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

God is omnipotent

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,389 times Debate No: 99947
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (103)
Votes (1)




God is omnipotent

1st Round: Acceptance
2nd round: Argue existence of "God"(must be Christian God).
3rd round: Argue rationality of omnipotence.
4th round: Dispute opponents logic and type opinionated conclusions.

Pro/Con will be able to use any source to define terms throughout the debate.
Pro/Con can use any material from the opponent's previous debates.

On a personal note, I know that I have been "abrasive", but this time, I would like objective voting, regardless of how you feel about me. This debate is not about me, but what the voter finds to be logical. I hope to cast a light on that Atheism does not have to be "fact", meaning there could be an actual rational way to say that God can exist. I would like to thank my opponent if he accepts this debate.

May we both argue with reason and logic.

1 (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.


1 (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

1.1 Having ultimate power and influence.


1Not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent.



Thanks for the debate Pro.
Both Pro and I have agreed to have voters use the opt-in voting standards.
We have also agreed that Death23 and Uniferous cannot vote on the debate.
I accept to negate the resolution that the creator of the universe exists and is unlimited in power.
Debate Round No. 1


False Assumption: The beginning of the universe is the beginning of Time.

The creation of God(according to Christians, Jesus is God) was the beginning of Time. Therefore, the end of Time is the moment of Jesus' first conscious thought as Man. The only thing that can remain true in the existence of the universe is from the direct observation of one individual. Because "the lie" exists, no man's testimony can ever bear weight without evidence, factual or opinionated. However, one individual that observes everything from an outside point of view can be accepted as Truth. Thus as Time is part of logic, in order for Time to exist as a whole, it must only have one individual to maintain its integrity.

The Law of Time: No single piece of Matter or Space shall ever be at one specific place for more than any moment.

In lamens terms, things will always keep moving. Even at Absolute Zero, matter is still moving through spacetime. This indicates that consciousness always requires Time to continue to exist. Thus Jesus and Time would need to have a relationship, one requires the other to maintain existence.

Imagine Time as a river that loops around on itself. Space(and matter) is in this river moving along with the flow. Because of the Law of Time, space and matter will always change as long as it's in the river. "Man" has theorized that the universe will either keep on expanding or start to implode. The universe should end up imploding on itself as the end of Time is approaching. Thus, the order can be as followed. A neutron puts into "nothing". The pressure of "nothing" onto the neutron creates the proton. This starts a chain of events for billions of years that eventually life on Earth. Billions of years more, life develops self-awareness which is more pronounced as Man. Because of the Nature of Time, the end of it and the beginning of it is the same point in it. Given the acceptance of immortality(which is promised in the Bible), Jesus would live for the next "x" amount of years to either 1. Invent/discover backward time travel to place a neutron into "nothing" or 2. Letting the universe implode on itself starting chain reaction once again. In relative perspective, our existence is relatively new to the entire existence of the universe. Hypothetically, if the universe will be100 billion years old before it collapses and we are around 11 to 14 billion years old, then the end of Time is around this time.
First Proton---->universe expansion---->end of Time---->God became "self-aware"---->beginning of Time---->universe expansion---->universe implosion---->First Proton

The reason why this is logical is because there is no other explanation of differentiating time and space. But those are two different things, even though we have to define them together because we can only measure time by it passing.

It is important for one observer to maintain objectivity. The reason why it can't be two or more is because there can always be another perspective that can be true. But because of the inherent paradoxes that Time brings, it needs to remain true. Or you know, we just stop existing. Logic and Reason requires one path.

In conclusion, space and matter are just submerged in Time for a crazy fun ride.

The history of God is the Bible

Math can support multiple universes, but it can also support two as well. "Eleven dimensions" is still only a theory, but theoretical physicists are still discovering more dimensions with math.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. In addition, I would exclude AmericanDeist from voting.


Thanks for your 2nd round, Pro.
I'm fine with AmericanDeist being excluded from voting.
I also wish to remind voters that they need to use the opt-in voting standards.


The resolution has specific, agreed to definitions that leave Pro with the burden to show that there exists a creator AND ruler of the universe AND source of all moral authority AND that this agent is unlimited in power in terms of quantity AND extent.

Pro's got his work cut out for him, given all of those ANDs lurking in the agreed to definitions.

So, to be clear, Pro has to show that there exists:
1. a creator of the universe.
2. a ruler of the universe.
3. a source of ALL moral authority.
4. an entity, god, who satisfies all 3.
5. this god that is also unlimited in the quantity of powers.
6. this god that is also unlimited in the extent of powers.

I'm here to negate all of that.

*Creation Is Temporal*

Creation is a number of time-based actions, of a related kind, coming one after another, taken in order to bring something into existence.

See for yourself:

creation - the PROCESS of bringing something into existence.

process - a SERIES of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.

series - a number of events of a related kind coming one AFTER another.

after - in the TIME following an event.

This means that creation is inherently time-based.
Going from creator-->created product is therefore temporal.
This also means that creators necessarily use a time-based process to bring about their creations.

*Precedence Is Temporal*

Creators not only use a time-based process consisting of one event after another, they also necessarily precede their creations.

The process of creator existing-->creating-->created product can only be described if and only if the creator comes before, or precedes, its creation.

Well, before (precedence) is another temporal or time-based concept.
How could a creator precede its creation without time?

before - during the period of TIME preceding.

Pro, can you distinguish between a creator and its created product without using time or temporal concepts?
I argue that without time, one cannot tell the difference between a creator and its created product; one wouldn't be able to tell if creation has occurred because there would be no precedence.


While you may get some differing physicist's opinions on whether or not space and time are the same thing, there is no dispute that they are inter-contingent.

Without time, there is no space, and without space, there is no time.
In fact, that's why they put space and time on a continuum, called spacetime.

"In the first place it is clear that the equations must be linear on account of the properties of homogeneity which we attribute to space and time."

So, hereafter, if space is mentioned, one should think of spacetime, and if time is mentioned, one should also think of spacetime.

*Space is Expanding*

Space is also currently expanding at a fixed rate proportional to the distance between the galaxies, called the Hubble Constant.

What's great is that we can go back in time by using the inverse of the Hubble Constant, the rate at which space contracts, and see how long space has been expanding.

Doing this indicates that space, and therefore time, were at one point very, very small, and as recent anisotropy probes have detected, there was a point when there was no space, therefore no time.

*No Creator of the Universe*

So, when there was no time, there could not have been creation, because creation is necessarily temporal and so is precedence.
This also means that the universe wasn't created, because spacetime began at the universe's origin.

Unfortunately for god, in this debate, a creator of the universe doesn't exist, because the time required for such a process, creation, originates with the space of the universe which wasn't there without the universe.

No space, no time, no creation, no creator of the universe, no god in this debate.

*Source of Immorality*

From what I can gather, the god of the bible is the ultimate author of it, so what we find in the bible is morally approved by him.

According to the god of the bible in Exodus 21:20 - 21:21:
"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result,
but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Apologists typically throw out that the idea "slave" is being used to mean "servant" or "butler."
Ok, so god's cool with you beating a butler as long as you don't kill them BECAUSE they are your property?

If we're to believe that the author of these ideas is the source of all moral authority, then is it moral to own other humans as property?

Pro, do you believe that it is moral for humans to own other humans as property?
Why do you think the source of all moral authority would authorize such behavior?

God also adds in Deuteronomy 22:13 - 22:21:
"If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity' [and]...the charge is true and no proof of the young woman"s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father"s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous being promiscuous while still in her father"s house. You must purge the evil from among you."

So, the alleged source of all moral authority, god, is not cool with women having sex before marriage, and if this does in fact occur, he commands all of the men of the town to stone them to death?

I'm speechless.
One would expect the source of all MORAL authority to be, I don't know...moral.

Pro, is stoning a promiscuous girl at her father's doorstep moral?
If not, why would the source of all moral authority instruct people to do such things?

*Pro's Case*

Pro never touched on how god created the universe, how god rules the universe, or how he's the source of all moral authority, so there really wasn't much of a case at all from Pro.

For these reasons, I need not refute anything, because the definition of god hasn't been exemplified in Pro's case at all.

Next round we'll be discussing omnipotence...great.
I reject that the non-existent creator of a universe that wasn't created isn't unlimited in power in terms of quantity and extent.
Debate Round No. 2


1 (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

1.1 Having ultimate power and influence.
'an omnipotent sovereign'

As Canis wrote in the comments, one must first identify something before calling it omnipotent. The reason for is to bypass all those paradoxes that Con could say in his arguments. I am not saying those paradoxes don't exist(even though technically speaking, a paradox is always where the "rational road" ends), I am calling "God" omnipotent after I have identified him(Jesus), thus "God" cannot inherently be more than Himself. Oxford dictionary included that "1.1" definition for this exact reason. An example phrase was given to express the inherent contradiction of omnipotence. 'An omnipotent sovereign'. When one describes something as omnipotent, one is ultimately always putting a definable limit of that "something". The sovereign cannot do any of those paradoxes conceptually associated with omnipotence, but still can be defined as omnipotence. In my opinion, God cannot exist beyond God. Thus God is always limited to what He can become but still can be omnipotent.

I realized that I have given the choice between Time Travel and continuance, but based on our understanding of wormholes, I would put forth that Time Travel would be invented. The reason why it's theorized only future Time Travel is possible is because of the inherent paradoxes of backward Time Travel. Again to bypass the paradoxes, the only possible solution to if backward Time Travel exists is to accept that it has already happened without it being observed. The only way that could have happened is through actions that cause unlikely circumstances to occur. Those are known as miracles.

The best way to identify who I am is a "natural philosopher". I only put it like that because what I'm about to say can only be understood through natural philosophy rather than modern physics. Please check out this 5 min video I made. It explains(poorly I know) what I am calling Differential Perspective which is necessary to apply logic and reason to all we know about physics. Please like :)

Now I will try to explain it better. Imagine Time is a river with a constant current(the very cool thing about this is that I can explain 'why' relativity happens). Now imagine space and matter as a Two-dimensional plane(object) in that river. As it moves along that river, it continues to grow(representing expansion of the universe). Now if you look a bit smaller and examine the galaxies, you can see them all be in 2 dimensions in a sense. The reason being is the dimension of time is pressuring space and matter into a 2-dimensional plane. Now some galaxies are moving faster than others. Why is that? Well if you take this Differential Perspective, and if the galaxy rotates to be flat against the current, then hypothetically it would go faster just like how a sail boat works with the wind. Oh yes, this explains why galaxies are moving faster after the initial explosion of the Big Bang. In addition to understanding, it opens the possibility for perceiving the 5th dimension that Time does not exist. I believe electrons and other subatomic particles exist there. But there still in the river where the constant of the proton still reacts to them. So as the proton moves through the river it collects some baggage(the electron) and the atom is formed. Now this explains all properties of the electron(as well as the other sub-atomic particle) because they do not exist in Time like the proton does, but still is able to react to the proton(and neutron). This Differential Perspective rationalizes Quantum Mechanics even with Quantum Entanglement(now to try prove Einstein right).

Quantum Entanglement is basically identifying two sub-atomic particles acting in accordance with one another. Looking at them from Differential Perspective, I hypothesize that it's actually the exact same sub-atomic particle acting the opposites way in two different places. It exists out of time, thus distance and objects are irrelevant. I also think this is the essence of magnetism. The electron that acts opposite of itself naturally "wants to be as close as it can to itself in the the same place". This would confirm Einstein was right all along in which Quantum Mechanics was not completed yet.

The reality of this theory explains this universe. There doesn't need to be multiple universes. Differential Perspective can explain everything in one universe, so by the logic of Occam's Razor, it's not a theory(It's actually logic, point effect). String theory is a theory. The Big Bang is a theory. But this is looking at the universe to how we are actually supposed to be looking at it.

Relativity: The current of Time is skewed by space and matter. The current pushing the object is always inherently slower than the current around the object. The Theory of Relativity is the result of such an interaction.

All of this being said is to attribute to the omnipotence of God. Whoever invents backward Time Travel, in my opinion, will be God. That entity can be created in the future, then go back to 1. put a neutron into nothing, starting the chain reaction of the Big Bang 2. Put DNA into the primordial ooze to start life (Oh yes, Intelligent Design)3. Do all those miracles in the Bible to make sure they're witnessed and 4. To make sure everything else is supposed to happen the way it happens. Such an entity requires autonomy(call it omnipotence) and for His perspective to be the Truth. Here's the reason why for that.

If you don't want to watch that video(even though it's a lot better than mine), then to sum up the problem is that because we observe things at different times(watch about the first two minutes of it to explain it better), there needs to be one observer to maintain the nature of fact. Time will always be dependent on this one particular observer. That observer is God. Now Con has interestingly enough brought up an immoral perspective of God which I will address in the final debate. But I wish to clarify a few things.

1. a creator of the universe. - God puts the neutron in nothing thus creating the universe
2. a ruler of the universe. - God invented/discovered Time Travel which gives Him power to cultivate the entire universe as He sees fit. (sounds like a ruler to me)
3. a source of ALL moral authority. - God can do whatever He wants so He can dictate morality(That sounds like Moral Authority to me) But I will address those moral objections in my next argument
4. an entity, god, who satisfies all 3. - A man becomes God (in Christianity that's Jesus)
5. this god that is also unlimited in the quantity of powers. - He can do anything a human is capable of achieving and more.
6. this god that is also unlimited in the extent of powers. - He can do anything non-paradoxical through science.

I wish also to say that even though this technically not true because the science community has not accepted this yet, Con still must prove this Differential Perspective to be wrong in order for Atheism still be considered a fact. A fact by definition is something that can't be proven wrong. The hilarious thing about all of this is that I'm not even trying to prove the existence of God even though that's what this debate is about. I have given a "theory" that undermines the factual nature of Atheism. I don't know if this is going to be enough to win this debate, but like I said, I hope at least at the end of the debate that we begin to see that Atheism is no longer a fact.

Oh yeah, if you would take the Differential Perspective of the 5th dimension to be a river, then Time would be a flat circle in it. Perspective is relative. It's important to keep it relative to understand how the Nature of The Universe works.

Thank You, Con for this debate.


Thanks for your 3rd round, Pro.
Pro referenced the definitions, so I certainly will too.
The agreed to definitions are pretty clear.


Having unlimited power in terms of quantity and extent is not only the accepted definition for omnipotent in this debate, it most matches god's presumed ability to do ALL THINGS indicated in the bible.

Remember, Pro was quite clear that the god in this debate "must be Christian God" (Pro, Round 1).
Well, the bible's clear.
God, according to the bible, most matches definition 1, able to do anything; able to do all things.

Matthew 19:26:
"And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God ALL THINGS are possible."

Job 42:1 + Job 42:2
"Then Job answered the LORD and said, I know that you can do ALL THINGS; no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

*Omnipotence Problem 1*

I've tried to explain this concept to many a theist and they can't quite seem to understand it.
The set of ALL POWERS, which omnipotence necessarily entails, must include powers that exist in opposition to each other.

This is just one example, but an omnipotent entity MUST have the power to move anything.
This entity also MUST have the power to resist (be immovable to) anything.

But I'm not going to leave the omnipotence paradox right there, like most critics of omnipotence do.
Instead, I'm going to point out that the set of ALL POWERS must also include the power to infinitely remain able to move anything and the power to infinitely remain immovable to anything.

So, omnipotence necessarily includes:
1. The power to move anything.
2. The power to resist (not be moved by) anything.
3. The power to infinitely remain able to move anything.
4. The power to infinitely remain able to resist anything.
5. The power to infinitely remain all powerful.

If god has the power to move anything, #1, he therefore can move himself.
This would violate #2, because he can resist anything, including himself.

If god has the power to resist anything, #2, he therefore can resist himself.
This would violate #1, because he can move anything, including himself.

So many theists say, "well he can temporarily relinquish his ability to move anything and allow himself to be resisted."
This however, would then violate #3, because he supposedly has the power to infinitely remain able to move anything and being resisted directly negates that; this temporary dip in power also negates the power to infinitely remain all powerful, #5.

So, Pro, can god move anything and infinitely remain immovable?
Pro, can god resist anything and infinitely remain irresistible?

Pro has already said:
"I am not saying those paradoxes don't exist."

My response:
That's because with omnipotence, they certainly do, if god is to contain the complete set of ALL POWERS, then he contains powers that negate or mitigate the other powers.

*Omnipotence Problem 2*

Here is a list of things that the god of the bible cannot do, and certainly Pro will agree.

1. God cannot infinitely gain power.
Because god supposedly has all of the power, he therefore cannot gain power or create more power to gain.
This obviously cannot be done infinitely, because god can't even gain any power, let alone an infinite amount.

2. God cannot physically demonstrate his existence without negating his existence.
Being incomprehensible, due to infinite complexity, is yet another power in the set of ALL POWERS.
For god to demonstrate his existence physically would mean for him to be comprehended in some fashion and this would negate his infinite complexity and his power to infinitely remain incomprehensible.

3. God cannot act against his original intentions and choose freely.
Being that god has the power to infinitely be correct, his intentions and subsequent actions are always correct.
He therefore cannot go against his original intentions and act freely, instead he's LIMITED by his original intentions.

4. God cannot fly.
Being that god is superior to both gravity and air resistance, god cannot be susceptible to either force.
Well, that's what the power to fly is.
To admit that god could fly, would be to admit his utter submission to the laws of gravity and aerodynamics and that he needs to maneuver around them to travel distance in the air.

5. God cannot encounter or solve difficult problems.
Nothing is difficult for god, so god cannot solve difficult problems, in fact, god cannot solve problems, because he would never be able to encounter a problem.
Encountering a problem would admit a lack of knowing how to solve something.
God cannot encounter or solve problems because of this.

*Omnipotence Problem 3*

Pro feeds the contradiction:
"Thus God is always limited to what He can become but still can be omnipotent."

My response:
Pro should reference the bible's understanding of god's powers, as that's the god that Pro demanded be argued in this debate and the god that the definitions most accurately reflect.
If god is ALWAYS limited, then how is he unlimited in quantity and extent of powers?
If god is ALWAYS limited, then how can god "do all things" as the bible clearly indicates?

Pro, why would you include the definition of unlimited "not limited or restricted in terms of number, quantity, or extent" if you weren't going to bother to follow it?
Your bible bothered to follow it; so should you.

*Pro's Differential Perspective*

Pro's DP is largely irrelevant to omnipotence, which is the topic designated for this round.
But from what I can gather, Pro is basically saying that time "pressures" matter and space into a two dimensional plane on time's "river current" such that if a galaxy were to rotate within this river current, it would expand outward much faster than galaxies that have not rotated in the river current of time and that since there's a 5th dimension in which time doesn't exist, subatomic particles can exist outside of time, in that 5th dimension.

Great, what does any of that have to do with god being omnipotent?

Pro writes:
"All of this being said is to attribute to the omnipotence of God."

My response:
Great, I fail to see the link, but maybe you can bring us to the point of all that?

Pro adds:
"Whoever invents backward Time Travel...can be created in the future, then go back to 1. put a neutron into nothing, starting the chain reaction of the Big Bang 2."

My response:
Why does an omnipotent entity need to go back in time or a neutron to create the universe?
Shouldn't the power to create our universe sans time travel be possessed by an omnipotent god?
Shouldn't the power to create our universe sans a neutron be possessed by an omnipotent god?
The bible sure thinks so.
So do the definitions in our debate.


The inherent contradictions are obvious.
Having all powers contains negating powers, thus omnipotence is illogical.
Pro can try all they want to ignore the bible and the agreed to definitions of the debate, but it is futile.
The creator of a universe that wasn't created isn't unlimited in power in terms of extent and quantity.

The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 3


Here, I don't have to explain it, this guy does a great job explaining it. Min 4:40 is when he starts explaining what you just asked. What you don't understand is that I am applying this logic to God, especially omnipotence. This is why your argument of omnipotence doesn't hold up. Infinity doesn't mean necessarily mean unlimited, it just means knowingly unending. Think of the biggest you can possibly conceive. I will always say to add 1 and that would mean that I would know of a bigger number than you. This concept is represented by infinity. This also infers why infinity minus infinity does not equal to zero. That's where people, including Christians, perceived it to be wrong. You are working on a false assumption of omnipotence. The ability to do all things does not imply that everything will be done.


Thanks for that response Pro, though I must admit, it was rather anticlimactic.
Pro also seemed to neglect a ton of resolution-impacting attacks on his case.
Oh well, I'll still follow the rules.

*Disputing Pro's Logic*

Pro reasons:
"The creation of God(according to Christians, Jesus is God) was the beginning of Time. Therefore, the end of Time is the moment of Jesus' first conscious thought as Man."

My response:
Well, this is a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.
It's also unsound.
If we accept that the creation of god is the beginning of time then why is the end of time god's first conscious thought?
Has there been an end of time, and if not, does that mean that Jesus never had his first conscious thought?

I mean, I know I'm supposed to dispute my opponent's logic this round, but Pro isn't giving me anything with logic in it.

Pro goes on:
"one individual that observes everything from an outside point of view can be accepted as Truth. Thus as Time is part of logic, in order for Time to exist as a whole, it must only have one individual to maintain its integrity."

My response:
If we accept that truth requires an observer and time is a part of logic, why does then time require an observer?
Pro never showed the link between logic having time and the necessity of an observer, and it's all rather incoherent.

This "logic" seemed to be the basis for why backwards time travel makes someone god in Pro's case.
Seriously, I want readers to think about this.
Pro has made no attempt to show that god is the beginning of time or that the end of time is god's first conscious thought, yet this is used as the only basis for Pro's god proof.

I'm saying Pro's case is all bunk.


Pro never addressed how creation can be done without the universe's spacetime, so Pro never showed that the universe was created or that there was a creator.
Pro never addressed how god is the source of moral authority when he clearly instructs humans to own other humans and stone promiscuous girls at their father's doorstep.
Pro never addressed the specific contradictions, inherent in omnipotence, laid out in my 3rd round.
Pro just dropped the ball in this debate, so...

One must vote Con given the drops and the clear negation of the resolution that the creator of a universe that wasn't created is unlimited in power in terms of quantity and extent.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
103 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
You just lost and are mad.
You can keep whining though and calling me a coward; it doesn't make you lose any less than you already did.
Posted by TheTheoreticalPhilosopher 2 years ago
It's cool, I'm still proving it wrong. :) This actually does explain why you only use specific definitions from that particular dictionary. Did you know that the definition of 'omnipotence' in the New Oxford American Dictionary is the quality of having unlimited or very great power? That 'or very great power' does actually confine those paradoxes of 'omnipotence', not the existence of God. Just out of curiosity, how does denying the truth ever going to make you smarter than me? Before you start spouting truthful things because your ego is bruised, I'm asking humbly, if you deny the logic of countable infinity applying to 'omnipotence' even though it makes perfect sense, then how in the world do you think that you are better than me? Because you got a kid who doesn't understand it as well to vote for your in this debate(no offense PowerPikachu)? I am saying that I am better than you not because I "win at debates", but because I will never deny any rational explanation of why things are. But hey, keep being a coward until I get more popular. Do you wanna try this debate again by the way? I suspect not mostly because even you know that I would win. We can do this debate again, even the exact same rules, but I suspect that you would try to get rid of that 1.1 definition of "omnipotent" which is why I need to literally debate the dictionary you use. Oh, what hubris.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Nope, not really interested in that debate, sorry.
Posted by TheTheoreticalPhilosopher 2 years ago
This is Sidex and this is my new account:). For all who follow my debates, I am going to start debating the definitions of words the the dictionary (ooo what fun). OH geeze, you know what I feel like we these debates have, in fact, already happened by those who actually write the dictionary, so I will be essentially arguing which dictionary is more objective(meaning more indisputable) to what each individual word actually does imply. I am starting with "omnipotence". Magic, would you like to debate me on how the exact definition of 'omnipotence' is incorrectly defined in the "" dictionary? It would be great to debate a reputable person as yourself to properly define an important of a word as 'omnipotent'.
Posted by Sidex 2 years ago
Nah it's cool, I actually thought I explained that contradiction in the third round, hey PowerPikachu, did you check out my debate with TheUnexaminedLife, it actually defines how we look are suppose to look at infinity, a perspective that is actually needed to explain omniscience. It's math which I know that you don't disagree with. We as humans don't like to think "Infinity" as being contained in a variable, but that kind of mentality explains exactly why functions work. In the generic of y=mx+b to describe any line, "x" is actually restricted to all real numbers, meaning an 'infinite' range of possibility in positive and negative numbers including irrational numbers (1/23). The dictionary is actually wrong in describing "omnipotent" in 'unlimited' rather than saying 'infinite'. I am actually going to be redefining many words in the dictionary simply because of my inability to articulate my logic as well as I should. I'm going to start a new account, this time I am actually trying to win. Hopefully, MagicAintReal will debate me again. But I am not worried about proving Atheism wrong(Without my perspective, in my opinion, it's actually the most current rational belief, so I can't exactly say that MagicAintReal is wrong until my theories come to fruition.) But hey, this is going to be fun. :) I'm changing to a different account, to a new one that I am now trying to always win at debating. Good luck people :).
Posted by kgbisafterme 2 years ago
MagicAin(')tReal for president and Sidex for VP!!
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Thanks for the vote PowerPikachu
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
So guys, you can just go here instead.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 2 years ago
Yeah I did raise that point MagicAR... I apologise we haven't acted upon it.
'1' is that keyboard but that '1' is never accessible to us. We only receive is as a fraction and use our '1' (the unifying consciousness) to process it.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 2 years ago
Can I ask for another example, since 'time' under B-theory can be questioned as non-linear and really a human-imposed system. Are you simply referring to making experience simple (2D) in our minds?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 2 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: I'm sorry Sidex, but Con won. The resolution was "God is omnipotent", with omnipotent being defined as "having unlimited power; able to do anything." Con shows that unlimited power is impossible, as God can't move himself, as he's supposed to always resist everything, and he can't not move himself as he should be ale to move anything at any time. Sidex drops that argument, as well as dropping other omnipotence contradictions made by Con. Sidex even said God is limited in some areas, but God's supposed to be "unlimited". Conduct was good, S&G is good, both used good sources.