Instigator / Pro
49
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#1215

The Omnipotence Paradox is a flawed argument for the Atheist trying to "disprove" God or the unreasonableness of faith

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
21
6
Better sources
14
10
Better legibility
7
5
Better conduct
7
1

After 7 votes and with 27 points ahead, the winner is...

GuitarSlinger
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Description

The argument goes something like this:

To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything. If God can do anything, he ought to be able to create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it. However, this creates a paradox: if God cannot lift the stone, he is not almighty; if God cannot make the stone, he is not almighty. From this, it becomes clear the God cannot be omnipotent, since omnipotence is logically impossible given the paradox. Therefore, God does not exist.

My contention is that this argument is flawed, illogical, and does not disprove God's existence, nor does it disprove His omnipotence, but rather it does nothing but highlight the arguer's misunderstanding of what it means to be "omnipotent" from a Theological/Christian perspective.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con FF the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Full forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

FF because R1 with forfeits means FF in the CoC.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Convincing arguments goes to pro because con failed to respond to any of pro's rebuttals effectively conceding the debate.

Conduct goes to pro because Con forfeited most rounds.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Forfeit from Con, although Con had some interesting points if he wanted to continue. Unfortunately, he never took the time to attempt to defend them from Pro. Pro was more convincing for me, kudos to him; albeit, he had little competition unfortunately.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

67% Forfeiture.

I would have been tempted to award conduct for the R1 insults of blasphemy for initiating this debate... It could have been a somewhat valid claim later by lowering God to the standard of Michael Jordan,

This was a disagreement over if Christians define God as omnipotent anyways, and maybe should have just been a debate on if Christians define God as omnipotent or not, since pro clearly does not (well at least not without a healthy dose of moving the goalpost).

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

2/3 forfeit, neither side convinced me