creates some serious contradictions of logic, which I'll get into now.

1) Infinite Gods
So as I pointed out in the baby example, in most instances, there is a chance something will or will not happen. But because an omnipotent being can cause itself to exist, there is a 100% chance that an omnipotent being will exist (if you find yourself outright rejecting this statement, take a moment to think it over). Given this, there would be an infinite number of gods; because they fully control the odds of existence due to omnipotence, they would make themselves exist. There is no chance involved. If we accept the conclusion of my split personalities' argument, it is literally impossible that infinite gods could not do this.

This would spawn many problems. If an infinite number of gods is a natural consequence of omnipotence, then it would make sense that there'd be gods opposed to one another. Who wins in a fight? They're both omnipotent. Omnipotence literally dictates power over everything, which would naturally include other gods. Therefore, say, the fire god would have power over the water god. Except, hold on, the water god is omnipotent too, so it has power over all things, therefore, it has complete control over the fire god. This back and forth goes on for infinity. The two gods cannot be equal in power, because being omnipotent means you're all powerful--you have control over all things, including other gods. And yet, the other god is omnipotent too, so it has the same power; having the same powers would denote an equality of powers, but the powers themselves denote supreme power, which denotes having no equal. Wut. Infinite beings each with complete control over each other and yet not is an inherent contradiction of logic.

2) Causing Oneself to Not Exist
If infinite gods can exist, then it would naturally follow that some of those gods would be self-destructive. Assuming they're all powerful, then they would be able to cause themselves to not exist, much in the same way that a god causes himself to exist. This causes a problem. How can something will itself to not exist? Would willing something not dictate than an actor be present to will? If there is a will for nonexistence, this necessitates existence. And yet, we've got ourselves an omnipotent being that has caused itself to not exist, without existing. This is clearly a logic contradiction: something causing itself to not exist without ever having existed to do so.

If my ideas seem stupid or impossible, it's because they're contradictions in logic. As far as I can tell, the concept of omnipotence and all the possibilities it dictates lead to an unending, unanswerable thought exercise.

Thanks for reading.

Source:
[1] http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

1. Rebuttal


"To get to my final point, I need to start with the question of the origin of the universe. As of right now, there is no scientific explanation as to how the universe came to be. Yes, there is the Big Bang theory, which has been thoroughly vindicated[1], but even that cannot propose what caused the Bang. As far as the theory goes, a singularity either existed for all eternity until it suddenly expanded, or it popped into existence and immediately began to expand."

I have no issue with this, it seems accurate enough.

"Proponents of theism would look at that and say, "How could that possibly happen without something causing it? How could it just happen, with no will behind it?"
To which an atheist might respond, "It makes no more sense than your god existing without cause. Something had to make him exist the way he does."
At this point, a theist might say, "God is all-powerful. He willed himself to exist the way he does."

The atheist who responds with "it makes no more sense than your God existing without a cause" would be mislead. It's fairly easy to recognize that while everything that begins to exist has a cause, there's no reason to think that things which do not have beginnings should require a cause. As God (if He exists) did not have a beginning, it follows that He does not require a cause for His existence in the way that a finite universe does.

I also have a bit of an issue with the proposed theistic response, "(God) willed himself to exist in the way He does". I'm not sure that's the case. How could a being will itself into existence? In order to this, the being would have to be nonexistent. But if the being was nonexistent, how could it will anything? It seems to me that it's more likely God exists necessarily. In other words, while our universe is contingent (it could exist or it could not exist), God couldn't not exist. In any case, this isn't the topic of our debate, so I'll move on.

"How could he do that? Deciding something implies that there is a period of time before the decided event takes place. You claim he's existed for all eternity. How could he have decided before the beginning of eternity that he wanted to exist the way he does? And even if he could do that, what willed him to exist in that pre-eternity state where he willed himself to exist in his eternity state? How can something cause itself? Things cannot cause themselves, because to cause something, they need to be in existence, and once they're in existence, something has naturally caused that."

As I stated above, I agree that a being cannot will itself into existence. My opponent and I seem to have parallel thinking on this subject.

"When you're all powerful, you can transcend logic. Your arguments are invalid."
Now, this conclusion might seem kind of silly, and I'm sure if I allowed my split personalities to keep typing the atheist half would say something to that effect, but it is true. Omnipotence literally denotes unlimited power. If one has unlimited power, one can break the rules of logic.. because they have infinite power."

This is a critical mistake. Omnipotence by no means entails the ability to do the logically impossible. For example, an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle, or a married bachelor. This presents no problem to the concept of omnipotence, however, as "square circles" and "married bachelors" aren't really coherent "things". Arguing that a being is not all-powerful if that being cannot create an incoherence (i.e. a square circle) would be like arguing that a being if not all-powerful if that being cannot create "nothing". A square circle is equivalent to nothing. It has no properties. But surely "nothing" cannot be created, as "nothing" is the absence of something. So, an omnipotent being who is unable to create "nothing" (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) remains an omnipotent being.

"So an omnipotent being can cause itself to exist, because it can say f*ck logic, because it's all powerful. If this is true, then it logically follows that when one is talking about an all powerful being, the odds of chance do not apply. We think of existence beginning in terms of one thing already in existence bringing another into existence. For instance, there is a chance that you will have a baby with another person (if you're a determinist, you would rather say that you either will or will not have a baby, and that you're just unable to determine that outcome as of yet), because you, as an already existing being, might cause another to come into existence, or you might not. This concept is broken by omnipotence; in omnipotence, the caused thing controls the cause. This would be like the baby controlling his parents having sex and fertilizing the egg that becomes him. It doesn't make sense, but when we're dealing with omnipotence, 'sense' can be transcended by infinite power. This fact creates some serious contradictions of logic, which I'll get into now."

My opponent and I both agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that an omnipotent being could not cause itself to exist. As for the rest of this statement, I don't really know what to say other than I think it's absurd (my opponent seems to think it is absurd as well). Of course a baby cannot control his parents to have sex and fertilize the egg that becomes him. And of course, in the same way, an omnipotent being cannot will itself into existence. But it clearly does not follow from this that there is some sort of contradiction with the concept of omnipotence.

"1) Infinite Gods"

This entire argument hinges on the idea that an omnipotent being can will itself into existence, which I have repeatedly stated that I don't for a second affirm. It is a straw-man argument and the conclusion has no implications for the concept of omnipotence for reasons that have already been stated.

"2) Causing Oneself to Not Exist"

Here again is a straw-man argument. I don't affirm that an omnipotent being could cause itself to not exist. As I stated earlier, it seems to me that if a God exists, then that God does not exist as a result of His willing Himself into existence, but rather He exists necessarily. If it's the case that God exists, and that this God exists necessarily, then it follows that God could not cause Himself to not exist. Again, am omnipotent being cannot do "nothing". A necessarily-existing being causing itself to cease to exist is just as much of an incoherence as a square circle or a married bachelor is, and so it is not a "thing" at all, but rather it is "nothing". Not being able to do "nothing" is by no means contradictory for an omnipotent being, as "nothing" is not a "thing" that a being can do.

2. Summary

In order to shoulder the burden of proof and win this debate, my opponent must show that there is a logical contradiction with the concept of omnipotence. Thus far, I have not seen any such logical contradiction presented, and as such the burden of proof is not being shouldered by my opponent.

My opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea that an omnipotent being can do things that are logically impossible. As I have explained throughout my response, this is not the case. Things that are logically impossible (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) are not really "things" at all. They are "nothing". There is no contradiction with omnipotence here as it is absurd to think that an omnipotent being should create "nothing".

I urge my opponent and any readers to take a look at this source: http://treesearch.org...

Thank you.


Debate Round No. 2
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

My opponent seems to disagree with me on two points, but only one of these is exclusive to the debate.

GOD'S EXISTENCE
The first point my opponent addresses is in regards to the idea of god that we hold. He says that god does not need a cause to exist, because he has no beginning. While how we conceive god's existence is not necessarily pertinent to a debate about omnipotence in general, I would like to respond to this. In my first round, 'atheist me' is responding to 'theist me', asking how god's existence is any more likely than a singularity popping into existence without cause. Basically my opponent has said that the god option makes more sense because he has had no beginning, whereas the singularity has. However, in both scenarios, both things happen without cause. True, god has been around forever, but why? What caused him to exist forever? He just has? Just like that? If that is the case, why is it less likely that a singularity suddenly exist.. just because? As god exists just because. Anyways, since this debate is about omnipotence in general, this doesn't really matter.

OMNIPOTENCE HAS LIMITS
In my first round of argumentation, I posited that since an omnipotent being is supremely powerful, it can do illogical things such as will itself to exist before it even exists, therein guaranteeing its own existence. I stated that since this was the case, an infinite number of gods could exist, because omnipotence guarantees existence through being able to ensure your own existence before you even exist. I know that when you take this logic too far, it starts becoming incredibly hard to fathom, but that's the point. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes the idea of omnipotence full of contradictions and hard to grasp.

So in response to this idea, my opponent has essentially said that there are things omnipotent beings cannot do. Even before I get to what specific things he said, we should be able to see that this is a faulty statement. Omnipotence by definition guarantees power over everything, meaning there is nothing you cannot do. So when my opponent says that, "Omnipotence by no means entails the ability to do the logically impossible. For example, an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle, or a married bachelor. This presents no problem to the concept of omnipotence, however, as "square circles" and "married bachelors" aren't really coherent "things"," he is ignoring this fact. Yes, square circles don't make sense to us, and as far as we know, there is no such thing as a square circle. However, if I had supreme power, I would have control over logic and reality as we know it, meaning I could contort these things to make square circles possible.

"My opponent and I both agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that an omnipotent being could not cause itself to exist."
No, I know that while it seems ridiculous, under the definition of omnipotence, it is possible, because when you're all powerful, nothing is off the table, leading to all sorts of contradictions in logic.

As I finish up here, I would like to note that my opponent has not criticized the logical progression of ideas I presented in round 2, rather he criticized the idea it was founded upon. This means that if I convince you of my founding idea (that omnipotence has literally no bounds, not even of logic), by default the progression of ideas I have presented, and their conclusion of contradictions of logic, are correct, at least in terms of the debate.

Thank you for reading.
1Credo

Con

1. Rebuttal

"True, god has been around forever, but why? What caused him to exist forever? He just has? Just like that? If that is the case, why is it less likely that a singularity suddenly exist.. just because?"

If we take God (if He exists) to be the greatest conceivable being, then it follows that God must have maximal greatness in all aspects. So, as my opponent asks, why has God been around forever? It seems to me that if God is the greatest conceivable being, He cannot be limited by space and time (both of which He created, if He exists). Thus, He is a transcendent being; He exists outside of space and time. My opponent then asks, "what caused Him to exist forever?" As I stated in the opening round, there is no reason to think that entities which do not have beginnings require a cause. As God (if He exists) has no beginning, no cause is necessary. My opponent then asks, "why is it less likely that a singularity suddenly exist"? Unlike God, a singularity is a point within time and space. Thus, as a singularity is constrained by finite space and finite time, this singularity (like the space and time it is constrained by) must have had a beginning. I hope I have adequately answered your questions. Please note if anything was unclear and I'll gladly attempt to explain it again.

"I posited that since an omnipotent being is supremely powerful, it can do illogical things such as will itself to exist before it even exists, therein guaranteeing its own existence. I stated that since this was the case, an infinite number of gods could exist, because omnipotence guarantees existence through being able to ensure your own existence before you even exist. I know that when you take this logic too far, it starts becoming incredibly hard to fathom, but that's the point. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes the idea of omnipotence full of contradictions and hard to grasp."

I'll have to strongly disagree with this point. I think the assertion that an omnipotent being could perform incoherent acts (such as willing itself into existence) isn't merely "hard to grasp", it's blatantly false. I really don't have a difficult time understanding what is entailed by an entity willing itself into existence. What I have a difficult time understanding is how anyone can assert that an omnipotent being ought to be able to perform such absurd acts. My opponent thinks this is possible, but so far I have seen no justification provided in attempt to warrant this assertion. So, it seems to me that it is a mere opinion. Moreover, the answer to the question of whether or not the concept of omnipotence involves the ability to do what is logically impossible is relatively uncontroversial in academia, as can be seen from the quotes of these prominent atheist philosophers:
http://treesearch.org...

"So in response to this idea, my opponent has essentially said that there are things omnipotent beings cannot do."

No, not quite (I don't want to be misquoted). There are no "things" that an omnipotent being cannot do. Incoherences, such as creating a square circle, a married bachelor, or willing oneself into existence, are not "things" by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, they are "nothings". So, I don't say that there are "things" omnipotent beings cannot do.

"Omnipotence by definition guarantees power over everything, meaning there is nothing you cannot do."

Again, as my opponent's given definition says, there is no "thing" an omnipotent being cannot do. But of course, logical incoherences are not "things", so the inability to actualize logical incoherences is no issue to the concept of omnipotence, even on my opponent's own definition.

"However, if I had supreme power, I would have control over logic and reality as we know it, meaning I could contort these things to make square circles possible."

This statement is trivially false. Incoherences, such as square circles, by definition are not possible. We're not speaking about contingent entities (like unicorns or human beings) which could exist or could not exist, we're speaking of incoherences (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) These are logical contradictions and so are incoherent in the logical sense that there is no possible world in which square circles exist. So, my opponent's assertion that if he had "supreme power" he would be able to "contort these things to make square circles possible" is nonsensical, not to mention unwarranted.

"As I finish up here, I would like to note that my opponent has not criticized the logical progression of ideas I presented in round 2, rather he criticized the idea it was founded upon. This means that if I convince you of my founding idea (that omnipotence has literally no bounds, not even of logic), by default the progression of ideas I have presented, and their conclusion of contradictions of logic, are correct, at least in terms of the debate."

Nice try, but unfortunately that's not going to pass. My opponent argues that if his founding idea (that omnipotence has no bounds) is true, then his conclusions from that founding idea are also true. Even if that were the case, we've seen time and time again in this debate that the founding idea, namely the idea that an omnipotent being ought to be capable of creating square circles, married bachelors and the like, is absolute nonsense. So, as I have shown the basis of my opponent's "progression of ideas" to be false, it follows that whatever "ideas" come from this progression also ought to be considered false.

2. Summary

Recall that my opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. To do so, he must provide justification for thinking his assertion that "the concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions" is true. Until he is able to provide such justification, we can reasonably conclude that the debate resolution affirmed by my opponent is not true.

My opponent hasn't really presented any arguments in this debate for thinking that the concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions. Rather, he has presented assertions without any sort of justification. For example, his entire case has revolved around the idea that an omnipotent entity ought to be capable of actualizing incoherences. In other words, an omnipotent entity (on his view) ought to be able to create square circles and married bachelors, will itself into and out of existence, etc.

As I have shown, this assertion is false. There is no reason to think that an omnipotent entity should be capable of creating square circles, because square circles are not "things". Rather, it is an incoherence. I can support this reasoning with quotes from prominent atheist philosophers on the very question that is being discussed in this debate (see source below).

3. Source

http://treesearch.org...
Debate Round No. 3
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

GOD'S EXISTENCE
I've said it twice already, and my opponent has not disputed it: this little side argument is not pertinent to this debate. Talking about whether god is more likely than another thing is not a necessary question to settle when one is discussing the bounds of omnipotence. One might assume that what the bounds of omnipotence are would indicate the answer to this question, so really all we need to do is determine the bounds of omnipotence.

I hope my opponent does not use the last round to which I cannot respond to suddenly shift his stance on the importance of the answer to this question and try to use that to get the win. I think that would be a bit cheap.

BOUNDS OF OMNIPOTENCE
It would appear we're at the point of repeating our arguments. I say that omnipotence means power over all things, meaning an omnipotent being could be limited to nothing, my opponent says that there are things that are logically contradictory non-things which an omnipotent being cannot do, and I say that an omnipotent being could make those non-things things if it so pleased.

My opponent has sourced some philosophers who agree with him, and that's very nice. But I would just like to remind voters that just because famous philosophers think it, does not necessarily mean it's right. It may seem a daunting proposition to defy these authorities and say they're wrong, but.. they are; and it's not at all hard to see why they are. Omnipotence literally denotes power over everything. This includes the ability to make logically incoherent non-things such as married bachelors real things with its unlimited powers if it so chooses.

Speaking of married bachelors, isn't this a contradiction if you don't accept that an omnipotent being could create these? After all, if you think there is something an omnipotent being could not do, but you're simultaneously calling it omnipotent, that is in itself a contradiction. You're saying, "This being that can do anything cannot do this one thing." This kind of contradiction is generally referred to as the Stone Paradox. In response to this, many will say that omnipotence has limits. They will try to change the definition of omnipotence to avoid creating a contradictory situation. But if they are doing this, then they're no longer really talking about omnipotence, they're talking about some kind of nerfed version.

But anyways, I'm mostly repeating myself at this point. As I conclude, I would like to note that my opponent did condescendingly acknowledge that if omnipotence has no bounds, my progression of ideas is logical. This means that if you agree with me on the fact that omnipotence denotes having no limits whatsoever, in terms of debate my conclusion based upon that idea is valid. Obviously I can't really do anything about the possibility that my opponent might reverse his position on this, except to say that it would be cheap if he did.

Thanks for reading. Credo, thanks for the debate.
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

1. Rebuttal

i. GOD'S EXISTENCE

I am in agreement with my opponent here that God's existence is not pertinent to this debate. I responded to some questions my opponent asked about God's existence in the last round, but as my opponent does not have any further questions on this topic and this topic is not the subject of the debate, I will move on to the next section of my opponent's argument.

II. BOUNDS OF OMNIPOTENCE

Throughout this debate, my opponent has asserted that God must have the ability to actualize incoherences (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) I have disagreed, arguing that the term omnipotence implies the ability to do the logically possible. In support of my position, I noted a source containing quotes of several atheist philosophers who agree that omnipotence does not involve the ability to do what is logically impossible: http://treesearch.org...
Here, my opponent argues, "just because famous philosophers think it, does not necessarily mean it's right". This is absolutely true, but I could just as plausibly (perhaps more plausibly) say "just because my opponent thinks it, does not necessarily mean it's right". I think it's telling that the heavy majority of academic philosophers (including atheists) affirm my position that omnipotence does not involve the ability to do what is logically impossible. It's also telling that my opponent's argument (that an omnipotent entity ought to be able to actualize incoherences) has absolutely no standing in academia. If his argument had the slightest hint of truth to it, then it would be championed by atheist academics everywhere. But, just as academic atheists (and theists) reject the omnipotence paradox as an argument against God, they also reject the entire idea of the concept of omnipotence causing logical contradictions.

My opponent argues that there is some sort of logical contradiction between an entity (1) being omnipotent and (2) being unable to actualize incoherences. But again, as I have argued throughout this debate, I don't see that there actually is a contradiction here. Square circles and married bachelors, as I have stated, are not "things" at all. If it's true that square circles and married bachelors are incoherences (not "things") then there is no issue with an omnipotent entity's being unable to actualize such incoherences. My opponent's argument can be summed as follows: an omnipotent entity ought to be able to create nothing. But surely this is absurd. Nothing cannot be created, or else it would become "something". So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that an omnipotent entity cannot create "nothing" (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) and thus no issue to the concept of omnipotence stands.


2. Conclusion

Recall that my opponent was responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. So, in order to win the debate, my opponent must have provided adequate justification for his assertion that "the concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions". I think it's clear that my opponent has failed to provide such justification. His entire argument throughout this debate has consisted of the unwarranted claim that if an omnipotent entity exists, that entity ought to be able to create nothing (incoherences). As I have pointed out several times, this is absurd. So, I think we can reasonably conclude that the debate resolution has not been shown to be true.

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating and participating in this debate. I'd also like to thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate through. I wish my opponent the best of luck on any future debates!
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
And Hanspete, no, I was not the only one who provided sources. Makes me wonder how closely you read.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Lexus and Hanspete, you really ought to give more substantial RFDs. There needs to be an explanation, not just a statement of your decision.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
I was thinking that with infinite gods you eventually get gods that would conflict with each other. But now that I think about it, infinity does not necessarily imply variety; they could all be virtual clones of one another, for instance.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Don't have much more time in my free period, so I'll shorten this up.

Con attempts to argue, in the second round, that omnipotence itself has limits- though the term "omnipotence" was accepted (not argued) as "having unlimited power." Basically, by term, most of his arguments were nullified. As Blade of Truth pointed out, con did say that God transcends time and space, so it stands to reason that God can transcend logic, also.

Con practically argued that omnipotence is limited, even though he never argued against the definition set directly. That was his fatal flaw. As I said, at least one of pro's arguments supported his BoP. Thus, I give the debate to pro because of the definition of omnipotence and the causing oneself to not exist argument.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
==Term==

The term "omnipotence" is a big part in this debate- and it was thoroughly given by pro in the second round. Since con did not provide another definition in the first round, the definition given by pro stands as the only definition of omnipotence in this debate, as the definition is both accurate and reasonable. The definition is "able to do anything, have the power to do anything" as I understand it. This creates an incredibly easy argument for pro.

==Infinite Gods==

This is quite an interesting argument, as pro claims that infinite Gods must exist if they can will themselves into existence. However, I fail to see how this breaks the rules of logic, as pro failed to show that infinite things can't exist. Instead, he goes with the unproven assumption that the Gods would turn against eachother. If the Gods were to turn against eachother, this argument would be valid, but pro basically relies on an unproven assumption the Gods would turn against eachother.

Frankly, I'm surprised that pro didn't take the easy road and use the Stone Paradox. It would've supported his BoP by definition, but props to pro for wanting to really go deep into this.

==Causing oneself to not exist==

I like this argument, as you can play with it.

"Something causing itself to not exist without ever having existed to do so..." is a clear logical contradiction in my eyes. Solid argument here, I don't really need to discuss this much further. As of now, pro has upheld the BoP via this argument.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Sorry it got cut off...

"... in terms of evidence."
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
RFD -

Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout.

S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout.

Arguments - Pro. This was a REALLY TOUGH debate to judge. What it ultimately boiled down to was the capabilities given under the term "omnipotent". Pro was arguing, basically, that if God is omnipotent, then he has unlimited power. Con, in turn, argues that omnipotence is only applicable to that which is logically possible, and went on to show how incoherent "things" like married bachelor/square circle wouldn't be possible even with an omnipotent God due to it being incoherent. At the end of the day, this debate focused solely on what the term "omnipotent" involves, is it EVERYTHING including logical contradictions, or is it limited to only that which is logically plausible? That's the main problem of this debate, imo. The reason why I believe Pro came out on top was for the reason that if God transcends time and space (according to Con), then it follows that he transcends the bounds of logic as well, since logic is bound by time and space itself. Pro showed this, by pointing out that Con's position is a contradiction in itself since it's claiming that an omnipotent God is in fact limited, which goes completely against the definition given by Pro in Round 2.

Unfortunately, Con relied on an appeal to authority, by showing multiple professors and "experts" who agree with his own reasoning regarding the term "omnipotent" and what it entails. That wasn't a direct attack against the definition given though, and since everything related to religion is conjecture anyways, the "expert" opinion holds little to no weight for me.

Since Pro was able to show the contradiction within Con's position which entailed showing how his view of omnipotence contradicts the given definition, I award arguments to Pro.

Sources - Tie. Both utilized just one source each. Both were high-quality sources, and neither really out-weighed the other in terms o
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
@dsjpk5
I may not have required that my opponent accept the definition of omnipotence I presented, but he never disputed it, despite his numerous opportunities to do so. In fact, my arguments many times centered on what omnipotence was. If my opponent disagreed with my definition, he would have argued against it at some point.

And what straw man arguments are these? If you're referring to the things I said about your god at the start, my opponent and I both agree, these things do not determine the winner of the debate.

I feel like your ridiculously short and vague RFD shows your extreme bias against my position. Your string of religious debates and anti-gay stances you've taken also show your bias. I know people like you are an unfortunate side-effect of the voting system, but you could at least take the time to explain your vote thoroughly.
Posted by BobbyPandaram 2 years ago
BobbyPandaram
Good question mdh - but I think you answered your own question by stating that you are only talking about the concept of omnipotence. The answer lies in the comparison of a singularity and GOD on the basis of omnipotence. The question you would need to clarify is - do you think that the concept of omnipotence can be applied to a singularity? If yes - on what basis?
Posted by BobbyPandaram 2 years ago
BobbyPandaram
By Omnipotent, we mean all powerful which further mean that there is no other power that is greater. So therefore omnipotence can only apply to one being because once a certain level of power is shared by more than one being, omnipotence ceases to exist. Therefore gods cannot be omnipotent but a GOD is. Note that the definition decides that omnipotent can only be singular.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
MyDinosaurHands1CredoTied
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 was the side that had the most developed arguments, so they win that. Both sides were very very good though, really enjoyed reading.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
MyDinosaurHands1CredoTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Unless I am mistaken Pro was the only one that provided sources, Con's arguments I thought were better developed and did well to prove his points.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
MyDinosaurHands1CredoTied
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: RFD in comments (coming soon- working on it). Voting to imply commitment lol
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
MyDinosaurHands1CredoTied
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: RFD in comments. I'd like to see a debate between you two on what the most appropriate definition for "omnipotent" is...
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
MyDinosaurHands1CredoTied
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: Pro's entire argument began with two straw man arguments. Also, he didn't require acceptance of his definition of omnipotence in the first round. These two facts were his undoing. Arguments to Con. Also, since Con was the only one with sources, sources to Con.