Instigator / Pro
Points: 29

God of the Bible is not omnipotent

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 5 votes the winner is ...
User_2006
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 16
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
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 knowing
Genesis 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
Published:
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.
Published:
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
Published:
Plagiarism

My 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/omnipotent

Omnipotent- "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
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Yes, I believe I did err in my identification of participants. I will re-cast a vote.
#22
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
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)
**************************************************
#21
Added:
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.
#20
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Don't make me blush
#19
Added:
--> @Jeff_Goldblum
Thank you for casting such a great vote on this debate.
#18
Added:
--> @Singularity
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.
#17
Added:
--> @User_2006
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.
#16
Added:
--> @fauxlaw
Why conduct to Pro?
Instigator
#15
Added:
--> @Singularity
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.
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @Singularity
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.
#13
Added:
--> @CaptainSceptic
Judge based on the arguments presented dumb ass
Contender
#12
Added:
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
Contender
#11
Added:
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.
#10
Added:
--> @Singularity
If you only have one round written, then it would mean that you have a FF, meaning that I will still win.
Instigator
#9
Added:
Seriously keep falling asleep when it is time to post my argument wtf. Oh well. I only need one round to win this
Contender
#8
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
More than 50% forfeit
#4
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: 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.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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).
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
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"