The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The God Of The Bible Is Omnipotent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,224 times Debate No: 91342
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (0)




*No acceptance round; just start debating.
*Definitions and rules below are agreed to by accepting the debate.

Full Resolution
The god of the bible is omnipotent.

Has 4 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to AFFIRM the resolution that the god of the bible is omnipotent.

Has only 3 sets of 10,000 characters with 3 days to post per argument to NEGATE the resolution that the god of the bible is omnipotent.


god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

- the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

omnipotent - having unlimited power; able to do anything.

unlimited - not limited in terms of number, quantity, or extent.

extent - the particular degree to which something is the case.

Only legit voters using the opt-in voting standards can vote on this debate.
RFDs are what make this site awesome, so bring a good one to the vote.
Death23, Uniferous, and hoppi cannot vote on this debate, which should be understood given the voting requirements.


1. The resolution implies that the God of the Bible does exist

Contention 1: Miracles
If we are to talk of the bible, we must bring up evidence found within the bible. Jesus, who, according to Catholicism and several other religious sects, is God, was responsible for several miracles. In fact, 37 miracles are accounted for in the bible ( This means that God is capable of manipulating the environment that people are capable of seeing and understanding, and, therefore, is omnipotent in the only sphere of understanding that humans are privy to. As such, God is, for all intents and purposes of human experience, which is the only experience we as humans can talk of, omnipotent.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Pro for accepting the debate, its rules, and definitions.
The resolution is simply whether or not the creator of the universe has all powers.
If the creator of the universe *didn't* create the universe, then that's a power he lacks.
This lack would also negate his existence given the agreed definitions.


Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.

See for yourself:

creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.

process - a SERIES of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.

series - a number of events of a related kind coming one AFTER another.

after - in the TIME following an event.

Therefore, creation is necessarily a temporal process that uses events, one after another, to bring something into existence.
This process, creator existing-->creating-->created product, is unavoidably time-based.
The idea that a creator precedes its created product is therefore also time-based.

How can there be precedence (before) without time?
Therefore, without time and the passage thereof, the process of creation cannot occur and a creator cannot precede its creation.


While you may get some differing physicist's opinions on whether or not space and time are the same thing, there is no dispute that they are interdependent.
In fact, that's why they put space and time on a continuum, spacetime.

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."

Space is also currently expanding at a fixed rate proportional to the distance between the galaxies, called the Hubble Constant.

What's great is that we can go back in time by using the inverse of the Hubble Constant and see how long the universe has been expanding.
Doing this indicates that space, and therefore time, were at one point very, very small, and as recent anisotropy probes have detected, there was a point when there was no space, therefore no time.

This also means that our universe's origin is also the origin of spacetime.
When there was no universe, there was no space, therefore no time.

Spacetime and the passage thereof originated at the big bang, the origin of our universe.
Therefore, creation, which necessarily is based on spacetime, cannot occur without the universe existing first.
It'd be like saying that a creator used time to originate time...the temporal inadequacies should be obvious.

Therefore, there is no creator of a universe that wasn't created AND the power to create our universe is not possessed by god, leaving him LIMITED in the number of powers he has.

*Omnipotence Problem 1*

I've tried to explain this concept to many a theist and they can't quite seem to understand it.
The set of ALL POWERS, which omnipotence necessarily entails, must include powers that exist in opposition to each other.

This is just one example, but an omnipotent entity MUST have the power to move anything.
This entity also MUST have the power to resist (be immovable to) anything.

But I'm not going to leave the omnipotence paradox right there, like most critics of omnipotence do.
Instead, I'm going to point out that the set of ALL POWERS must also include the power to infinitely remain able to move anything and the power to infinitely remain immovable to anything.

So, omnipotence necessarily includes:
1. The power to move anything.
2. The power to resist (not be moved by) anything.
3. The power to infinitely remain able to move anything.
4. The power to infinitely remain able to resist anything.

If god has the power to move anything, #1, he therefore can move himself.
This would violate #2, because he can resist anything, including himself.

If god has the power to resist anything, #2, he therefore can resist himself.
This would violate #1, because he can move anything, including himself.

So many theists say, "well he can temporarily relinquish his ability to move anything and allow himself to be resisted."
This however, would then violate #3, because he supposedly has the power to infinitely remain able to move anything, and this temporary dip in power negates the power to infinitely remain all powerful.

So, Pro, can god move anything and infinitely remain immovable?
Pro, can god resist anything and infinitely remain irresistible?

*Omnipotence Problem 2*

Here is a list of things that the god of the bible cannot do, and certainly Pro will agree.

1. God cannot infinitely gain power.
Because god supposedly has all of the power, he therefore cannot gain power or create more power to gain.
This obviously cannot be done infinitely, because god can't even gain any power, let alone an infinite amount.

2. God cannot physically demonstrate his existence without negating his existence.
Being incomprehensible, due to infinite complexity, is yet another power in the set of ALL POWERS.
For god to demonstrate his existence physically would mean for him to be comprehended in some fashion and this would negate his infinite complexity and his power to infinitely remain incomprehensible.

3. God cannot act against his original intentions and choose freely.
Being that god has the power to infinitely be correct, his intentions and subsequent actions are always correct.
He therefore cannot go against his original intentions and act freely, instead he's LIMITED by his original intentions.

4. God cannot fly.
Being that god is superior to both gravity and air resistance, god cannot be susceptible to either force.
Well, that's what the power to fly is.
To admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air.

5. God cannot encounter or solve difficult problems.
Nothing is difficult for god, so god cannot solve difficult problems, in fact, god cannot solve problems, because he would never be able to encounter a problem.
Encountering a problem would admit a lack of knowing how to solve something.
God cannot encounter or solve problems because of this.


The universe wasn't created, because creation and precedence are both temporal (time-based), and without the universe, there is no spacetime or the passage thereof, therefore there was no creation or creator of the universe.
This lack of a power negates god's existence and omnipotence given the definitions of this debate.

Omnipotence is inherently contradictory, because in the set of ALL POWERS exists a near infinite amount of contradictory powers that necessarily exist in opposition to each other.
Having all of these powers and remaining infinitely powerful do not jive, so one must reject the claim of omnipotence, god of the bible or otherwise.



Grovenshar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not surprised.


Grovenshar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Well, Pro was most certainly not able to overcome the problems of omnipotence; extend.
One must vote Con for this reason.


Sorry for my late response, I was having numerous tech issues. I'm sorry that I have circumvented the response possibility, however, this is the best I can do.


The argument my opponent has put forward is predicated on the assumption that the being that created the universe is bound to the rule of time. I would put forward that there is no reason for this to be true. If this being created the universe, it is clearly in control of the rules in place, one of which is time. If the creator is in control of time, why is it bound by time? We may not be able to comprehend what life without time may be, but the creator is unbound by such restrictions seeing as he created them in the first place.


Again, the point I would like to bring up from the creation argument is that God is not bound by the laws of our universe. As such, saying that God must have created everything through the big bang, as opposed to him having created the galaxies at distances from each other and allowing for expansion, is absolutely wrong. My opponent takes the big bang as the origin of our universe, when, if God does in fact exist, would not be the case. Let's look to Genesis 1:1-2 (NKJV) (

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

Clearly, the Earth is a distinct object from the very beginning. As such, the whole concept of the big bang doesn't apply to biblical creation. My opponent's arguments have no actual bearing on the debate at hand.

Another problem I have is that he linked to a NASA web page saying "What's great is that we can go back in time by using the inverse of the Hubble Constant and see how long the universe has been expanding. Doing this indicates that space, and therefore time, were at one point very, very small, and as recent anisotropy probes have detected, there was a point when there was no space, therefore no time." However, when inspecting the link, I found no mention of the hubble constant, spacetime, or the lack of spacetime. My opponent has engaged in intellectual dishonesty or has accidentally linked the wrong thing.

Also, when my opponent says "This also means that our universe's origin is also the origin of spacetime. When there was no universe, there was no space, therefore no time.", he misunderstands the big bang. The universe has always existed. If there were a time when there were no universe, given that, as my opponent has mentioned, causes are reliant on time and preexisting things, we must not take the concept of no universe seriously. Something (the universe), can't come from nothing (no universe). Also, my opponent says that causes are reliant on time, and then proceeds to say the universe was caused and time wasn't a factor in it's creation. My opponent has many contradictory statements within his first two arguments and, because of them, should lose the debate.

Omnipotence Problem 1:

My answer is that is capable of all 4 of these things, even if God applies them to himself. God, if he is omnipotent, is infinite. As such, the rules that govern infinite beings apply to God. So what are these rules?

Well, imagine a universe infinite in size and full of infinite matter. Now imagine that a black hole has formed in it. This black hole will infinitely grow in size, infinitely consume matter until it has become infinite in size. However, the black hole will never encompass all of the matter. In fact, there will be infinite sections of the infinite universe that are never touched. This begs the question, did the black hole really happen? The answer is yes and no. It has an infinite impact and infinite nonexistence (compared to the rest of the universe). The black hole did and didn't happen.

Applying these rules back to God, God is infinite, so he can both be moved and resist being moved. The seeming paradox here doesn't really apply, though I appreciate the uniqueness of the argument presented.

Omnipotence Problem 2:

1. Why not? Infinite beings can do infinitely strange things. Normal rules don't apply to them, so why should this limit be placed on them?

2. He is incomprehensible in his full form, so he merely demonstrates a dumbed down version, which, as my opponent has demonstrated with his arguments, people have yet to fully comprehend. This dumbed down version can, however, be comprehended because it's not actually God. This therefore means that there is no negation here.

3. Um, no. If what God does is always correct, then he is unlimited, because he can do anything, and it suddenly becomes correct. Although this wouldn't happen, because God wouldn't contradict himself. To human eyes, he may appear to do so on occasion, however, all of these occasions can be explained as, in fact, unique occasions without "correctness precedent", if you will.

4. Again, the rules of this world don't apply to God, as my opponent admits here (which really makes me wonder why he tried to apply time to God). God can fly if he wants. He can apply rules to himself if he wants and remove them afterwards. It's not as if he is incapable of submitting part of his infinite self to these rules (see also, Jesus).

5. God can solve problems. If he can't encounter problems, wouldn't that be a problem for God? Wouldn't that be a difficult problem? Wouldn't that be something that he could, in fact, solve?

Other Comments:

My opponent has failed to address my original argument. His silence on the matter, given that he had plenty of time to argue it, means that he doesn't have an argument to present. Or, in my opponents style, Con was most certainly unable to overcome the proofs of omnipotence. One must vote Pro for this reason.

Voting Issues:

1. The reality based arguments presented by Con are contradictory and uninformed. They are based on evidence that isn't what my opponent claims to be, nor are they based on a solid scientific understanding of the big bang, which my opponent proposes as the cause of the universe besides God.

2. I will stress again that my opponent lied to us during the debate. He presented evidence that was not relevant to the debate. Intentional or no, this blunder is strong reason to vote Pro.

3. My opponent's arguments (specifically his argument on causality and his argument based on flight) are directly contradictory. One can't be true if the other exists (my opponent, not being God, can't duck out of this one).

4. My opponent has failed to argue my original argument explicitly, and he hasn't shown any strains of an implicit argument, therefore he has conceded the point.

For the above issues and my argumentation, Con should lose today's debate and Pro should win. I strongly urge a look at voting issue 2 as one of the main reasons for your decision.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
No votes, that's a shame...add to my tied debates bloat
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Yeah, how did you defeat the forfeit glitch?
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Ok, mistakes were made, so move on.
You still didn't really respond to saying that "the universe always existed" by saying in the context of the big bang...but whatevs, we'll let the voters decide.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
Wait - how was the forfeit glitch circumvented? Or did you just type "forfeited this round" in red letters?
Posted by Grovenshar 1 year ago
In the context of the big bang, no, which is what I was discussing.

Also, I didn't feel the need to check up on every source that was citing a fact I already knew. However, the link I did check was the link that discussed how the Hubble constant, when going back in time, mathematically placed everything starting from one location. So no, it wasn't intellectually dishonest of me, nor was your accident. I concede that. As for the lameness of my "intellectual dishonesty" that you have now slandered me with without excepting that I may have made mistakes, unlike me, who accepted that mistakes were something you may have made, I'm sorry.

Also, I'm sorry about the forfeited rounds, but sometimes life happens and an online debate doesn't become my largest priority nor a pragmatic capability.

I accept that you made a mistake, and I left that possibility open. I'm sorry what I said offended you, and I'll try to avoid such slanderous terms in the future. Let's end this like mature individuals rather than resorting to name calling.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
You realize that you conceded that the universe wasn't created, right?
Directly from your last round, sir, you said:
"he misunderstands the big bang. The universe has always existed."

If the universe has always existed, how can you say it was created?
Please respond to this.
Also, I linked to NASA for the anisotropy probe proof, not the hubble proof...ironically this was intellectually dishonest of you.
My hubble proof was the link to the article titled "DETERMINATION OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT WITH THE HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE AND WIDE FIELD CAMERA" which you conveniently ignored.
Pretty lame move after forfeiting two rounds, don't you think?
Posted by Grovenshar 1 year ago
Also, canis, comparing my last round argument to my opponent's second round argument, my argument was 6,905 characters, which contrasts with my opponent's argument length of 7,065 characters. Therefore, the length of talk is not dictated by position.
Posted by Grovenshar 1 year ago
Nope, unfortunately. Also, sorry for my late post. My computer really wasn't functioning properly.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Maybe the glitch is over?
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
Wait, how'd you get this debate to get updated?
No votes have been placed for this debate.