The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

God is 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
RaptorStrike has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 436 times Debate No: 117836
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




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.


The main thing that makes debating this difficult is this simple fact: God is fully and completely outside of time. However, We can somewhat debate from a human standpoint, Inside of time. He knows what will happen and can see the changes that he will make, And He is not saying that "This will happen. Oh wait, Let me change it. Oops, I'm wrong now. " God just knows what he will do, And what he has done, And what is is doing, Therefore He is not wrong about anything. Going any deeper strays near predestination, And that subject is normally left untouched to avoid a complete brain scramble.
Debate Round No. 1


This argument doesn't really make sense.

Suppose you speak to God and ask him whether the Mets will win a World Series after 1986. "Of course not! " he proclaims. Perhaps they were going to win in 1987 and then he changed his mind. Perhaps they were going to lose in '87 and he changed his mind, Then changed back, Then back, Then back again. However, At the start of the '87 season, He decides Mets fans have suffered enough. If he changes his mind, He will show his omnipotence but defy his omniscience. If his prediction must be true and he cannot affect this change, He is not omnipotent.

No matter what "God just knows what he will do, " "knowing" implies certainty which implies the inability to change which implies impotence.


The one problem is that He is not in our human timestream. Say you promised to pray for something and then forgot to pray for it. The date has passed by for the event you were praying for, But you don't know the outcome yet. Yet you could still pray for it after it happens, And God might still cause a good outcome of the event due to your prayer.

This goes to show, Time does not exist in Heaven. This is beyond our human comprehension, But it basically makes this whole argument irrelevant. The fact that God does not function inside of time makes it impossible to say "He was going to do this, But he decided not to and changed his mind. " To sum it up, We don't know. We must trust the Bible as our only source of evidence we can understand.
Debate Round No. 2


Praying presupposes that God exists and has the power to know and answer prayers. Thus, It is a completely irrelevant point that completely begs the question here. If God is all-knowing, He would know you were going to miss that date. If he's all-powerful, He could answer those prayers and also know in advance what that answer would be.

The existence of Heaven also presupposes such a God so the point is invalid.

Stating that we must trust the Bible, Which also presupposes this God, Is a total non-starter and essentially concedes the point to me. It is equivalent to saying that we must trust Buddhist doctrine which states there is no supreme deity. Logic is the same, Conclusions are opposite.


The fact is, We don't have solid evidence for the existence of God, In the way that we don't have solid, Physical evidence of the existence of black holes. We see something that should be what we call a black hole, But we haven't actually gone to it and seen it in action. It's purely a strong theory. In fact, I can't really think of a scientific fact that can't be disproven at sometime or another. However, If you read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, You'll find that God is supported by evidence much more than any other religion or theory. If you were to compile all the evidence from historical records, Seemingly supernatural miracles, And cross-reference them with the Bible, You'll find it the strongest source we have.
Debate Round No. 3


With BoP on Pro, They must prove, Beyond all doubt, That their point is true. Here they have only said that their thoughts are "purely a strong theory. "

Pro claims that we don't have solid evidence for black holes. The following organizations disagree: NASA, Harvard University, Science Daily, HubbleSite.

Pro claims that their God is supported by more evidence than any other religion or theory, Yet they don't provide a single modicum of such proof.

Pro claims that reading The Case for Christ will help prove their point. However, This book speaks absolutely nothing on the topic at hand in this particular debate.

Overall, Pro has refused to effectively refute any of the points I've made, Uphold the BoP, Or put forth a valid argument.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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