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

Omnipotence is logically unachivable, thus God can't be omnipotent

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anonymous has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 112025
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Con

I personally don't believe in God, because (among other things) using logic, omnipotence falls apart. Let's begin by trying to cover most definitions of omnipotence:

-Absolute omnipotence: The ability to do anything even beyond the limits possibility.

-Logical omnipotence: The ability to do anything within the limits of logic.

-Natural omnipotence: The ability to do anything that doesn't contradict your "natural essence"

Let's tackle them one at a time to logically disprove them.

First let's talk about absolute omnipotence. I think this falls apart rather quickly, and that's why almost nobody thinks of omnipotence as absolute. If we follow the definition, we reach the conclusion that this being would be able to create a son that never had parents. This is completetely imposible not just because it is creating an enviroment beyond logic (what the definition states it can do), but also because it goes aganist the definitions of te words themselves. The word son denotes that it MUST have parents. So this definition is just imposible without manipulating the meaning of the words.

Now let's talk about logical omnipotence. Since a logically omnipotent being can do anything that we can imagine within the boundaries of logic let's think of this: I am in the countryside and I decide to make a pile of rocks in the middle of the fields that I'm standing on. I create a small pile of finite rocks that I can lift, so I keep adding rocks. At the end I create a pile so big that I'm not able to lift it (But it's still finite). Since I was able to logically create this scenario, God should be able to accomplish the same thing that I just did. But then we reach a problem, if God can create the pile that he can't lift, then he wouldn't be omnipotent, because he cannot lift this finite amount of rocks. If he is able to lift the rocks, then he wouldn't be able to create a pile of rocks that he can't lift, which would prove that he isn't omnipotent.

Also, if we focus on the Christian God, then we can find more contradictions aganist the logically omnipotent being. Since in Hebrews 6:18 and in Titus 1:2 the Bible states that God can't lie and I can imagine a God lying, we also reach the conclusion that this God is not logically omnipotent.

Some may argue: "But lying is aganist God's honest nature" and there's when the third definition kicks in. "God is a natural omnipotent being because he can do anything that doesn't violate his natural essence". I personally think this claim is totally ridiculous, because, if we think that an omnipotent being is a creature that can do anything that doesn't go aganist his nature, then every creature in the entire univerese is omnipotent!

If we follow that logic it would mean that I am omnipotent because I can do anything, but if someone asks me to fly or lift a 1000000 kilograms, I could simply reply with: "Flying and lifting so much weight is not part of my nature becase I'm a being limited by his muscular size and shape"

Finally, after disproving logically the concept of omnipotence, we reach the conclusion: If a God exists it isn't omnipotent and is completely limited.
Mingodalia

Pro


CON SAYS:
"Also, if we focus on the Christian God, then we can find more contradictions aganist the logically omnipotent being. Since in Hebrews 6:18 and in Titus 1:2 the Bible states that God can't lie and I can imagine a God lying, we also reach the conclusion that this God is not logically omnipotent."

God, according to the Christian Bible, exists in at least 3 persons. Thus, in theory, a god could self replicate into multiple persons, one who cannot lie, and one who can lie like a dog.

What Con is ignoring philosophically is a god that exists in multiple forms. In the Bible, God exists as the Father, the Son, & the Holy Ghost. Theoretically, there could be infinite manifestations and forms of "God".

----------

CON SAYS:
"If he is able to lift the rocks, then he wouldn't be able to create a pile of rocks that he can't lift, which would prove that he isn't omnipotent."

Again, if God exists in multiple forms, His first self could create the rock pile that he himself can lift, while the second version of himself cannot lift it.

----------

CON SAYS:
"First let's talk about absolute omnipotence. I think this falls apart rather quickly, and that's why almost nobody thinks of omnipotence as absolute. If we follow the definition, we reach the conclusion that this being would be able to create a son that never had parents. This is completetely imposible not just because it is creating an enviroment beyond logic (what the definition states it can do), but also because it goes aganist the definitions of the words themselves. The word son denotes that it MUST have parents. So this definition is just imposible without manipulating the meaning of the words."

Sure you can. In the movie "Predestination", the baby's dna is provided from himself/herself in the future in a time travel paradox.


2)Pinnochio had no parents, yet Geppetto called him "Son".


3)Whatever Darwinian Theory claims, in theory, was the first living organism, technically had no parents.

4)A son can also be adopted, so theoretically, a Pinnochio type character could have no parents, yet be the son of Geppetto.

----------

CON SAYS:
"Some may argue: "But lying is aganist God's honest nature
and there's when the third definition kicks in. "God is a natural omnipotent being because he can do anything that doesn't violate his natural essence". I personally think this claim is totally ridiculous, because, if we think that an omnipotent being is a creature that can do anything that doesn't go aganist his nature, then every creature in the entire univerese is omnipotent!"

1)Trying to prove theoretically that every creature in the universe or even beyond is omnipotent, would only still prove God is omnipotent.

2)If God exists in multiple forms, he could have an infinite number of essences, and each form could have things it cannot do, but there is always another form that can do the thing, whatever it is.

One form could lie while another form cannot.

Form 1 could create a rock so heavy that form 2 cannot lift it while form 1 can lift any weight of rock.

-----------

CON SAYS:
"If we follow that logic it would mean that I am omnipotent because I can do anything, but if someone asks me to fly or lift a 1000000 kilograms, I could simply reply with: "Flying and lifting so much weight is not part of my nature becase I'm a being limited by his muscular size and shape."

This logic doesn't follow if God exists in multiple forms or can travel through time. He could be able to lie in 1980 originally, then his future self could go back in time and put limitations on lying on himself.

-----------

OTHER POINTS

-----------

POINT 1

In theory, one could argue that omnipotence simply means you cannot die/be destroyed and/or that you are unchangeable. Thus, being "unable to change and/or be destroyed" in and of itself would make one "omnipotent".

In another argument, one could say omnipotent simply means to have control over all of reality. Inability to lie would in no way change your control over all of reality.

-----------

POINT 2

Technically, God could create multiple realities, one in which he can lie and one in which he cannot.

----------

REFERENCES



Debate Round No. 1

Con

PRO SAYS:

"God, according to the Christian Bible, exists in at least 3 persons. Thus, in theory, a god could self replicate into multiple people, one who cannot lie, and one who can lie like a dog."

But if he is able to self replicate in such way, he would be changing its essential nature, and I could argue that he isn't the same God as it was before changing. Imagine the same example I gave with me lifting weight that I cannot lift, I could train changing my nature to be able to lift that weight, but, I wouldn't be the same as before since my nature isn't the same.

Let me frame it differently, I can logically imagine a scenario where I truthfully say: There are no omnipotent beings. If God said it truthfully like me, he would not be omnipotent and if he couldn't, he would not be an omnipotent being.

PRO SAYS:

"Sure you can. In the movie "Predestination", the baby's dna is provided from himself/herself in the future in a time travel paradox."

Then, in that pardoxical scenario, he would be his own parent because he gave the dna necesary to create himself/herself. Maybe the examle I gave isn't correct, let me give you another one. God would be able to create water without hydrogen and oxygen on it.

PRO SAYS:

"2)Pinnochio had no parents, yet Geppetto called him "Son"."

Yeah, but that is not a correct use of the word "Son", because even if Geppetto used it, that doesn't make Pinnochio a son, he still has no parents.

PRO SAYS:

"3)Whatever Darwinian Theory claims, in theory, was the first living organism, technically had no parents."

Darwinian theory doesn't talk about the first living being, abiogenesis does. And yes, the first living being didn't have parents, that's why he wasn't a son. For a being to be a son he NEEDS parents, if he doesn't have parents, it would mean that he isn't a son.

PRO SAYS:

"4)A son can also be adopted, so theoretically, a Pinnochio type character could have no parents, yet be the son of Geppetto"

Well that can be fixed by just changing the phrase. "God could create a son that doesn't have and didn't have biological parents". That's just impossible.

PRO SAYS:

"This logic doesn't follow if God exists in multiple forms or can travel through time. He could be able to lie in 1980 originally, then his future self could go back in time and put limitations on lying on himself."

Even if he could do that, I imagined a scenario where I said that no omnipotent beings exist truthfully, God cannot say it truthfully, even if you put time travel and other abilities in the middle. Because if he can say truthfully that no omnipotent beings exist, then it would mean that he isn't omnipotent.

PRO SAYS:

"In theory, one could argue that omnipotence simply means you cannot die/be destroyed and/or that you are unchangeable. Thus, being "unable to change and/or be destroyed" in and of itself would make one "omnipotent"".

If that's your definition, then the Christian God doesn't fit it. For example, in some translations of Jeremiah 26:3 it says that he'll change his mind. In Genesis 18:27-33 Abraham changes God's mind.

PRO SAYS:

"In another argument, one could say omnipotent simply means to have control over all of reality. Inability to lie would in no way change your control over all of reality"

Yes indeed it changes your control of reality. Not having the ability to lie makes you incapable of altering the reality around you in some ways.

PRO SAYS:

"Technically, God could create multiple realities, one in which he can lie and one in which he cannot."

I don't care about which tools he could use to do that. I can stand up and lie without changing my form or altering reality. God cannot lie without changing form or at least in this reality where he cannot, thus, God is not omnipotent because if he was he should be able to tell a lie without altering reality or its form, because that's an action that I can do.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Points I want to make:

1.-Omnipotence isn't logically achivable, you can be very powerfull but never reach the top.

2.-The Christian God has limitations.

3.-Since the Bible is moraly wrong in so many things like Deuteronomy 13:7-11, 18:22-24 or Leviticus 18:22 to name a few, but we are told that god is omnibenevolent (also contradicted in Isaiah 45:6-7) , we reach the conclusion that the Bible has contradictions on it, that maybe signal that there may be other lies like about the omnipotence of God.
Mingodalia

Pro

CON SAYS:

"But if he is able to self replicate in such way, he would be changing its essential nature."

----------

We don't know the theoretical nature of the god, to know if there even was a change. Maybe that was the original nature.

----------

CON SAYS:

"Let me frame it differently, I can logically imagine a scenario where I truthfully say: There are no omnipotent beings."

I can imagine a scenario where God simply takes away the possibility of a reality without omnipotent beings. He simply wills it out of being or never allows it in the first place. Maybe he has, thus it cannot be. He can then truthfully say that no such scenario exists, and then put the scenario back in place if he feels like doing so.

----------
CON SAYS:
"The Christian God has limitations."

1)The word "omnipotence" isn't mentioned in the Bible, so it is simply a theoretical concept, & not a part of Christian religious doctrine. I say this because Con has referenced Christianity.

2)I can imagine scenarios where a god cannot NOT be omnipotent.

-----------

CON SAYS:

"Darwinian theory doesn't talk about the first living being, abiogenesis does. And yes, the first living being didn't have parents, that's why he wasn't a son."

----------

That's fine. Abiogenesis speaks of the first living thing. It would have no living parents, but it would be "begotten" from something, thus could technically be the son of atoms, dust, etc.

----------

CON SAYS:

"Yeah, but that is not a correct use of the word "Son", because even if Geppetto used it, that doesn't make Pinnochio a son, he still has no parents."

----------

Definition of son:

1a : a human male offspring especially of human beings

b : a male adopted child

c : a human male descendant

2capitalized : the second person of the Trinity

3: a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (such as a nation, school, or race)


----------

CON SAYS:

"God would be able to create water without hydrogen and oxygen on it."

----------

A theoretical god could create water with jello and cheese.

----------


CON SAYS:
"God cannot lie without changing form"

Maybe his original form is multi existences or in multiple forms.

---------

CON SAYS:

"God is not omnipotent because if he was he should be able to tell a lie without altering reality or its form"

Maybe he only creates forms where he cannot lie, but has the capability of creating realities where he can lie. He simply chooses not to because he sees no need to lie, seeing he has all the power.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DrAnomaly 3 years ago
DrAnomaly
Lol this was settled thousands of years ago. Omnipotence is a myth.
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.