Instigator / Pro
29
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1983
God of the Bible is not omnipotent
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...
User_2006
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
16
1432
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
I will sit by and see you destroying yourself.
It is hard to come up with a precise definition, but this definition is good, and I won’t be abusing it. The concept of an all knowing, all powerful and omnipresent God is not true, and not a biblical concept.1. God is not all knowingGenesis 11:4 -9 – Tower of Babel;: God “comes down” to see what the people are up to.
- Genesis 6:6 – And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. An omniscient LORD would have no reason to repent for he would have known in advance how his creations would turn out.
- Genesis 18:20-21 – “Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.””
2. god is not all powerful.In Genesis 32, some random Jew gets challenged by God to a fist fight, and as bad as jews are at fighting the random Jew (Jacob) still managed to pretty much whip God’s ass.3. God is not omnipresent, In the Garden of Eden he has no clue where adam and eve are and have to call out to them, only to find them hiding and he got pissed that they were covered and he could not see their genitals. Genesis 3:8-13
This is written by my opponent herself, guys. Source:
Forfeited
Round 2
I extend. If my opponent forfeits again, I will go on full power even though my opponent didn't say a thing.
Expect my opponent's answer. Been it for 2 rounds already.
Definitions
The word omnipotence is important to get right for this debate. This way we know what we are actually debating. To determine what definition of omnipotent means we need to try and go as close to the original meaning of the word as possible, since the bible is a very old book.
Here is the definition I pulled form https://www.lexico.com/definition/omnipotent
Omnipotent- "Having great power and influence.
‘an omnipotent sovereign'
The word's first uses, have the word being used to describe kings who have great power over their dominion or it is often used to describe the powers of warlords. The bible refers to god as the most high several times and as the God of all Gods. This certainly qualifies as omnipotent for this debate, and I should win based on that alone, but I will proceed.
We can see here it does not neccessarily mean being able to do anything, it merely means great power.
Jacob wrestles with God
The story of Jacob wrestling with God can be found here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+32%3A22-32&version=NIV
Jacob heas metaphorically been wrestling with God his whole life. He grabbed onto his brother's heel when his brother went to exit the womb, so he could try to become first born. Jacob pretended to be his brother Esau when his father died to steal his blessing, and when we come to the point in the story where Jacob wrestles with God, he is still fighting god trying to force his hand by coming "home" early.
God can have a flare for the dramatic sometimes, so he comes down to Earth in human form and wrestls with Jacob for an entire night. Probably over the course of 8 hours. This real wrestling match was to let Jacob physically feel what he has been doing in a metaphorical sense his entire life. When morning came, god decided to end the charade, by merely touching Jacob's leg and giving him a permanent disability making it difficult for him to walk his entire life.
We also have God commanding Jacob to change his name to Israel. Israel would father the nation of Israel. This wrestling match was also symbolic of the future the Jews would have wrestling with God as well. The Jews would continually challenge or abandon their faith in god when convenient. One time in the desert for example, God was literally raining food down on them every day. This food was called manna, and it is described as very delicious and filling, but because the Jews despite being personally blessed with miracles such as this would still doubt God, and were in fact punished for hoarding God's manna against his commands.
Many examples of the faithlessness of the Jews are repeated through the old and new testament of the bible. The story of Jacob does not disprove god's omnipotence. We have god toying with Jacob and then merely touching his hip to disable him for life/
Plagiarism
My opponent has blatantly plagiarized his entire argument from me, please award me conduct points on top of my other points
Rebuttals/Conclusion
My opponents other arguments address God's lack of omniscience and omnipresence, but neither quality has anything at all to do with omnipotence and should be disregarded as irrelevant. Thanks for reading this debate and please vote con
Round 3
PlagiarismMy opponent has blatantly plagiarized his entire argument from me, please award me conduct points on top of my other points
Objection: My opponent has forfeited one last round before, so that makes the decision of deducting my conduct points not absolutely justified.
Here is the definition I pulled form https://www.lexico.com/definition/omnipotentOmnipotent- "Having great power and influence.‘an omnipotent sovereign'
That is not the definition of omnipotent. I understand that I didn't define it, but your sources disprove your definition since it is a BRANCH of the original definition. The original definition of Omnipotence, according to your site, is:
(of a deity) having unlimited power.‘God is described as omnipotent and benevolent’
I have other sites:
Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power.
OmnipotenceA is the power to do anything. This power, if a being had it, would include the capacity to do all logically possible acts, such as create and destroy material objects, do math problems, and so on. This power would also include the capacity to do logically impossible acts such as create a square circle, or a married bachelor, cause 2 + 2 = 5, avoid unavoidable occurrences, and so on.
OmnipotenceLP is the power to do anything that is logically possible. This power, if a being had it, would include the capacity to do any act that does not generate a logically contradictory state of affairs. So this being could create a world that has free rational beings in it, but it could not create a world that both has free, rational beings in it and that is a void world with nothing in it.
This source also favors my argument. If you want to win, first answer this paragraph.
- Suppose God can do everything that is possible, including the ones that humans cannot comprehend, then give me an image of a square circle, a sample of a stone too heavy to be lifted by God, and a genius that can't think, etc. I think I figured that you will respond in terms such as, "God can do these things, you just can't comprehend it". Well, what about letting God give me unparalleled amounts of intelligence so I can comprehend the proof of a triangle with 16 sides? If God can't, he can't. I thought about this for about 100 times and I still can't picture what a 16-sided triangle is, so God either isn't omnipotent, or he doesn't like to answer me. If it is the former, then I win. If it is the latter, which is based on the assumption that God is still omnipotent, then you can't prove it either because you don't have a picture of a square circle, and you can only have faith and unreliable evidence(which is the bible) that God is omnipotent.
- This is also that Omnipotence(LP) is not fully omnipotent, so in Omnipotence LP god cannot create a square that has 8 angles, which means Omnipotence LP is not fully omnipotent.
Also, you have failed to respond to some of your own quotes.
This would mean that your entire argument is basically false since it contradicts with the global understanding of the term and even the site of definition from your choice.
Also, Give me justifications for why God decided to do(or not do) these things.
- Eliminate all evil on the planet
- Make humans write the bible instead of writing it itself
- Use Jesus as messenger instead of penetrating the words into everyone's brain, evolving generations after generations
- Require people to seek God and obey its customs instead of training these habits into instincts and making every single person believe that he is the true God automatically instead of manually
- Letting atheism exist
You can't prove those. These are things that even a god in Omnipotent LP can do.
That is, if God is omnipotentA, then we can have no hope of forming any idea of him, finding grounds for believing in him, understanding anything about him, or forming any kind of relationship with him.
If God in terms of Omnipotent A exists, then we won't see him as a being. We will see him as law and order itself.
I rest my case, vote PRO!
Forfeited
Yes, I believe I did err in my identification of participants. I will re-cast a vote.
The vote stated "Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro" but assigned all the points to con, which strikes me as a clear accident. ... If I'm mistaken, please recast it as is (or refined in any way you want), and a different moderator will handle the requested review of it.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
This is one of those exceptions... Generally this is enacted for simple mistakes when the outcome is a foregone conclusion (such as for concessions and Full Forfeitures, but the voter mistakenly voted for the wrong side)
**************************************************
fauxlaw
4 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Argument: Con's single round of argument [round 2] offered more reasoning than Con's three rounds, combined, which amounted to taunting Con rather than offering positive argument on the subject. Point to Con.
Sources: Pro's sourcing was primarily citing Con's citations, with the exception of citing a definition, which Con also did. However, only Con had a exterior source relative to her argument. Point to Con.
S&G: Pro: "Been it for 2 rounds already" not only bad grammar, but wrong as, to that point, Con had offered but one round. Point to Con
Conduct: Con taunted Pro during all three rounds, without really offering any argument as a proponent. Point to Con.
But for the fact that Con forfeited two rounds, when all that would have been necessary to save her one good argument would have been to extend her argument in round three based on an excellent 2nd round argument. Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro.
Don't make me blush
Thank you for casting such a great vote on this debate.
Insulting what voters you attract, is about the worst way to try to get them to refine their votes. Next time I suggest just asking for further feedback on debate content.
Round 1: "I will sit by and see you destroying yourself."
Round 2: "I will go on full power even though my opponent didn't say a thing. Expect my opponent's answer. Been it for 2 rounds already."
Taunting. That's why Conduct to Pro, who said nothing of this nature against you.
Why conduct to Pro?
You failed to refute most of my points because you have failed to be present at the last round. That's a full forfeit for ya.
I can only vote based on the rules. The rule is clear.
Calling me a dumbass does not change the rules. All you had to do was say.. my position stands. You gambled with the rules and you lost.
Judge based on the arguments presented dumb ass
that is honestly retarded. If I knock down all your arguments in a single post and provide stronger arguments it would be stupid to award my opponent the win
The fact that your opponents position is a double negative (arguing AGAINST God being NOT omnipotent) and that your first round is a repost of something they said previously that disagrees with the opponents double negative (making it a triple negative) with the implication that you disagree with your opponents statement (making it a quadruple negative) makes the whole thing a bit harder to follow than it should be.
"God of the bible is omnipotent" with yourself as con would have been much much better.
If you only have one round written, then it would mean that you have a FF, meaning that I will still win.
Seriously keep falling asleep when it is time to post my argument wtf. Oh well. I only need one round to win this
I actually like this approach.
I don't think that it is fair to use one of their debates as evidence against another. I debate both sides all the time.
I just did. The bible is Gods case file and creation his evidence. Again, i recommend you do a philosophical debate about omnipotence. With religion you will just get a headache.
I understand how christianity works, but you can't prove God's existence without adding water into it.
Bible is direct evidence. If you wanted to debate it non religiously, you should have used philosophy, not religion
If you want to accept the debate, go for it. However it is very dangerous to use that statement since you can't justify it yourself or use any direct evidence.
Revelation 19:6 6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.