The Instigator
Installgentoo
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
adeptdebate
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Omnipotence Paradox Does Not Make the Existence of God Impossible

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: 8/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,394 times Debate No: 60988
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (0)

 

Installgentoo

Pro

I believe the omnipotence paradox (also known as the paradox of the stone) does not create a practical limit on the power of God.

This round is for acceptance only.
adeptdebate

Con

That God cannot create a rock bigger than he can lift, compounds itself when added to the notion that he cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. What could be more practical that to exist?
We must keep in mind that this so-called paradox is only a semantic one. What happens when an irresistible force meets with an immovable object? Irresistible and immovable are absolute descriptive terms, the practical, real existence or example of which cannot be found in reality. In reality there is no such thing as a force that cannot be deflected, nor an object which cannot be moved.
In other words, there are both practical and impractical things that this humanly defined God can and cannot do. As such, he falls short of the fullness of human definition of omnipotence, which is ALL powerful, not just partially powerful. If any being fails to live up to the humanly conceived definition of what constitutes a God, then that being is thereby disqualified from membership in that set or class of beings.
Therefore, the humanly defined "God" as well as his attributes defined by our language base, to which you fondly refer, hoping that his entanglement in paradox, contradiction and self-contradiction does not affect the possibility of his existence, does not and cannot exist.
Debate Round No. 1
Installgentoo

Pro

My opponent has breached one of the rules in the OP in this debate.

He has therefore lost according to DDO rules. Vote pro.
adeptdebate

Con

I believe the whole problem stems from our use of terms, which in this instance create an impossible situation. What is ANY paradox but the appearance of a condition that apears to be impossible to exist in reality. God's power and energy predates rocks and the physical universe. Eventually the growing rock would start creating its own gravity. Thus the notion of God lifting a bigger and yet bigger rock becomes meaningless. The rock could not be made infinitely big. Nor would God be able to lift it because it would not be liftable, It would be its own planet. Therefore, not God, but we ourselves in our limited concepts created a situation that could not truly exist in reality. I concede the debate to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Installgentoo

Pro

Installgentoo forfeited this round.
adeptdebate

Con

adeptdebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Installgentoo

Pro

Installgentoo forfeited this round.
adeptdebate

Con

adeptdebate forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
TheQuestion
I really think now you are just not understanding me arctimes. I can see you are trying to disagree with me but you just end up parroting the exact point I was making. Most of your last comment except for some of your first paragraph and some of your last paragraph is in complete agreement with what I'm saying.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Again, you keep talking about misconceptions about something that have several definitions.
A lot of people have their own beliefs on god, and the paradox works for those who define god as such.
And if you are only talking about the definition of omnipotence, that's unlimited power. The paradox exist because of the use of infinites.

The paradox attacks the existence of a god defined as the author of this debate did.

And no, the paradox is not about defying his power in the sense that the defiance doesn't appear after you join both parts of the proposition.

You see, in your analogy, you first define circle as square. If you were to avoid the actual definition of circle, then it would be fine. It would be weird, but if a shape was a square, using that definition of circle, it would be a circle too.

In the case of omnipotence, we are not using 2 definition, we are using only one.
So your analogy doesn't work.
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
TheQuestion
EXACTLY Arctimes! You will recall that is exactly what I said in my first comment! I said that the inference in the argument was based on a false presupposition (a misconception) of omnipotence, just like in the parallel argument about shapes!

See here:
"For a shape to be a circle it must be a square...
"For God to be omnipotent He must have the power to defy His power...

"But if a shape was a square it wouldn't be a circle...
"But if God's power was defied He wouldn't be omnipotent...

"Therefore, a shape cannot be a circle."
"Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent."

Whether you believe there to be a God or not is besides the point, the point is the concept needs to be correctly understood and that first premise is blatantly false.

And yes, the paradox is about defying His own power. Any rock we find is created by God. God doesn't look around and find a rock that exists independently of himself. So the paradox is about God creating an entity that defies His own power, and that just doesn't make sense.
By the way, paradoxes don't "give" answers to problems, they "give" problems. So the solution is to correct one's understanding so the paradox doesn't arise in the first place. The answer shuns and prevents the paradox.
To be clear, what I accept to be illogical is the false presupposition, that an omnipotent being must be capable of creating an entity that defies His own omnipotence... this is just nonsense and anyone who is reading this implication into the definition is surely looking to create the paradox needlessly.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
@ WileyC1949 lol, it's not about lifting, again, I already addressed this. And I'm just using the definition presented by Pro and accepted by Con for this debate.

The thing is that, there is no such misconception. You are implying that god is real and needs to be understood, I'm not. The paradox is presented to challenge certain definitions.

And no, the paradox is not about defying his own power. Finding a rock is really simple. If you start adding mass to the rock, you will get a rock that's so heavy that you cannot lift.
If what you said was true, then the "paradox" would have an answer for you, NO. He cannot create a rock that is so heavy he cannot lift. But you accept that it's illogical. Sorry but I just don't see how it's me the one that is confused.

And about the last thing you say... that doesn't look like the paradox of the rock.
"For a shape to be a circle, it must be a square. But if a shape was a square, it wouldn't be a circle. Therefore, a shape cannot be a circle."

The first premise is false. That's not a paradox, just a conclusion based of a false premise.
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
TheQuestion
Arctimes,

What is your problem is that this paradox only occurs when one puts a misconception about God in there.

As you say, I am merely throwing in the idea. The definition, as it is worded, does not provide good reason to warrant the misconception. What you should rather say is that the result of the debate depends on how one understands the definition. Of course, if one correctly understands the notion of "God can do anything", then the resolution would not be true, the paradox wouldn't arise in the first place.

Wiley,

Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about God being defined as capable of "anything". On account of the fact that everything that is a thing is defined by Him and His nature. Simple.

Also, I don't see the worth of trying to avoid the paradox by saying that God is not physical... the point of the paradox (however it's expressed, with physical objects or no) is clearly, merely to demonstrate the result of a false conception of omnipotence; that being omnipotent necessitates the power of defying one's own omnipotence.
So, nonetheless, you would be right to argue that (like square circles) this is not in fact a "thing" on account of being a contradiction.
lol, it's virtually the equivalent to saying, "For a shape to be a circle, it must be a square. But if a shape was a square, it wouldn't be a circle. Therefore, a shape cannot be a circle."
Just goes to show how ridiculous this all is doesn't it? XD
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
WileyC1949
"Omnipotence" in regards to God is not defined as the power to to "anything". It is the power to do anything that is in accord with His own nature and is not self-contradictory. God is not a physical being. Therefore doing the physical act of "lifting" is not within His nature. Nor can God cannot create a square circle... that is an example of something that is self-contradictory, not a limitation of the power of God.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Oh no, sure, the married bachelor is not an actual paradox. It was just an analogy to show that the proposition is not illogical until it changes.

And no, the paradox of the rock doesn't start with limits. No one is trying to put limits to god.
The question of a real big rock are not limits. It's just a coincidence that the paradox is related to omnipotence and the fact that we can find a rock that we are not able to lift.

@TheQuestion And again, that's not my problem. I'm using the definition in this debate.
Unlimit power. It's not about creating limits, it's about logical limits that exist and are rational.
" As far as all the words I've seen used for the definition, they're too ambiguous to warrant good reason for the misconception."
LOL WHAT? Then why are you telling this to me? Argument of definition? Dude, this is not a debate. This is just we throwing some ideas in the comment section. Of course, the results of this debate would depend on the definition. If god was defined as doing everything, then the resolution would be true.
I mean, I can do it. God cannot. The paradox happens after you put god in there, not before.
Posted by adeptdebate 3 years ago
adeptdebate
Take cover everyone! God is about to create his first rock that exceeds his powers of levitation!!! The rock is 7000 tons and is being stored between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter along with the asteroids,
Posted by TheQuestion 3 years ago
TheQuestion
Arctimes,
Yes, it's agreed the proposition is false, but we deem it false for different reasons. The proposition is false because its presupposition of omnipotence is wrong.
The inference in the argument is circular to this presupposition; presupposing an illogical understanding of a concept in order to infer that it is an illogical concept.
This paradox only occurs when one assumes an incorrect understanding of the concept of omnipotence. This should lead one to correct this false understanding of the concept, and as it is not AT ALL incumbent to infer that a necessity of being omnipotent is defying one's own omnipotence, it is a simple matter of dropping that useless misconception.
Read this very carefully so you don't miss it this time... The ONLY way the argument can be effective is if one can show that it is necessary to assume the understanding of the concept of omnipotence which leads to the paradox and the fact is it just isn't necessary, rendering this argument completely useless.

In extension, this being said, I disagree that the traditional understanding of the concept needs to be changed. Rather it is simply a case of correcting the misconception that those who get caught out by this paradox have. Hence the uselessness of this paradox because it only arises from a misconception. As far as the classical understanding of omnipotence is concerned, virtually NO theologian has ever thought for a moment that a necessary implication of the attribute of omnipotence entailed contradicting one's own omnipotence. There is hardly a call to change the classical understanding of omnipotence on account of this paradox, but there is a call to correct the misconception which gives rise to it.

Also, if you're making an argument on the way people word the definitions, that is a very weak argument. As far as all the words I've seen used for the definition, they're too ambiguous to warrant good reason for the misconception.
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
WileyC1949
Arc times when you use the example of a "married bachelor" I think you are missing what the word "paradox" actually means. You example would not be a paradox... it would be a misuse of words. A paradox is when BOTH things can be true and yet be false at the same time. The example that someone gave about the "irresistible force meeting an immovable object is not a paradox. If there were such a thing as an immovable object then by definition there could not exist an irresistible force. If there were such a thing as an irresistible force then by definition there could not be an immovable object. Again that is a misuse of words and NOT a paradox.

The same holds true when people try to create what they say is a "paradox" by trying to limit God's omnipotence by use of a the size of a physical object and the performance of the physical act of lifting. By definition a rock is a physical object whose size is limited. Potentially you could argue that a rock could be the size of the universe, but there still would not be a paradox as God created the universe. Likewise, by definition God is not a physical being, so to assign to Him the necessity of performing a physical task in order for Him to exist it totally illogical.
No votes have been placed for this debate.