The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Throwback
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

an almighty god would be unable to learn how it is to have lesser power

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 1 vote the winner is...
Throwback
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 94864
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (70)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

therfore couldnt be immoral
Throwback

Con

The format for the debate not being set out in advance by Pro, I will limit my round #1 response as much as possible out of fairness, as Pro's round #1 offering is very brief.

In that vein, I use this 1st round simply to accept and resolve to argue against, with the understanding that Pro's argument has been clarified by him/her to include the title, "an almighty god would be unable to learn how it is to have lesser power", as well as the clarification in the comment section, "god couldn't learn what pain is, as an immortal" It being understood this is then the topic for the debate, I gratefully accept and will argue the Con position.

Best wishes to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i am not con
Throwback

Con

The argument given in Round #2 by Pro, "I am not Con" is agreed by Con. However, this in no way establishes a valid argument to prove his case that an Almighty God would be unable to learn how it is (comprehend or understand the experience?) of having less than omnipotence. His argument also falls short of making a case that He is therefore, based on Pro's argument, not immortal.

The full Omnipotence of God does not preclude His knowledge of pain, suffering, and an understanding of lesser beings. This would suppose that power and knowledge are mutually exclusive principles. This premise is however rejected. We see even in human nature no direct correlation between greater ability and lessened knowledge.

Pro's statement is accepted that he is not Con. As Pro has not made any argument in favor of his case, Con has sufficiently stated the case to the contrary.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

the point is you attack it... con
Throwback

Con

Pro: "the point is you attack it... con" . This constitutes the epitome of a non argument to defend a stated position. He argues neither facts nor reason to support the initial claim. To be certain arguing the attributes of an Almighty God through facts and scientific evidence would be very difficult. However, the topic was presented in such a manner as to make it clear we are arguing these attributes through a philosophical lens. I do not find fault with Pro in not having cited reference sources. This is not an easy task when discussing topics such as this present.

From a philosophical standpoint Con reiterates the accepted notion within the debate premise, that we are discussing the quality of an Almighty God, if there be one. There is no need then to delve into the reality of this God for purpose of this debate, as we are merely stipulated His possible existence and delving into His attributes.

Now it is inconsistent with the concept of an Almighty God that he should be defective in His knowledge, as has been famously stated, purportedly by Sir Francis Bacon, "ipsa scientia potestas est" (knowledge itself is power). {Meditationes Sacrae (1597) }.

If reason and philosophical thinking lead to the conclusion, "Knowledge itself is power", it stands to reason there is nothing incompatible with an all powerful God having knowledge of the things beneath Him, and still retain His perfection and attribute of immortality. For again, mortality is a lack of power, an inability to maintain life, a power which surely would be encompassed by a being having limitless power.

Pro's argument is refuted, based on acceptance of the premise presented.
Debate Round No. 3
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
a blind mans aim.. ooh the power
Posted by Huron0 1 year ago
Huron0
I would think it's power would work as a scale it could go up and down the scale (ultimate power to no power) as it wished or else it wouldn't be all-mighty. The power to have no power (be able to turn it off) is a power nonetheless.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
visible*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
it had this, yellow glare for a moment undeniably visual.. guess you had to be there
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
thats why the moon was made of cheese for a split second
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i am god
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
God is 'logical' even in the way us humans created and defined the word.

It is a fact that, if God exists he is smarter than you. Once you accept that the very next fact is that, he loves you.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
there is no, your and my logic, logic is true
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
hey noob, it takes a counter to be con, nice lose
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i am god
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 1 year ago
distraff
vi_spexThrowbackTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof is on pro and he made no arguments. Con did make arguments against the resolution. Con won.