The Instigator
BertrandsTeapot
Pro (for)
Tied
5 Points
The Contender
thedarkjedi
Con (against)
Tied
5 Points

God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,139 times Debate No: 117827
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (2)

 

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.
thedarkjedi

Con

Taking the generic definition of God as an omnipresent, Omnipotent and omniscient being, My opponent fails to take into account that time may not be linear for an omnipotent being. Past, Present and future do not bind the God. From God's perspective, Future, Past and present everything can exist at the same time and hence his prediction of state of the universe will always be right irrespective of whether he changes the state or not.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
BertrandsTeapot

Pro

Linearity of time is irrelevant. Regardless of how God exists, Omniscience requires knowledge of all future actions. If this exists, All future action must be fixed. So, The future cannot be changed. But, If the future cannot be changed, God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, He can change the state of the universe at any time, Regardless of previous predictions, Including his own. If he makes such a change, His prior predictions will have been wrong. Thus, No omniscience.
thedarkjedi

Con

On the contrary, Non-linearity of time is of utmost relevance to your question. Even in your example, When God predicts a state first, And then changes it later (The temporal aspects here only frm questioner's POV) Due to nonlinearity of God's time His action to change the state in future will change his earlier prediction to the receiver too and God's prediction to the questioner in past will still be consistent with the state (as seen by the questioner in future).
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thedarkjedi 2 years ago
thedarkjedi
The manner in which a person or a group of people choses to use the religious texts to operate or do their politics has no bearing on the existence of God.

Your argument that because "I do not agree with the politics of people who worship God therefore God must not exist" is illogical to say the least.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 2 years ago
BertrandsTeapot
Totally off-base.

Either you will go to hell for eating certain foods or you won"t. Homosexuality is a sin or it isn"t. Women should be stoned to death for adultery or they shouldn"t. Wives should be nurseries if they aren"t virgins on their wedding night or they shouldn"t.

These aren"t inconsequential differences that "arise in the context of humans. " They are tenets by which the masses operate. It makes no sense that there would be differences.

IF, However, You want to explain this away somehow, Maybe you should realize that Christians, For example, Need to ease up on preventing abortions and gay marriages if it"s possible their mythical book is not THE mythical book.
Posted by thedarkjedi 2 years ago
thedarkjedi
@BetrandsTeaPot
That is a very different point and completely irrelevant to this debate but still. . .

If you read about them. You see there are mostly similarities, Difference arise in the context of humans. As i told before, Stories don't have to be perfect to describe a perfect God. Stories (I am using that term to imply religious scriptures) are written down by humans based on their understanding and knowledge of that time so obviously they show the bias of humans noting them down.
None of the scriptures claim to be one-to-one translation of God's word but the interpretation of what was received by the authors. So there are already two sources of inconsistencies, First the God may change the word depending upon the socio-cultural context of receiver and second the author might interpret it differently (intentionally or unintentionally). Further inconsistencies may arise later on as the interpretations pass across time through word of mouth, Transliteration etc. However, You would still find that differences in details aside, Most of the religions in fact tend to agree on generic principles with respect to God.

Also check out the story of a huge flood, Almost same in every religion/culture.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 2 years ago
BertrandsTeapot
If there is omnipotent, Omniscient God across most or all religions, How is it possible that all of those Gods tell different stories and have different characterizations and criterion for the afterlife?
Posted by thedarkjedi 2 years ago
thedarkjedi
@backwardseden

lol not sure which part of my argument triggered you? I can prove each of my statement to an adult (or even a child willing to engage in a reasonable discussion).

First and foremost just to show you how bad your assumptions are. . . I come from a country where Christianity is not even a major religion and personally not religious so your ad-ad hominem attacks are worthless.

Moreover, I am not sure why you are singling out Bible in this case? The question did not ask "the God as portrayed in Bible" it asks about a generic God and hence my generic reply.

An omnipotent, Omnipresent and omniscient God is universal across religions and cultures. So it seems you indeed miss almost entirety of my arguments because of your own assumptions ("that I am talking about Bible"). My argument remains valid whether you consider Bible, Koran, Hindu or Buddhist scriptures.

Moreover, To your vote that I did not prove that God is not bound by time: That is not my burden to prove, By conceding the generic definition of God (Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence) the questioner already has accepted God to be a special entity which 'can' exist without bound to the time. Every single description of God ('generic') agrees that God existed before big bang (time zero) and created everything that exists (including time) thus by phrasing the question about an omnipotent and omniscient God, Pro demonstrates that he has already conceded to those generic properties of God.

PS: If you think you indeed have good arguments, Formulate and use them instead of leaping towards emotional personal insults they make you seem immature and insecure
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
For some reason, The link got corrupted, So I pasted as much as I could.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
o
Voting

Vote Moderation Policy Guide

The purpose of this guide is to explain the vote moderation policies here on Debate. Org. This includes the standards to be used when placing a sufficient vote and the key reasons why a vote will be removed or deemed insufficient. In essence, This guide covers our general course of action when dealing with reported votes.

Section I. What is a Sufficient Vote/Reason for Decision

Vote Moderation defines a sufficient vote as one that explains *why* you thought one side had better arguments, Higher quality sources, Superior spelling and/or grammar, Or superior conduct. If those respective standards are upheld within a vote that awards points for any of those four sections, Then the vote will be deemed sufficient by Vote Moderation.

A) Which side had better Arguments

There are two key requirements to placing a sufficient reason for decision when deciding which side had better arguments:

The first is that the voter needs to reference specific arguments and/or counter-arguments from *both* sides that impacted their reason for favoring one side over the other. The second necessity is that the voter needs to explain *how* those arguments impacted the outcome that the voter arrived at in the end.

B) Which side had higher quality Sources

The key to placing a sufficient reason for awarding sources is an emphasis on quality, Not quantity. This means that the voter needs to explain how the sources were relevant to the debate. This requires that the voter explain how the sources impacted the debate, Directly assessing the strength of at least one source, And explaining how it either strengthened or weakened the argument it was utilized for. Even if one side does not present a source, The voter must at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources.

C) Which side had superior Spelling and/or Grammar

The key to placing a sufficient reason for awarding spelling and/or grammar starts by giving specific r
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
http://www. Debate. Org/forums/debate. Org/topic/56116/

I monitor all debates.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 2 years ago
BertrandsTeapot
What are those established voting requiresments? Do you do this on hundreds of
Other debates or just mine?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Apparently you are having trouble reading. I'm voting to counter backwards horrible vote. His votes are in violation with our established voting requirements. I could have awarded more points if I wanted to, But I was just trying to cancel out backwards vote.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
BertrandsTeapotthedarkjediTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering backwards horrible vote.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 2 years ago
backwardseden
BertrandsTeapotthedarkjediTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con "Past, Present and future do not bind the God." Con did not prove his statement. He only assumes it. So his entire debate falls apart.

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