The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Paradox Of The Stone Doesn't Disprove God's Omnipotence

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 4 votes the winner is...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 43727
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

First round is acceptance.
theta_pinch

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thanks for accepting! I hope we make the most of our rounds =D

Can God create a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it?


This question is often posed to try to show that the concept of an omnipotent God is illogical.

1. Can't defy logic

Let's assume that God posseses omnipotence where he can do anything that doesn't defy logic.

The answer is “no,” because creating a stone so heavy that an all-powerful being cannot lift is a logical absurdity. This doesn't concede that God isn't omnipotent, as the defintion of omnipotence excludes the ability to defy logic.

2. Can defy logic

God can do anything, even defy logic.

Making a rock so heavy he can't lift it is a logical absurdity... but God can defy logic! God can make a rock so heavy he can't lift it, yet remain omnipotent because he can defy logic!

Even under this definition, the Paradox of the Stone fails to prove that omnipotence is illogical.

Remember, because God can defy logic doesn't mean that his ability itself is illogical. I've proven my case.
theta_pinch

Con

All pro has done in his above arguments is say that omnipotence is not illogical without providing any evidence to back it up.
CONCLUSION
Pro; who has burden of proof, has not been able to prove omnipotence is not paradoxical.

Note: I would have made a more comprehensive argument but the character limit was 1000 LETTERS!
Debate Round No. 2
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
out of curiosity, why did you choose a limit of 1000 words?
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
I would have been arguing logical fallacies I found.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Out of curiosity, what would you have argued?
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
The problem was that I couldn't quote anything you wrote which makes it much harder.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
theta_pinch, I would have clarified that there was only 1000 letters in the first round, but there was only 1000 letters so I didn't have enough room to clarify =D

But on a serious note, I firmly believe that any argument can be refuted using the same amount of characters it took to raise.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I definitely understand the frustration. My first debate here was like that. It's very annoying to argue a complex point with spacing that limited. I just made a mental note after that to always make sure I know the word count of a debate before accepting it.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
I would've provided an argument but I was only allowed to type 1000 characters; originally I had a very comprehensive argument but every time I tried to submit it said I was several hundred characters above the limit. This debate was RIGGED!
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
@GarretKadeDupre

Next time you make a debate please allow more words in the rounds. I could literally have made a more comprehensive argument in the comments section where the character limit is far in excess of 1000 letters.

Or was that your plan all along?
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
I thought an Omnipotent being is one that impregnated every girl he met. Now that's potent.
The theistic concept of Omnipotence is the reasoning behind much of the garbage produced by apologists such as Anselm and Aquinas. It's an Irrational concept and only produces Irrational rubbish from apologists trying to apply it in their arguments.
So it would be interesting, but yes, it is purely a subjective concept that can only be argued by using Semantics.
Reality has no place in this debate.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Technically: A stone is mostly empty space, it is not truly solid.
The space between the atoms and electrons account for most of the stone's mass.
A Black Hole is infinitely more dense and should be a better object for the argument.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
GarretKadeDupretheta_pinchTied
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 only one to actually provide arguments in support of any given side. Con essentially just argued that Pro hadn't done what he'd just done. He didn't do a thorough job of it, but his arguments are sound, and given the 1000 character limit, he did quite a good job. Con needs to do more than just complain about the character limit.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
GarretKadeDupretheta_pinchTied
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 proved that the paradox of the stone doesn't disprove God's existence, whether God has the ability to defy logic or not. Con just responded to this by saying that pro hadn't proved that omnipotence wasn't paradoxical.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
GarretKadeDupretheta_pinchTied
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 made more convincing arguments mainly because he at least made an argument. I didn't agree with con's assessment that pro had the burden of proof here. I felt like the burden of proof was shared in this situation.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
GarretKadeDupretheta_pinchTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed that whether you define omnipotence as including the ability to defy logic or not, the paradox of the stone still doesn't disprove God's omnipotence either way. Con merely asserted that Pro had not proven his case, but he failed to point out any flaws in Pro's reasoning. So arguments to Pro.