The Instigator
broski911
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FREEDO
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Traditional God Can Exist

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,916 times Debate No: 12356
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

broski911

Pro

This will be a debate about if the traditional Omnipotent God could exist. this is not a question of the existence of God because all too often those arguments become highly opinionated screaming matches, Therefore this is a debate of whether or not the base ideas of God conflict with each other. This is an argument of whether an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, ect. Being could possibly exist without creating any contradictions Within itself. I will be Pro, meaning i am for the theoretical existence of a God. The terms of the debate are:
any arguments on the basic idea of a God will be allowed in rounds 1, 2, 3 but in round 4 no new arguments may be stated.
I will allow my opponent to Begin the Debate by Posting his first argument against the existence of a God in Round 1.
FREEDO

Con

I'll start without further hesitation.

===DEFINITIONS===

Omnipotent:

ADJECTIVE:

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.

NOUN:

One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
Omnipotent God. Used with the.
[1]
_________

Omniscient:

ADJECTIVE:

Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.
NOUN:

One having total knowledge.
Omniscient God. Used with the.
[2]
_________

Perfect:

ADJECTIVE:

Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation: She was the perfect actress for the part.
Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type: a perfect circle; a perfect gentleman.
Accurately reproducing an original: a perfect copy of the painting.
Complete; thorough; utter: a perfect fool.
Pure; undiluted; unmixed: perfect red.
Excellent and delightful in all respects: a perfect day.
Botany Having both stamens and pistils in the same flower; monoclinous.
Grammar Of, relating to, or constituting a verb form expressing action completed prior to a fixed point of reference in time.
Music Designating the three basic intervals of the octave, fourth, and fifth.

NOUN:

Grammar The perfect tense.
A verb or verb form in the perfect tense.
TRANSITIVE VERB:
per�fect�ed, per�fect�ing, per�fects (pr-fkt)
To bring to perfection or completion.
{Paraphrase: Absolute best. Unable to become any better}
[3]
_________

Righteous:

ADJECTIVE:

Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
Morally justifiable: righteous anger.

NOUN:

Righteous people considered as a group.
{Paraphrase for definition of ALL-Righteous: Absolutely righteous, moral. Perfectly righteous, moral}
[4]

God:

NOUN:

A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.
[5]

===ARGUMENTS===

Impossibility of Omnipotence:

Being all-powerful causes clear contradictions.
Stone Paradox: if God is all-powerful it means he can create a stone which he cannot lift. To not be able to lift it means he is not all-powerful but to not be able to make it also means he is not all-powerful.
Omnipotence is impossible.
Omnipotence is an essential part of the defining nature of God.
God is impossible.

Impossibility of a perfect God:

Perfection means it cannot get better.
Also, it would be nonsensical for a perfect God to do something which is pointless.
If God was perfect it would mean he would never create anything because perfection is already obtained; things could only become worse.
Creating anything would be pointless.
Since things are here, it is impossible that there is a perfect God.

Impossibility of a both all-righteous and all-powerful God:

Suffering exists in this world. All that is pleasure is good and all that is displeasure is bad. If a God was all-righteous, it would be in his will to stop that which is bad. If God is all-powerful he would have complete power to act on his will. Since suffering exists in this world, an all-righteous and all-powerful God is impossible.

Impossibility of a both all-righteous and all-knowing God:

To say that God created all is to say that he sent all things into motion to what they are now. To say that he is all-knowing is to say he knew what effects it would have. There is currently suffering in the world. God would have knowingly created suffering which means he cannot be all-righteous.

===EPIC QUOTE===

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
~ Epicurus [341–270 B.C.]

===SOURCES===
1. http://education.yahoo.com...
2. http://education.yahoo.com...
3. http://education.yahoo.com...
4. http://education.yahoo.com...
5. http://education.yahoo.com...
Debate Round No. 1
broski911

Pro

I thank My opponent for posting his response in a timely and coherent way.
Now without any further Delay
-----
"Being all-powerful causes clear contradictions.
Stone Paradox: if God is all-powerful it means he can create a stone which he cannot lift. To not be able to lift it means he is not all-powerful but to not be able to make it also means he is not all-powerful.
Omnipotence is impossible.
Omnipotence is an essential part of the defining nature of God."
God is impossible.
---------
On the subject of the Stone Paradox, This very thought Has occurred to Me Many times. If God is Omnipotent than he could indeed make a stone he could not lift, or in other words Omnipotence Could be temporary. If you are omnipotent than you would be able to remove your powers. But just because you can do everything doesn't bean you have to. This so called "paradox" does not necessarily mean that Omnipotence is impossible, but that in any fallible vessel, it would be temporary. Just because something is temporary does not discount the possibility of something, for example Human consciousness is said to end at Death, But this does mean that there is no such thing as a Conscious being. When you account in the other aspects of God (i.e. omniscience, and perfection) it would never be removed from the him Because God could never remove his omnipotence unknowingly, and most likely God would not choose to remove omnipotence from himself because ,him being Perfect, it would not have any advantage. So Omniscience is possible and is not a contradiction in and of itself.

-----
"Impossibility of a perfect God:

Perfection means it cannot get better.
Also, it would be nonsensical for a perfect God to do something which is pointless.
If God was perfect it would mean he would never create anything because perfection is already obtained; things could only become worse.
Creating anything would be pointless.
Since things are here, it is impossible that there is a perfect God."
---------

On the subject of Perfection, We must accept that we can never understand a perfect consciousness, being ourselves imperfect. It is baseless to just say that creating anything would be pointless, as we could not comprehend a perfect God but this does not mean we cannot theorize on the purpose of our existing. For example, While God, being Perfect, can never be anything but perfect, Humans have a choice of how to behave, being created with free will. Some think that Humans exist for the purpose of creating another kind of goodness into the world. There are HUGE amounts of ideas on why we are here, but i don't need to list them all here, a quick Google search would give you countless more examples. So in conclusion, Perfection is perfectly compatible with itself, and all other aspects of God.

-----
"Suffering exists in this world. All that is pleasure is good and all that is displeasure is bad. If a God was all-righteous, it would be in his will to stop that which is bad. If God is all-powerful he would have complete power to act on his will. Since suffering exists in this world, an all-righteous and all-powerful God is impossible."
"To say that God created all is to say that he sent all things into motion to what they are now. To say that he is all-knowing is to say he knew what effects it would have. There is currently suffering in the world. "
-------------

While some think suffering is some form of Punishment on Humans, something evil God allows to run rampant on Earth, or just a pointless cruelty, It is just a necessity of Free will. Having free will means you have the choice to make a bad decision instead of a good one. As Humans have the free will to make choices there will be bad ones.
One could, then, Say that free will is an evil thing to give, because of it's inherent potential to be misused, but that would be false. For true Goodness to exist, there always must be a choice between good and evil. Take, for example, a puppet show. if a puppet gives a present to another, is the puppet Good or Righteous? No, it is only an empty shell going through Motions. If there are no choices There can clearly be no goodness, only some bizarre puppet show of objects being forced into actions. With No choices, There is nothing good at all, nor anything bad.There is only a bleak barren landscape of No life or Vibrance.

None of the fundamental concepts of God are unstable, or conflicting. The concept of God is Theoretically perfectly possible, and can exist without contradicting itself.

I look forward to my Opponent's undoubtedly professional response.
FREEDO

Con

===REPLIES===

On Omnipotence:

If I understand Pro correctly, he's saying that since God is all-powerful HE WOULD be able to make a stone he cannot lift but AFTER doing so would NO LONGER be all-powerful.

This is a very clever response that I haven't heard before. It took me a moment but I see where it falls apart.

It rests upon the concept of time.

It says God WAS this and then IS that.

But since God is defined as the origin of all things, it also means he is the origin of time.

This places him not only within but also outside time.

So any logic about God must be equally reasonable as it is outside the concept of time as it is within.

So the paradox must then be restated so that the stone is created outside time.

Once this is done, pro's rebuttal falls apart.

________

On perfection:

My opponent claims we must concede that out imperfect minds cannot understand perfection.

This is illogical on a few points.

First, the concept of perfection we are using here is created by the human mind. And we are going by the definition provided by our human mind.

Second, the definition we have is perfectly reasonable. Perfection is to say that it cannot get better.

From this I came to a clear logical conclusion that a perfect God cannot exist.

Thirdly, by saying that we cannot understand it you are saying that no point can be made for my case by any measure of reason.

When reason is removed from the debate than we longer have any rule of thumb for deciding a winner or making any sense of anything.

So Pro failed to create a case against my argument.

________

On all-righteousness:

Pro's case against my argument rests solely on the assertion that humans have free-will and it was righteous of God to give us free-will. Free-will being the source of all misfortune.

This makes necessary the introduction of my next argument.

===ARGUMENTS===

Free-will does not exist:

What is it you mean when you say free-will?

Do you even know?

In what way it is free?

Hogwash, I say. For whether the origin of our choices are from chemical reactions(as science has proven) or from some kind of soul, it is still a functioning system bound by cause and effect.

One thing causes another.

Everything you do, everything you think was directly caused by a particular and very complex series of events.

From the womb, with the genes that made you initially as you were, to everything you've ever encountered during your life-time.

The thoughts flowing through your mind right at this very moment were inevitable to occur, due to what happened prior.

And it's not just our minds, it's everything.

Everything that has happened and everything that ever will happen is bound to happen.

Free-will just doesn't exist.

_______

Re-assertion on all-righteousness:

Since free-will does not exist, my opponent's argument falls apart.

If God were all-powerful and all-righteous he would act to stop that which is bad.

If God were all-knowing and all-righteous he would not have made anything that he knew would inevitably lead to that which is bad.

Furthermore, if a God existed, he would essentially made all our choices for us, since he created all and knew what it would lead to.

Thus he would have caused any bad decisions we would make.

Further destroying Pro's previous case against my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
broski911

Pro

I thank My opponent for a very well thought-out and timely Response, and without any further hesitation
-------
While my opponent gives an original and convincing argument on Omnipotence, My Points still stand, for the following reasons,
1. With The argument that a potential "stone outside of time" paradox, nothing major changes. By the nature of omnipotence One can remove it from themselves, but as i stated in my first argument God would never do so. I was saying that God could make a stone he couldn't lift, but wouldn't.If something never occurs, than it doesn't matter weather you are outside or inside time, because there would be no effects.
2. If Something is to be created, than Time must Exist. If God were to create Something of physical Mass, than it must have some movement, and Time is basically just what we use to measure movement. Time is not a physical thing, it is just how we measure speed and such, so if any "stone" were to exist it would have physical Mass, i.e. movement, i.e. time
---------
My opponent seems to have misunderstood My answer to his attack on Perfection.
My opponent argues that by saying that we cannot understand perfection i have made no attack on his case. this is not so, If you read further into my argument you will see that we can theorize on why we exist, and i even gave an example that my opponent didn't answer to.
Also, in pre-defense of my example, you must understand that the definition you put up for perfection does not totally agree with your case. By saying something is perfect it is
"Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen," ect
This argument fails to answer to my case, and i'll give you an example of why.
Assume we have found the Perfect diamond. it is as diamond-like as is possible. Everything about it perfectly fits the description of "diamond". it is Not the perfect acorn. In fact it is about as un-acornlike as can be. Being Perfect Does not exclude the ability of other goodness being created, A perfect God could have reasons to Create things.
--------
On all the further attacks on My case my opponent criticizes the idea of free- will. This is irrelevant to the debate at hand, and incorrect, for the following reasons.
1. My opponent is saying that Chemical reactions, and the like, cause all our actions. if you look at it further, cells govern those reactions, and atoms govern the cells, electrons govern the atoms, ect., ect. Eventually we would get to a handful of things that are the smallest you could possibly go, which for the sake of my argument i will call "minis"
These "minis" are all that there are, just arranged into different formations. if you look to what my opponent's argument is pointing to, you will see that there is no such thing as an "idea", a "book", or even a "human", there is only
these minis just floating serenely.
Consciousness, pain, joy, love, Do not exist, and we are not alive nor can we think, we are just electrons and atoms and "minis" doing what they do.
As i believe i exist, at least as a Conscious entity That can think and feel pain, i am forced to conclude there is something Beyond the current facts Scientists are telling us. What they say is True, i have no doubt, but they are missing an integral part of the Puzzle, and because Of those reasons Free will Stands.

On all my opponent's further attacks he just says that we wouldn't have free will if God made us, and so he, if he exists, is responsible for all the bad in the world, but this makes no sense based on his attack on free will, in which he points to the fact that we couldn't exist.
---------

I would just like to say that I have enjoyed this debate Immensely and am looking foreward to my opponent's response.
FREEDO

Con

"While my opponent gives an original and convincing argument on Omnipotence, My Points still stand, for the following reasons,
1. With The argument that a potential "stone outside of time" paradox, nothing major changes. By the nature of omnipotence One can remove it from themselves, but as i stated in my first argument God would never do so. I was saying that God could make a stone he couldn't lift, but wouldn't.If something never occurs, than it doesn't matter weather you are outside or inside time, because there would be no effects."

>>This simply makes no sense. If God is outside time than he is unchangeable. The unchangeblity of God is indeed another prerequisite often denoted towards him.

"2. If Something is to be created, than Time must Exist. If God were to create Something of physical Mass, than it must have some movement, and Time is basically just what we use to measure movement. Time is not a physical thing, it is just how we measure speed and such, so if any "stone" were to exist it would have physical Mass, i.e. movement, i.e. time"

>> False. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of theoretical physics can tell you that material existence is possible outside of time. And is it actually just as much something with an objective existence as a material object. Your perspective of time is very Pre-Einsteinian. Though it is true something cannot "start" or "end" outside of time, it can however "be" or "not be".
Pro's rebuttal is negated again.

"My opponent seems to have misunderstood My answer to his attack on Perfection.
My opponent argues that by saying that we cannot understand perfection i have made no attack on his case. this is not so, If you read further into my argument you will see that we can theorize on why we exist, and i even gave an example that my opponent didn't answer to."

>> Here is his post:
"On the subject of Perfection, We must accept that we can never understand a perfect consciousness, being ourselves imperfect. It is baseless to just say that creating anything would be pointless, as we could not comprehend a perfect God but this does not mean we cannot theorize on the purpose of our existing. For example, While God, being Perfect, can never be anything but perfect, Humans have a choice of how to behave, being created with free will. Some think that Humans exist for the purpose of creating another kind of goodness into the world. There are HUGE amounts of ideas on why we are here, but i don't need to list them all here, a quick Google search would give you countless more examples. So in conclusion, Perfection is perfectly compatible with itself, and all other aspects of God."

You say you theorize on why we exist? All you say is that we bring "another kind of goodness". What does that even mean? This is what you say I didn't respond to? It was irrelevant. And Your case was certainly invalid.

"Assume we have found the Perfect diamond. it is as diamond-like as is possible. Everything about it perfectly fits the description of "diamond". it is Not the perfect acorn. In fact it is about as un-acornlike as can be. Being Perfect Does not exclude the ability of other goodness being created, A perfect God could have reasons to Create things."

>> Your analogy is understandable but doesn't fit the scenario. If God is perfect it means he cannot be any better and since God is the creator of all he is the only thing in existence at the beginning so there is nothing within the entire situation that could get any better. Thus the creation of anything else is pointless.
Pro's rebuttal is negated again.

"On all the further attacks on My case my opponent criticizes the idea of free- will. This is irrelevant to the debate at hand, and incorrect, for the following reasons.
1. My opponent is saying that Chemical reactions, and the like, cause all our actions. if you look at it further, cells govern those reactions, and atoms govern the cells, electrons govern the atoms, ect., ect. Eventually we would get to a handful of things that are the smallest you could possibly go, which for the sake of my argument i will call "minis"
These "minis" are all that there are, just arranged into different formations. if you look to what my opponent's argument is pointing to, you will see that there is no such thing as an "idea", a "book", or even a "human", there is only
these minis just floating serenely.
Consciousness, pain, joy, love, Do not exist, and we are not alive nor can we think, we are just electrons and atoms and "minis" doing what they do.
As i believe i exist, at least as a Conscious entity That can think and feel pain, i am forced to conclude there is something Beyond the current facts Scientists are telling us. What they say is True, i have no doubt, but they are missing an integral part of the Puzzle, and because Of those reasons Free will Stands."

>> First, I find it humorous that Pro says "for the following reasons" and then only issues one. This irrelevant but funny.

Secondly, I submit to the fact that, yes indeed, everything is made up of these "minis" whatever they be.
But Pro makes a false assumption in thinking that this makes all other levels of material organization disappear.
He says there is no such thing as an idea, a book, a human, pain, joy and love if we concede to the theory of these minis making up everything and running on cause and effect like science declares.
Find me a scientist who would tell you that is were it ends. Find one. You will not.

Material sciences cover objectivity. But subjectivity is left up to philosophy. Both still rely on reason. As faith does not.
It is clear that we have consciousnesses but this does in no way dismiss the "minis" theory.
The idea that free-will does not exist is compatible with the recognition of consciousness.

So the logic I provided showing that free-will does not exist still stands.

Pro's rebuttal is negated again.

"On all my opponent's further attacks he just says that we wouldn't have free will if God made us, and so he, if he exists, is responsible for all the bad in the world, but this makes no sense based on his attack on free will, in which he points to the fact that we couldn't exist."

>> I made no such claim. We exist. Consciousness exists. That is indisputable. But it is also indisputable based on cause and effect that free-will does not exist. We can, and indeed do, have consciousness without free-will.
Debate Round No. 3
broski911

Pro

broski911 forfeited this round.
FREEDO

Con

Unfortunately my opponent wasn't able to make his post, so I have nothing to refute. My own previous assertions go unrefuted, so my arguments are extended. And seeing as this is the last post of the debate, it would be wrong of me to post any more arguments.

So instead, you may enjoy this music video:
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
Lol, don't mind the weirdness of the video.
Posted by contra_profligates 7 years ago
contra_profligates
The "stone paradox" and others like this are really quite benign. Philosophic theists do not define omnipotence as the power to do anything but the power to do all that is logically possible. Such paradoxes as these are merely language games that point out the problems with ill defined terms. The same kinds of pointless paradoxes can be said of omniscience such as "Does an omniscient being know that he knows all things? Does an omniscient being know that he knows that he knows all things?" etc. etc. to the point of something akin to an infinite regress. Instead, it is much more reasonable to say that a being who has omniscience knows all that is logically possible to know. No serious philosophic theists ever claimed god could create a stone so heavy he couldn't lift it just like no serious atheist (even someone like r. dawkins) would ever claim that existence arose from nothing because atheits with intelligence know that from absolute nothingness, nothing comes.

No one should bring up such a straw man against atheists and nor should such paradoxes be used in like manner.
Posted by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
I" like the arguments against a perfect God and an all-righteous God, but I don't think they are as powerful or persuasive as the argument from divine hiddenness and the evidential problem of evil. I would center the debate around those two and use the others for support."

I wish more people would take your advice....
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
--> "What is divine hiddeness? Is that even a word?"

Yes. Freeman introduced it to me. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
Also, the things he randomly capitalizes, he doesn't capitalize in the same sentence. Like the free will thing. He capitalizes it the first time, and then just lets it be. Weird.
Posted by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
It means god is scared of everything he created, apparently, and decided to make an alternate dimension/plane to hide in.
In more, "Sophisticated," terms, it means god isn't in the physical realm, and is in the spiritual realm, which we can't see, hear, feel, touch, experience, measure, or have anything to do with until we die. Which I think is a load of crap.
Posted by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
What is divine hiddeness? Is that even a word?
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
The logical problem of evil has been fully refuted and the omnipotence paradox was just lousy to begin with.

I like the arguments against a perfect God and an all-righteous God, but I don't think they are as powerful or persuasive as the argument from divine hiddenness and the evidential problem of evil. I would center the debate around those two and use the others for support.
Posted by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
@Surfride: Exactly, there has been no satisfactory answer. It is a reason against God. Thus I use it.

LMAO, at your second comment. That was getting to me too.
Posted by surfride 7 years ago
surfride
Broski, you need to stop with the gratuitous capitalization of random words.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
broski911FREEDOTied
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