The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,200 times Debate No: 58472
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (1)




The full resolution: God Could Not Possibly Exist if he were to be Under Human Philosophies. This means he has to follow all truisms.
God: the all-intelligent, all-powerful, all-good being who grounds our universe.
Philosophy: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." [2]
Truism: "a self-evident, obvious truth." [1].
Round one is for acceptance only.



I accept. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Truism is a complex topic. Wikipedia states that "A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device and is the opposite of falsism." Wikipedia also continues with "Without contextual support – a statement of what those appropriate conditions are – the sentence is true but incontestable." [1] Therefore this means all of my statements cannot be challenged....if they are truisms.

Axioms are a great example of truism. They have a similar definition and also cannot be disproved. [2] My argument will be heavily within the part about the "all" rather than the grounding our universe.
Wikipedia's page about axioms helps me a lot in this argument; in fact, within the very beginning, the existence of an all-intelligent, powerful, good being is challenged.
Common notions

    1. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.

    1. If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. --this is not helpful to my argument, so we'll ignore this.

    1. If equals are subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal.

    1. Things which coincide with one another are equal to one another.

    1. The whole is greater than the part.

Now, after I throw out the 2, what's left is 1,3, 4, and 5. We can naturally suppose that, since god is ALL, that means he has infinite power, inifnite intelligence, and infinite good.
However, this creates many complex paradoxes. Does infinity really equal to infinity? It's hard to say, but infinity seems to coincide with itself, so it must be true that infinity=infinity. However, if infinity equals to infinity, then God could manage to use up all his inifite power by minusing infinity with itself....leaving him with no power, which does not make him omnipotent.
On the other hand, if my opponent somehow manages to prove infinity does not coincide with itself or in fact equal with itself, the 5th notion still remains and is very very confusing. Is 0.1*infinity less than infinity? Can God really just use up one-tenth of his power, somehow? If infinite does not have a real value, then we cannot calculate 0.1*infinity and therefore can't say the whole is greater than the part--it's impossible to prove without real values. Therefore God cannot exist because by the definition of "all" and by the vagueness of infinity, he cannot use up exactly 0.1 of his power. In contrast, if infinity does have a value, then it can be used up, and my first argument works out again.

I will only use one more truism since the previous was a lot to swallow.
This one is a toughie to rebut: duality exists in every element in nature. It's impossible to disprove, but I can't find a site where it says this is a truism, so my opponent has room to attempt to prove this is not truism. However, try as you must, you'll find it impossible. :P
Element means "a component or constituent of a whole or one of the parts into which a whole may be resolved byanalysis" [3] and nature means the universe with all its phenomena. [4] Because God "grounds our universe", it is definitely in our universe and is therefore a component of it...but he has no duality whatsoever. He's all good--no bad. He's all powerful--no limitations. He's all intelligent--no dumb mistakes anywhere. Of course, if I had said the christian god, it shows that he can't make earth in 7 seconds, can't speed up time and make it rain for just 40 milliseconds, and lets some evil snake into his Garden of Eden...but I did not specify the christian God, therefore any arguments concerning the father of Jesus Christ is nullified, since the Bible does not show the all-intelligent, all-powerful, all-good being who grounds our universe I am talking about.

Onto you, con.



I will start by stating my case, before addressing Pro's contentions. I'd like to make it clear that my rebuttal of the affirmative case is largely unrelated to my main points. This is extremely important for everyone reading to note, as my primary argument effectively makes the possibility of God a self-evident truth.

Omnipotence is an interesting subject, and in theology I find it is starkly overlooked. If a god were to be omnipotent, there is one clear issue at hand: The violation of truisms.

If one can do anything, could they find something that they could not do? Within the basic structure of truisms, the answer is unclear. One would have to both have and lack an ability. All truisms dictate that possessing and lacking a quality at the same time is impossible. This proves itself to be quite an issue within the concept of an all-powerful being.

However, if we look at omnipotence as being an essential omnipotence, this issue disappears. An essential omnipotence is one that is not bound by truisms. This means that a god can be logically possible, whilst possessing logically impossible traits.

In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that a being that is not bound by logic cannot exist.

Now, I will move on to my rebuttals.

My opponent seems to be confusing "all" with "infinity". My opponent asserts that if one is entirely good, or if one is the entirety of good, then one must also possess an infinite amount of good. There is no evidence for this presented. An alternative and equally possible idea, is that "God" is simply a word we use to describe all of the goodness, intelligence, and power there is in the universe. There is quite simply not an infinite supply of those things.

The next point my opponent makes has many of the same logical errors. God could quite simply be the side of everything that is good, intelligent and powerful. In fact, this version of God is necessary to the concept of duality; there is that which is good, and that which is not. Equally, there is that which is God, and that which is not. There is a good side of things, therefore a God side of things is inevitable.

Unto you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 2


My point is, if something goes against a truism, it cannot exist.
There is a truism saying only exactly one line can go through two points. This is true.
s://; alt="" width="484" height="279" />

Can you find another line? Nope. It is impossible. It does not exist. Thus, God cannot exist if he contrasts truism due to the nature of the resolution, since he has to follow the truisms and mutually exist at the same time.

As for duality, you are speaking of "everything". However, is "everything" a component of the universe? Is 100% a "part"? In addition, I am limiting it to God himself, which means you are creating some kind of a Straw Man. If duality exists within every element in nature, then of course it should exist within the tree itself as well as within one of the tree's leaves. Same goes for my argument--yes, the universe itself has God on one side and the terrible on the other side. But what about God himself? Nothing suggests God himself has duality within him, so he goes against this truism.

Back to you, con.


I rushed my last round's points, so I may not have clarified my idea well enough.

In a sentence:

If something can violate truisms, then it can in fact exist, because it is a truism that it can't.

Now, if we ask the age old question:

"Could god create a stone so large, that he himself could not lift it?"

We can find the exact limits of omnipotence. The answer, assuming essential omnipotence, is a bit much to wrap our heads around; God could make a stone so large that he could not lift it, and then he could lift it.

Now, I really feel as though everyone reading this should spend a bit of time considering this, and ignore it's unintuitive nature. Focus on the logic behind it, please.

Truisms are limited to that which is true. This is very clear, and so if anything violates them then they're existence seems impossible. However, there is far more to be considered here.

Imagine if there was, in fact, a completely illogical world (keep reading, it will get better). In this world, there is very simply nothing that can be said of it. You can not say that a square circle could not exist in such a world, and you cannot say that an omnipotent being cannot exist in this world. Likewise, the suggestion that such an omnipotent being could not create a separate world that is bound by logic would be ill-informed.

So, do you agree, Pro, that an illogical being could create a logical world?

Maybe so (since absolutely anything can exist if truisms are not given authority), however nothing can violate truisms, so that hypothetical illogical world couldn't exist in the first place.

At first glance, it looks like the case has been closed and that the debate surrounding truisms has been resolved, however this is laughably incorrect.

I have successfully proved that a logical world, and an illogical world can coexist. Logic dictates this to be impossible, yet still insists its own limits.

Using truisms to prove that truisms are infallible is circular logic.

Pro must prove that logic is infallible without resorting to this circular logic.

An impossible omnipotent being could create possibility for itself.

Likewise, an omnipotent being can violate truisms without violating truisms, because saying that it can't would be a truism that the omnipotent being can violate.
As for duality, it appears that communication has been somewhat of an issue.

My opponent has said that everything is equal to infinity, and this has not been proven. To clarify, everything is the universe.

My opponent has said that God must be a part of this universe, but there has been no evidence for this. Once again, God could simply be a label for all of the power, all of the good, and all of the intelligence that exists. The dual sides of those things do apply, and there has been no suggestion to the contrary.

Is my opponent suggestion that the entirety of good, power, and intelligence, could not possibly exist? Because such is the nature of "God".

So "God" doesn't have to be a separate entity with duality, but the very nature of duality within our universe. Is my opponent suggesting that there must be a duality to all of the dual sides? That everything has two sides, and there are two sides to those sides, and so forth?

Proceed, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3


My points were, if God were bound by the laws of human truisms, he could not exist. I wanted to have a different debate from the usual "God cannot lift the rock while not lifting the rock--in a way that we can understand" and at first it worked out, but I see we go back to the omnipotence-destroys-logic statements.
My opponent states that "an omnipotent being can violate truisms without violating truisms, because saying that it can't would be a truism that the omnipotent being can violate." This is very confusing, so I'll try to break it down. My opponent says "an omnipotent being can violate truisms without violating truisms", then suggests the opposite is a truism, because "it can't" "would be a truism"...therefore my opponent is trying to say... "an omnipotent being can violate truisms can violate truisms". This is true, a statement repeating itself, but then my opponent gets ultra-confusing by saying "..that the omnipotent being can violate". However, if my opponent agrees that it is entirely true that omnipotent beings can violate truisms by violating truisms, then there is no way out of it. Again, I stress that there is absolutely no way you can find two lines between the same two points. It is simply illogical and could not exist.
The infinity argument: yes, I was doing that...I was pointing out that "Everything" was the universe in its whole.
As for duality, if God "grounds" the universe, how could he NOT be a phenomenon of the universe? Sure, he has the power to NOT be a phenomenon of the universe, but we can only assume while he IS a phenomenon of the universe he has to follow the laws of duality.
In conclusion this was a very very confusing debate, much more confusing than my other debate with CJKAllstar. I hope the voters understood this interesting debate and will vote according to who made better arguments.
Vote pro.


This has, indeed, been a confusing debate. Thank you, Pro, for sticking with it.

My point was that a god could violate truisms without violating truisms.
The only possible objection to that statement would be a truism. The only logical conclusion we can make from this, is that a god that controls logic can exist.

With this alone, I have proved the resolution false, and should win the debate.

Looking at it further, I have attempted (and in my opinion, succeded) at proving the resolution false without relying on my previous argument.


The universe has not been proven infinite, so the "all-powerful" equating to "infinite power" argument is null.
If my opponent was saying that God could use "his" power to get rid of his own powers, then we have come back to my omnipotence arguments. Alternatively, we could assume accidental omnipotency.


My opponent has stated that since God is a pneomenon of the universe, "he" must follow the rules of duality.

I have already pointed out, and my opponent has not attempted to refute, that God is the nature of duality itself. Duality stems largely from that which is good, that whch is powerful, and that which is intelligent, in comparison of that which isn't.

It follows that my opponent is saying that duality is subject to duality. Let's finally define duality:

the idea or belief that everything has two opposite parts or principles

We run into some problems here, as my opponent is saying that good, power, and intelligence must have two opposite parts or principles.

How this equates to "the entirety of good, power, and intelligence must not exist" I'm not quite sure.

I think that my opponent is suggesting that the god in question is an entity that possess those elements, rather than existing solely as the elements themselves. Let's look at the definition of "Being":

b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things

It's entirely possible for the entirety of good, the entirety of intelligence, and the entirety of power to exist, despite consisting of two opposing parts and principles.

In summary, Pro's burden of proof has not been fulfilled. I suggest that the floor vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
Posted by creedhunt 7 years ago
That's what it says in the first round, so yes.
Posted by ArcTImes 7 years ago
Wait. Does the resolution mean that "god could not be possible" if truisms are obeyed?
Posted by creedhunt 7 years ago
Posted by whiteflame 7 years ago
I'll see what I can do about getting a vote up in the next few days, guys.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
aw man...
Posted by Natsu_Dragneel 7 years ago
If memory serves right, It was open in the other debate as well. Me thinks it is a requirement before you can vote in the first place. Many reasons I am not going to test this theory.
Will start voting after I have my 3 debates.
Sucks I lost my first one, because I wasn't able to get to it in time.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
9spaceking says voting style is open here
Posted by Natsu_Dragneel 7 years ago
I don't meet the requirements.
Oh the problems us noobs face.
Posted by 9spaceking 7 years ago
why don't you vote?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 7 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: So there are two main issues I could decide this debate on. I could determine whether or not Con has managed to avoid referencing a god that violates truisms, or I could take the semantic argument on the meaning of "all." On the former, much as I appreciate Con's argument, I think he's trying too hard with something that Pro was very clearly trying to exclude from the debate. I understand where you're coming from, and Pro's responses were weak, but I can't accept those arguments based on the fact that a violation of the truisms must occur, even if it's not occurring at the same time. The semantic argument, however, sinks Pro. Without a solid response to Con's definition of "all," I'm left to compare that with the nonexistent definition of infininite, which Pro never defended. I think I would have bought a basic definition of infinite if it had been made and even lightly explained, but without it, the truisms Pro states don't exist. Hence, I vote Con.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.