Instigator / Pro
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Topic
#2220
Complete omnipotence is self-refuting, and is impossible to achieve.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
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
3
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
Complete Omnipotence: The ability to do anything
Round 1
Pro
#1
PRO: Omnipotence doesn’t make sense, and isn’t achievable
CON: PRO’s proof is insufficient for his case
These things are impossible to understand in terms of normal logic. It is impossible. No one can successfully do something without failure when your task is something that succeeds and fails simultaneously. The conditions are self-refuting and when you succeed in doing it, you also fail by definition.
In other words, a maximally powerful(omnipotent) being still cannot do these things by the very condition, and that would negate any being from being omnipotent.
Another type of such example includes:
These examples would mean that: If said being is Omnipotent, then those claims cannot be fulfilled. Then again, if those conditions cannot be fulfilled, then it is not omnipotent. That is all.
If you are omnipotent, then you must be NOT omnipotent too, because to never be able to do anything is still an ability, an omnipotent being can do.
I urge my opponent to make sense of all the cases above, because if not, then said being cannot fulfill these:
Omnipotence is logically self-refuting and it cannot be achieved. Vote PRO.
Sources:
CON: PRO’s proof is insufficient for his case
- Logically contradictory things don’t make sense
- Create me a few legally married couples in which both individuals are legally still unmarried
- Make every organism on earth die and destroy everything that could potentially make life, then make life with everything left and nothing external, while using no powers other than those left within said substances/energies
- Create a shape that is simultaneously a circle, square, trapezoid, pentagram and a dodecagon while still maintaining all vertices/points in a 2-dimensional plane when viewed by a normal human
- Teleport me to everywhere at once while having both me and the universe permanently stationary
- Directly drive me to the square in the town when I am living in a town with no squares, without any kind of driving
- Play piano while not playing piano
- Erase all evil while being evil itself without erasing itself
- Create a stone too heavy to be lifted by itself, while still being omnipotent
- Do all things while still making the process of these things understandable by normal human logic while utilizing no wordplay and exploits
- Be limited in power and omnipotent at the same time, because if he is omnipotent, he could do this
- Give me something that said being CANNOT(cannot be null) do
- Be in real life
- Demonstrate to Seldiora all the cases above with no confusion
Con
#2
I am ironically playing devil's advocate, hah.
My opponent does not realize that, at heart, an omnipotent entity is beyond our understanding of science, and can do things that we think are impossible. For example, the Big Bang. We don't know what happened before it. It's impossible to have something come from nothing (conservation of matter and energy), according to us. However, even the creation of the universe challenges this notion. Even if everything existed at some point in time, this still brings up the question, how can matter already be existing without a creator?
I will now attempt to refute my opponent's points:
- Create me a few legally married couples in which both individuals are legally still unmarried, Play piano while not playing piano; Create a stone too heavy to be lifted by itself, while still being omnipotent, Erase all evil while being evil itself without erasing itself, Directly drive me to the square in the town when I am living in a town with no squares, without any kind of driving
All of these can be categorized into the idea that it is impossible to simultaneously achieve A and not A at the same time. However, if you look at Schrodinger's Cat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat), if this Omnipotent entity creates a quantum moment before 50% chance of each event happening, then within that quantum theory, each event will have both A and not A happening at the same time (ex. the stone is being lifted, while being unable to be lifted). The last one is arguably the trickiest, but he could merely create four realities where: 1. there is a square 2. there is no square 3. there is driving 4. driving does not exist, then execute all four moments with 25% chance of each one happening and having us perceive the quantum moment before the next event.
- Make every organism on earth die and destroy everything that could potentially make life, then make life with everything left and nothing external, while using no powers other than those left within said substances/energies
Is this not the very idea of The Big Bang, where we have no evidence that anything could've created life before it?
- Create a shape that is simultaneously a circle, square, trapezoid, pentagram and a dodecagon while still maintaining all vertices/points in a 2-dimensional plane when viewed by a normal human
Since this is only on a two-dimensional plane, the God could easily create some kind of four dimensional figure that has all of these properties that could depend on viewing angle and which plane you extract from the fourth dimensional figure.
- Teleport me to everywhere at once while having both me and the universe permanently stationary
Is this not the very idea of teleportation in some modes of science fiction? If he recreates you in everywhere in the universe, would you not still be "stationary" and still be "teleported everywhere at once"
- Do all things while still making the process of these things understandable by normal human logic while utilizing no wordplay and exploits
This one seems very difficult, however, "exploit" in most cases is defined as "Use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.", "Benefit unfairly from the work of (someone),", both which do not really seem to apply to what I have written. None of these rely on wordplay, but rather the idea of more advanced physics that we have not had much exposure to.
Keep in mind, for more absurdly advanced ideas, the omnipotent entity could always manipulate the definition of language and thought itself to convince us that in some way, it had fulfilled the impossible. 1+1 could equal 3 depending on the meaning of "1", "equals", and "3". Human logic could be raised to a level so high that we could suddenly understand the quantum events occurring at once and suddenly he is "unable to lift the rock" despite being omnipotent (and also able to lift the rock). There are many things science struggle to explain, and even our most basic theories are not absolutely set in stone. Even the conservation of matter which I mentioned could be unstable with nuclear/radioactive reactions.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Notice
My opponent failed to attempt to refute these points below.
- Be limited in power and omnipotent at the same time, because if he is omnipotent, he could do this
- Give me something that said being CANNOT(cannot be null) do
This would mean unless my opponent specifically explains them, the being still remains flawed. It is still NOT omnipotent yet to perception.
Better yet, I could say these things that said being cannot do:
- Prevent Seldiora from entering an argument in 8/7/2020(within human date) in EVERY timeline possible
- Murdering Intelligence_06 in 8/8/2020 in EVERY timeline possible
- Erase Covid-19 within EVERY timeline possible, or making it cease to exist within every timeline possible
- Explode every single nuclear bomb in the US in EVERY timeline possible, or to prevent WW2 regardless of the timeline
- Cease to make this debate exist in every timeline possible
- I am not done, said being must to all above simultaneously without changing the past/morphing the future/altering people's memories.
The fact said issues exist would mean said being is NOT able to make said bullet points above possible without morphing the timeline and/or the people's minds. Again, if I am omnipotent, then I must do everything everywhere at every time. Limiting that nothing could be done from 8/7/2020 to 8/8/2020 would be enough to disprove omnipotence.
1. Everything, everywhere, in every time
It ain't nothin' difficult, so I'm gonna make this short and sweet.
If one has the ability to do everything, they can do it at every possible moment at every possible location for every possible being.
That being said, it would mean that EVERYTHING is to be done at EVERY location at EVERY frame of time. If something is NOT done at a location/at one time, then it is safe to say that these are not possible for said being:
- Do ___ thing at ___ time within the present
- Do ___ thing at ___ location within the present
- Do ___ thing at ___ time at ___ location within the present
(Within the present = present tense, do it at the time/place = if there are any travels to another space/time throughout the quest, fail)
So far, I have not seen a plane crash on July 4th, 1776, nor an atomic bomb explosion on August 9th, 1886, nor a car crash on January 1st, 1011, nor a mass extinction of humans on the sun. Within those conditions, these are true(making said being NOT omnipotent).
- Crash a plane on July 4, 1776, within the present
- Explode an atomic bomb on August 9, 1886, within the present
- Crash a car on January 1, 1011, within the present
- Kill massive amounts of humans on the Sun, within the present, and let the being that is currently known as Intelligence_06 know it
Due to that those are in fact not done, it would make said being NOT omnipotent. A true omnipotent individual would do everything that could possibly be done at every possible place at every possible time. Real-life evidence is barring omnipotence from being true.
2. Rebuttals
I understand that if I disprove just one of my opponent's counters, I would have proven that omnipotence is impossible. However, I would still try to refute as many as possible.
Keep in mind that within two cases, my opponent has failed to respond. Scroll to the top of the argument if needed. My opponent needs to justify them as well.
- Create me a few legally married couples in which both individuals are legally still unmarried, Play piano while not playing piano; Create a stone too heavy to be lifted by itself, while still being omnipotent, Erase all evil while being evil itself without erasing itself, Directly drive me to the square in the town when I am living in a town with no squares, without any kind of driving
All of these can be categorized into the idea that it is impossible to simultaneously achieve A and not A at the same time. However, if you look at Schrodinger's Cat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat), if this Omnipotent entity creates a quantum moment before 50% chance of each event happening, then within that quantum theory, each event will have both A and not A happening at the same time (ex. the stone is being lifted, while being unable to be lifted). The last one is arguably the trickiest, but he could merely create four realities where: 1. there is a square 2. there is no square 3. there is driving 4. driving does not exist, then execute all four moments with 25% chance of each one happening and having us perceive the quantum moment before the next event.
Even my opponent understands that they cannot be assuredly done. Now if I request that said being to do said things, but in a linear and binary(If not true, then it is false) universe with an assured outcome either 100% or 0%. that way it would negate my opponent's argument from being true. In other words, it is basically impossible to 100% do those things.
- Make every organism on earth die and destroy everything that could potentially make life, then make life with everything left and nothing external, while using no powers other than those left within said substances/energies
Is this not the very idea of The Big Bang, where we have no evidence that anything could've created life before it?
God likely inputted power to the explosion. Then again, the origin of Big Bang has things that could potentially create life. In order to make this true, the substances of Big Bang would also need to be erased, making this task impossible, especially when inputting outside power is against the rules.
- Create a shape that is simultaneously a circle, square, trapezoid, pentagram and a dodecagon while still maintaining all vertices/points in a 2-dimensional plane when viewed by a normal human
Since this is only on a two-dimensional plane, the God could easily create some kind of four dimensional figure that has all of these properties that could depend on viewing angle and which plane you extract from the fourth dimensional figure.
I said 2-dimensional. The shape needs to be completely 2-dimensional, and nothing new is introduced. This argument is thus negated. a 4-dimensional shape is not within the criteria.
- Teleport me to everywhere at once while having both me and the universe permanently stationary
Is this not the very idea of teleportation in some modes of science fiction? If he recreates you in everywhere in the universe, would you not still be "stationary" and still be "teleported everywhere at once"
Sci-fi? Oh ho, NO. If it is not even proven to be possible at either step, it is not. Then again, fiction says that if you point a wand at a tree then leaves grow. This is proven false by real science, no fiction. My opponent didn't even prove that this is possible.
- Do all things while still making the process of these things understandable by normal human logic while utilizing no wordplay and exploits
This one seems very difficult, however, "exploit" in most cases is defined as "Use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.", "Benefit unfairly from the work of (someone),", both which do not really seem to apply to what I have written. None of these rely on wordplay, but rather the idea of more advanced physics that we have not had much exposure to.
What if I urge the being so that it must utilize the present method of science and nothing else? Some and many things are physically impossible while others are rhetorically contradictory.
Keep in mind, for more absurdly advanced ideas, the omnipotent entity could always manipulate the definition of language and thought itself to convince us that in some way, it had fulfilled the impossible. 1+1 could equal 3 depending on the meaning of "1", "equals", and "3".
Wordplay and exploitation it is. I said none of those, please.
Conclusions:
- There is at least one thing that my opponent has not disproved
- A truly omnipotent being must be able to do everything everywhere at every time.
Round 3
Pro
#5
As my opponent forfeited, there is literally nothing else to say besides to conclude. No need for rebuttals since my opponent dropped ALL my points.
- Total omnipotence is self-refuting.
- If I tell a theoretically omnipotent being to do both statements below:
- Give me A and only A at X moment at Y location at all timelines, within the present time and location, with 100% assuredness, while not doing anything else, with the steps understandable by the average human
- Give me B and only B at X moment at Y location at all timelines, within the present time and location, with 100% assuredness, while not doing anything else, with the steps understandable by the average human
- (X and Y must be the exact same, A and B must be fundamentally distinctive)
- Then it is not possible since these two statements are completely conflicting, so doing both would not be possible. If I am told to both do both and either, then it is not possible, consider I am both supposed to do two things and one thing at the same time, which is itself logically refuting for the average human.
- The modifiers signify that I must be received A and B at the same time, but it is also saying that I can only receive A OR B, one at a time, which is conflicting, thus not possible.
- Now, let's look at a different approach.
- If I tell such being to tell me something he/she/it/they cannot do with the logic understandable by the average person, then it also signifies that omnipotence is paradoxical and impossible.
- Suppose the being can tell me that, then he cannot do what he has just said. That means he is flawed and NOT omnipotent.
- Suppose the being is completely omnipotent, then there is nothing he can't do. Thus, he CANNOT answer this question, meaning he is still NOT omnipotent.
- Due to that in both cases, it is impossible to fulfill all the claims, thus it is impossible to be omnipotent.
I rest my case and urge the voters to vote fairly, and I'd love a vote towards PRO.
Con
#6
I will keep my refutation short as this is the final round and I ran out of time previously.
An omnipotent entity would by definition be far beyond our understanding of science and time itself, as previously inferred. Remember how some scientists theorize that time is the fourth dimension? As three dimensional entities, we cannot travel to the past, nor jump to the future, only progress along, one moment at a time. There is nothing paradoxical about this fourth dimensional creature being in two different places at the same time. Our perceptions are easily manipulated; even humans can create illusions to fool other humans. That's why a lot of theological people argue this omnipotent entity can be omnipresent at the same time, as the third dimension is easily traversable by a fourth dimensional creature.
Once again my opponent argues that because it's 4D it can't also be 2D, if you extract a 2D plane of a 4D figure it becomes 2D, but since it has 4D properties it could potentially break our normal laws for 2D figures.
Remember that I do not have to prove that science fiction is impossible; it was up to him to prove that an omnipotent entity cannot execute ideas from science fiction. He then proceeds to ask for current methods of science, but once again, cloning is proven to be possible, and merely executing it everywhere on the universe would be easy for an entity that started the big bang. My opponent merely offered a weak response, that the entity "likely" input energy, but this is still not confirmed.
He then moves the goal post and states that current evidence disproves omnipotence; this is false, just because you CAN do anything doesn't mean you are doing everything possible.
Conclusion: My opponent relies on the fact that "because the omnipotent entity cannot do things that are paradoxical within our understanding, it isn't omnipotent". However, the omnipotent entity may still have tricks up its sleeve beyond our understanding, in order to do things that seem to be within our understanding, yet are paradoxical. Reality depends on perception. If we cannot tell that it is doing something beyond our understanding, how can we prove this, and say that the entity is not omnipotent?
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:
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.
Vote.
crap ran out of time