God of the Bible is not omnipotent
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
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
PlagiarismMy opponent has blatantly plagiarized his entire argument from me, please award me conduct points on top of my other points
Here is the definition I pulled form https://www.lexico.com/definition/omnipotentOmnipotent- "Having great power and influence.‘an omnipotent sovereign'
(of a deity) having unlimited power.‘God is described as omnipotent and benevolent’
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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
More than 50% forfeit
Argument: Pro round 1 argument was absurd because it completely depends on an old and discounted argument that since God is omnipotent and omniscient, He must use the full strength of His power 100% of the time. We don't, and we are made in His image, and, at our best, wholly in His image. Yet, many times, we are able to express sufficient power and intellect/morality without expressing our full potential of them. Why should God. Con's round 2 argument was a much more reasoned argument, representing the only true debate exchange in the debate. Point to Con
Sourcing: Pro's primary source was Con's. Con had fewer, but more pertinent sources. Point to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Con has fully forfeited the debate with 2/3 of the debate. The debate goes to Pro as a result.
Forfeiture.
I really dislike pro's R1, and want to basically discount it from the debate; the problem is con choosing to wait an extra round to reply and then missing the next round after, reduced this to effectively a single round debate. The harm done to the debate, is overshadowing the debate itself, so I am just awarding conduct for this disruption (as much as any other choice would be valid).
CONDUCT - I know Con forfeited two rounds, but Pro's behavior was totally unsportsmanlike. Opening R1 by taking something his opponent said in another debate was sophomoric and a borderline ad hominem attack. It does not matter what a debater has said outside of the debate they are participating in. Additionally, Pro's writing is rude, to put it mildly.
ARGUMENTS - Because Con didn't participate much, many of Pro's points were left unchallenged. For example, Pro convinced me that his definition of omnipotence should be favored over the version Con proposed. Had Con offered a rebuttal, I might have been brought back around to Con's side. But that didn't happen. Same story with Pro's examples of logical contradictions. Perhaps Con could have solved or rebutted them, but without any attempt, the arguments stand in Pro's favor.
2/3 rounds forfeited. That's a full Forfeit per the guidelines. "Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"
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.