The Instigator
Cogito-ergo-sum
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The God of Christianity does not exist due to logical fallacies.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
vardas0antras
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,384 times Debate No: 14331
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

Cogito-ergo-sum

Pro

I am of the affirmative that the God of Christianity does not exist due to logical fallacies regarding Omni-type statements pertaining to God.

Welcome to my opponent, hope this will be good.

~~~~~~~~~
Definitions.
~~~~~~~~~
Omniscience
The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge.
Bible verses - [1] [2]

Omnipotence
The state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power.
Bible verses [3] [4]

Omnipresence
The state of being everywhere at once.
Bible verses [5] [6]

~~~~~~~~~~
Arguments
~~~~~~~~~~

Below I will put forth my points to show that the three contentions mentioned above are of a reductio ad absurdum nature.

Omniscience can not exist due to the statistical certainty that having infinite knowledge of all things would include an unanswerable question.

Omnipotence can not exist due to the paradox of the immovable stone. Since people state this point may be stale so I will use Nigel Warburton's analogy of 'Could God create a breakfast so large even God could not eat it?'. This is a +1 game in which God fails in one of three ways
God can make a rock heavy enough/breakfast large enough God can not lift the stone/ eat it - Fail
God can lift any weight of rock/ eat any sized meal then God is not powerful enough to create a heavier rock/ larger breakfast - Fail
It is an impasse - Fail, God is not all powerful.

Omnipresence can not exist due to the inability to occupy all places. How could God differentiate from God's self? It translates to mean that God is all, ubiquitous matter that there is - God created God's self? Absolute Location is a fallacy [7]


~~~~~~~~~~
Final remarks
~~~~~~~~~~

I welcome my opponents aver
vardas0antras

Con

::Definition of omniscience::
My opponent provides this definition:
"Omniscience:The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge."
However, the more scholarly definition would be:
"The ability to know anything logically possible."
The same principle of logic applies to all my definitions.

::Arguments::
Omniscience:
Can God know something he can't know ? Now "infinite knowledge" means that God can know absolutely everything. Meaning that he can know what he can't know - this is a logical contradiction. Under my opponents definition God does not obey the laws of logic hence yes he can, does it make any sense ? No but according to my opponents definition of omniscience, God does not have to make sense. According to my opponent God can be omniscient and not omniscient at the exact same time since God does not follow logic.

Under my definition, there are no "unanswerable questions".

Omnipotence:
Same mistake. Under my opponents definition God can do what he can't do "The state of being omnipotent; having unlimited power.". He can be omnipotent without being omnipotent. There's no way of disproving a God that makes absolutely no sense by definition.

Under my definition we have no problem: God can do anything logically possible. Hence, God cannot make a stone so big that he can't lift it. However, due to my definition God is still omnipotent..

Omnipresence:
Same mistake (character limit).

Due to the way my opponent defines the words, God can be contradictory e.g. God can be everywhere at once. However, if God can be everywhere then you can't argue that God can't be there because it makes no sense because under your definition we can have a God that doesn't follow logic. I think he does but under your definition he doesn't have to.
Debate Round No. 1
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
@ The_Insider & @ Zabcheckmate

Well if the human race is just made up of narrow minded fools, why do you care? Or, to put it differently, how do you differentiate between those who are narrow minded and people such as yourselves with such ever expanding mind sets encompassing far more than anyone else?

You talk nonsense by saying that the situation is truly unknown to us and we unaware of these three infinite values and how they work, though we have the definitions of the words and by confirming God as being right, God gave us language and the understanding of the terms; your points are self conflicting.

But hey, if anything goes Live it up!
Posted by Zabcheckmate 6 years ago
Zabcheckmate
I'm with Insider ... It seems the answer to this one is easy. Each prong of the 3 O's is self-excusing.
- A truly omnipotent god doesn't even have to follow the dictates of logic (i.e. he can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it... AND THEN HE CAN LIFT IT!)
- An omniscient god knows every kind of question, including non-answerable ones... and he also knows how to answer them.
- Omnipresence doesn't even admit of a logical fallacy. I'm not sure what Cogito is even trying to suggest with that point. Why can't something be everywhere at once? He seems to suggest it is because 'God wouldn't be able to differentiate between different things', but that is a useless claim considering that this god is omnipotent/omniscient.
Posted by The_Insider 6 years ago
The_Insider
Honestly if your Omnipotent you don't have to follow our narrow minds and our train of thoughts. Some people think so narrowly.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Ehh whatever
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
"Omniscience:The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge."
However, the more scholarly definition would be:
"The ability to know anything logically possible."
~~~~~~~~

To know anything logically possible insists that not only would God know every answer to every question but by definition (Further Merriam Webster below) would have to no every type of question and in this aspect there are at least two - Answerable and Non Answerable. God would know of an unanswerable question as it is guarenteed in the realm of infinite one would be an eventuality.

Definition
om·ni·scient adj \-shəntDefinition of OMNISCIENT
1: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2: possessed of universal or complete knowledge
— om·ni·scient·ly adverb
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
Apologies for losing my temper, the character limit was not what I set it to and it cut my post off.
Here are the sources.

[1] Cor, 2:10
[2] Psalm 139
[3] Ephesians 1:19-21
[4] Mark 14:62
[5] Deuteronomy 4:39
[6] Jeremiah 23: 23-24
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"He can create something he cannot lift, but once he does, he loses omnipotence."
Did you read the debate ?
Posted by Charr 6 years ago
Charr
The rock argument is a logical fallacy.

God is omnipotent UNTIL he creates a rock he cannot lift. He can create something he cannot lift, but once he does, he loses omnipotence.
Posted by Cogito-ergo-sum 6 years ago
Cogito-ergo-sum
I fucked this up completely. You win.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Zabcheckmate 6 years ago
Zabcheckmate
Cogito-ergo-sumvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
Cogito-ergo-sumvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Dyllon 6 years ago
Dyllon
Cogito-ergo-sumvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
Cogito-ergo-sumvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by theorusso 6 years ago
theorusso
Cogito-ergo-sumvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
Cogito-ergo-sumvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Cogito-ergo-sumvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03