Instigator / Pro
7
1676
rating
73
debates
73.29%
won
Topic

Complete omnipotence is self-refuting, and is impossible to achieve.

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
0

With 1 vote and 4 points ahead, the winner is ...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
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
3
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
~ 48 / 5,000

Complete Omnipotence: The ability to do anything

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Good debate.

PRO's introduction was basically saying that omnipotence is impossible, because you can't achieve something without achieving it. He provides several examples, which don't serve as strong evidence, but are strong enough to support his claim. CON initially tries to counter this claim by stating that omnipotence is beyond our scope of science, which is a very weak argument in nature. Then CON refutes PRO's argument by replying to most, if not all of PRO's examples. CON uses Schrodinger's Cat as an example of a thing in two states of nature. The problem with CON's arguments, is that CON needs to prove that everything that PRO states can be done realistically with an omnipotent being. CON could've easily said that omnipotence is not a thing that is greatly studied by humans, therefore omnipotence doesn't have to be in the realistic realm of things. But somehow, he went with a brute-force method of only refuting the examples. Therefore ARGUMENT GOES TO PRO.

CON forfeited that is bad conduct.