The Instigator
BertrandsTeapot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dbox
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously

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: 8/22/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 660 times Debate No: 117834
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

BertrandsTeapot

Pro

If god were omniscient, He would be able to use the state of the universe at any given time to predict the state at any future time. However, If he were omnipotent, He could change that future in which case his prediction was wrong and he would not be omniscient. If he was unable to change the future, He would not be omnipotent.

Another way to put this would be to say that, If God were truly omniscient, He would already know how we was going to alter the course of events in the future using his omnipotence. However, This means that he can't change *that* change, Which means he isn't omnipotent.
dbox

Con

Hello Bertrands, I am looking forward to the debate.

God's omniscience does not allow Him to predict the future, As if He was experiencing time in the same linear fashion we are. God, Being eternal, Is "outside" time so to speak. This means He sees things as they are at all times, Not ever as they will be. This being the case, God does not "change the future", As if He is separated from it by time, But rather, He is involved in His creation in its entirety. Therefore, There is complete unity in His omniscience and omnipotence. The temporal restraints you have placed on the nontemporal God have led to contradictions where there are none.

Respectfully,
dbox
Debate Round No. 1
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

If God exists outside of time, Then it is nonsense to say that he also experiences time in the linear fashion we do and sees things as they are currently. "Currently" and "now" are meaningless words to a being that exists outside of time.

If you mean that He sees things as they are at "all" times as in the future and past, Then he should know the future and, Thus, Be omniscient. Further, If he is truly omnipotent, He should be able to make a plan for the arrangement of all future states of the universe and stick to that plan. In that way, He'd be able to accurately predict the future. If his is omniscient and makes a prediction, It necessarily must be right. But, He could change is mind, And thus be wrong.
dbox

Con

I did not claim God experiences time linearly as we do.

My opponent is still forcing an omniscience that predicts the future rather than being immediately aware of it into the argument. This precludes the continuing of the debate, As this point has been answered previously. Also, My opponent, In stating "He could change [H]is mind", Indicates a misunderstanding of my previous point, "God does not 'change the future', As if He is separated from it by time, But rather, He is involved in His creation in its entirety". This means that whatever happens is the unchanged work of God. My opponent is still trying to view non temporal activity from a temporal perspective. God does not change His mind, Nor does He need to.
Debate Round No. 2
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

It is irrelevant whether God does change his mind or ever needs to. If we wanted to, He should be able to. If he is able to create the future of the entire universe, Dictating the movement of every single subatomic particle at every moment, Surely he would know what is going to happen at any given moment.

It's not a prediction in the way a psychic sees the future, But it is akin to the way in which I would be able to tell you what slide came next in a presentation if I was the one who built it.

If I built a presentation that I knew was absolutely perfect, Whatever that means, There would be no "need" for me to change my mind. However, If I truly had control over it, I could mix up the slides at my will.

Proof by contradiction.
dbox

Con

Con, Thank you.

Con is still arguing using categorical error by conflating God's nontemporal position outside time with our temporal perception of time. The straw god Con is presenting is not the God to whom omniscience and omipotence are properly ascribed.

This fallacy continues in Cons premise: if God can not change what He has established, Then He is impotent. This is illogical in that it states, 'if God can not contradict Himself, Then He does not exist'. God's omniscience and omnipotence can not be separated from His perfect wisdom in His decree of all reality, So rather than being a proof of nonexistence, His inability to contradict Himself is proof of His perfection. God's power functions logically, In accord with His perfection.
Debate Round No. 3
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

This is a completely specious argument masquerading as truth.

"So rather than being a proof of nonexistence"

I never said this, I said he can't be both omniscient and omnipotent.

"His inability to contradict Himself is proof of His perfection"

No, It's proof of his impotence. Temporality is irrelevant. No matter when/how God created the universe or whether he exists everywhere all the time, He has used his omnipotence to create and his omniscience to oversee, Judge, Etc. He should also be able to use that omniscience to know what will happen at any point in space or time. Regardless of his temporal dynamic, This is necessarily the case by definition of omniscience. He should be able to make changes to this future at any moment.
dbox

Con

Thank you,

My apologies in misrepresenting Pro's position, It was unintentional. That being said, The use of fallacy is still present and is now more pronounced. Dropping the Properly redefined Pro is requiring for God to be able to violate the Law of Identity and Non-Contradiction. Simply put Pro is stating, "If God can not contradict Himself, Then He must contradict Himself". To be God is to be omnipotent and omniscient, And omniscience cannot be discussed separated from His omnisapience. God being all wise orders His creation perfectly, And as such, What comes to pass will never be the result of God's "plan B". He is not arbitrary. This argument is by definition loaded and fallacious in its assumptions.

Respectfully
dbox
Debate Round No. 4
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

In perhaps every other case in the universe, It would be silly to say that since something can not contradict itself it must contradict itself.

That is not so in this particular case. We are very specifically discussing an alleged invisible, Timeless being's ability to exert their omnipotence over all of spacetime. Ergo, There should be absolutely nothing out of the realm of possibility for this being. If something will violate a law of physics, God should be able to change those physics. If he cannot, They are rooted in something deeper and more fundamental than he is, Meaning something else must have created it thus he is not the divine creator.

If there is ANYTHING God can't do, By definition he is not omnipotent and my resolution holds.
dbox

Con

TY
Con has concluded his argument by conceding the validity of my previous rebut (every other case), But rejecting its soundness using the "special pleading fallacy" (not so for mine). Also, Note two things: 1) con is using SPF to exclude his example from the universal laws of logic and 2) Con contradictorily relies on rules of logic for his argument. With that we could also read his argument as follows: My argument would be illogical if the laws of logic applied to my argument. Con has effectively ended the debate by exposing that his argument is an illogical proposition. Pro has demonstrated the position, "God can not be omniscient and omnipotent simultaneously" as invalid by Cons self-contradiction and illogical premises.

Resp.
dbox
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
I just realized I flipped the Pro/Con titles in my final argument.
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
Mr. Teapot,

I was hoping to see your final thoughts. Just sending out a friendly reminder.

DBOX
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
r/iamverysmart
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
Man, Thank you, I really needed to hear that. That is why Community is so important, Especially if it is with people smarter than you, They can always elucidate something that you may have missed. Well, You've convinced me, I'll stay around here with you guys for a bit. Maybe your erudition will disabuse me of my delusions.
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
Honestly, I recommend you going somewhere very far away from all other humans for a very long time where you can't spread your psychosis and interfere with otherwise logical conversation
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
You know, The worst part is because of my delusion, I can't even tell if I am or not. I can't even conceive of myself in an essentially different state of mind other than this one. What do you recommend? What part of my perspective is faulty, And what part of his perspective am I missing?
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
Confirmed: Delusional
Posted by dbox 3 years ago
dbox
Dropping the Properly redefined

**Dropping temporality, Properly redefined, Pro is. . .
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
NYStateofMined
Is Con delusional and/or trolling? I can't tell. Their arguments are absolutely asinine. They clearly don't understand the very basics of logic and what Pro is trying to say. They are speaking absolute gibberish. The exact type that stubborn Christian apologists love to babble on about. This is why religion is the worst. . . People like Con spouting nonsense.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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