The God of Christianity is Not Omnipotent
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
~ 86 / 5,000
Omnipotent: Able to do anything.
Christian God: The God illustrated by the Bible books
The BoP is technically shared because we know that Pro has to prove that God is NOT omnipotent, but then Con must prove that God is omnipotent too.
As per this debate, the process of proof goes like this:
P1. Omnipotence is the ability to do everything.
P2. There are things that God cannot do
C1. God is not omnipotent.
Omnipotence definition: The ability to do anything. Stated, no need to do it thrice again.
Even God cannot do!
Let me give an example of something that God cannot do.
- Tell me something that he/she/it/they cannot do.
Suppose God is omnipotent, then he cannot tell me what he cannot do, which would imply he cannot do this, which implies God is not omnipotent. Nothing can be omnipotent when omnipotence itself is impossible.
This is a simple one. As long as you proved that there is one thing that always prevents someone from being omnipotent, your point stands. Con, conversely, needs to give proof that God is omnipotent using a reliable source, and he must solve the issue above. If not, it means Pro wins and Con loses.
The problem with this topic is that “omnipotence”, as a term, has been so abused over the past hundred years that it’s virtually unrecognizable from what it initially meant, especially within the framework of Christianity. On the surface, it’s just too ambiguous of a term; “all-powerful”... what does that even mean? What would “all power” look like? Are we, as pathetic laymen (lol), able to wrap our minds around this question - a question that has daunted and befuddled philosophers for millenia? Can we, with all due precision, conceive of this property, and of its logical consequences? I don’t know; but what I do know is that this word is vague and meaningless if it isn’t properly defined. That’s the part of the reason I was hesitant to participate in this debate. The provided definition of “omnipotence” is obscure, and I was afraid that if we didn’t quickly render a more accurate one we would end up talking past one another. In the end, however, I decided to take this debate on because I think it’s a generally misunderstood issue that both atheists and evangelicals alike fail to give enough attention to.
My Opening Statement is going to be less formulaic than I typically prefer, as I will mainly be writing my thoughts, and not really worrying about plugging them into a debate format. Hopefully that isn’t too unorthodox for you; I suspect it won’t be ;-)
Also, it should be noted that I, in fact, do not have to shoulder a burden of proof in this debate. The claim is being made by my opponent. All I have to do is show how their argument fails; I don’t have to present a positive case for anything.
Before we go in too deep, I would like to ask my opponent a question. Do you accept that logic, in its most basic, fundamental form, is objectively true in every possible world? Within the framework of your worldview, is it possible that the laws of logic could have been different? If so, then logic is inherently malleable, meaning that asking whether God can perform contradictions is absurd, since you’ve already conceded that logic has no concrete parameters and therefore does not bind God in any way other than what he volunteers for. If you believe logic is malleable, or could have possibly been different, then no further discussion on this matter is necessary.
And if you do believe that logic has concrete barriers that cannot be transcended by anything, then do you also accept that the law of cause and effect? The law of causality stems from the law of noncontradiction. I’m willing to substantiate if need be, but for now it suffices to say merely that you cannot affirm noncontradiction’s objectivity without also affirming strict causality; i.e, all effects (contingent, beginning things) have causes, with causes preceding and effects following. At bottom, if you hold to this view, you must also hold to cause and effect; you must believe that the universe, if it began, has a cause. Ironically enough, once you concede that, only a few more (somewhat complex) arguments need to be made before you arrive at the conclusion that a God exists, which is a proposition I suspect you’re hardly willing to affirm.
So right off the bat we see the quandary my opponent has landed himself in. Either he doesn’t believe logic is objective, in which case this entire debate is worthless and we’re just wasting our time; or else he must affirm strict causality, which can potentially lead to undesirable conclusions. Notice that even if the latter were true, that wouldn’t really be relevant to the debate question - it could be that a God exists, and in fact the debate proposal presupposes that he does. What I’m pointing out is an internal inconsistency within my opponent’s view. He cannot make this argument or give it any credence without also contradicting something else he believes in, meaning that he has no right to be making such arguments in the first place.
With that out of the way, let's pause for a moment and observe the definition that was provided. My opponent has stated that omnipotence is the “ability to do anything”. Under a passing glance, nothing seems to be amiss. Omni means “all”, potent means “power”, so one who is “omni-potent” must be all powerful - which seems to, at the very least, connote the ability to do all things.
Here’s the problem: “all things” is itself in need of a definition. I genuinely don’t know what it means. Does “all things” encompass all propositions, so that one who can do “all things” is able to create any random jumble of words, regardless of how coherent? Must an omnipotent being possess the power to create, say, a married bachelor? Or a square circle? Or does “all things” perhaps denote something different? Does it instead imply the ability to do things that are conceivable and logical? Can a “married bachelor” ever truly exist? A “square circle”? Or are these just words that have been lumped together to create meaningless contradictions that cannot be created, ever?
I think the latter definition is more in line with Christian orthodoxy. Never does the Bible claim (outside of poetic literature) that God can do “all things”; not in the first sense. “God is not a man, that he should lie.” That’s a quote from the Bible, and it sure seems to place a limit on God’s ability to do something. Now, under the former definition, we would have to rule God out from being omnipotent, since according to this verse he cannot lie and therefore cannot do all things. But in the second sense, we see that God cannot lie because that would be oxymoronic - one who only ever speaks the truth, and whose essential qualities are immutable, cannot lie because that would be contradictory. That wouldn’t mean he isn’t omnipotent, just that he (by virtue of his own consistent nature) cannot violate himself.
The specific example my opponent has given of this is as follows:
“Suppose God is omnipotent, then he cannot tell me what he cannot do, which would imply he cannot do this, which implies God is not omnipotent. Nothing can be omnipotent when omnipotence itself is impossible.”
The problem with this is that it asserts God must be able to perform contradiction; it assumes that a being who can do everything must be able to tell us what he cannot do. This is not just a-priori absurd, but logically as well. If we’re working under the second definition of “all things”, then there’s no problem, because what’s being asked of God cannot possibly or plausibly be, ever.
The Bible (and most Christian theologians) affirm God’s ability to do all things, at least in the second sense. We hold that God is able to do everything that is logically possible. We also hold that these laws are embedded in his very nature (and in fact stem from him), so that he is not limited, governed, or subordinate to a law that exists outside of himself, but rather is only unable to perform absurdities because that would be inconsistent his immutable properties.
I look forward to my opponent’s response. Thank you all for tuning in.
Con has used no sources to support his evidence. I guess I didn't either, but still, he didn't.
The BoP is technically shared. I know in normal scenarios that it is on Pro, but to point out inconsistencies in my arguments means that God is not proven to be non-omnipotent, meaning he is indeed omnipotent. A sufficient response by Con would also prove the state of God's omnipotence.
Attack on the "source"
Con tried to provide Bible evidence, or, to the bottom line, implying it, because that is what happened. Instead, Con did not provide specific scripture details to support his points. Again, this is equivalent to starting a topic saying "The US must strengthen its borders", then say in the arguments, "The US federal law supports my viewpoint" but not specifically where.
Then again, he tried to alter the definition by running a critique throughout the entire page. However, it is of no use. It is defined in the descriptions section of what "Omnipotent" means. Again, I can just huddle a bunch of pals and then write a book saying "I am omnipotent". Just because a single book without any credible author wrote the book, doesn't mean automatically proves something.
Omnipotent: Able to do anything.
Rebuttal: Omnipotence is omnipotence!
First off, no need to be worrying about unorthodox stuff. I know how to do those, as long as it is not pure nonsense. ;-)
Let's get real. Con just tried to alter the definition of "omnipotence" even though it is pre-defined by Pro in the descriptions section. Then, Con tried to critique the arc of coverage within the term "all-powerful". However, he ignores that there are no modifiers to the term. So yes, in order to achieve actual omnipotence, God not only need to fulfill rational claims, but also chaotic jumbles that are just nonsense. Con's present viewpoint negates that from being true himself as he states that God can't make him a married bachelor, etc. In a sense, Con conceded as he admits that God isn't omnipotent.
Con also asked Pro to define "All-powerful", but he didn't define it himself and thus get the upper hand. I can thus define it to its real meaning and take full advantage out of that.
All-powerful: Having complete power; almighty.
To have complete power, nothing could be excluded. This means that if a person prays actively about a square with 5 sides, and God cannot fulfill it, God is not all-powerful, or omnipotent. Keep in mind: Just because one iteration of a definition favors a religion, it doesn't mean it is correct. Con hasn't even proved God to be real, so there is something to be ruled out: God cannot appear in my house at 6:48 PM, EST, 9/11/2020.
Mentioning this is a new branch of rebuttal. But before that, I have to cite the quotes that Con wrote to prevent God from being omnipotent.
But in the second sense, we see that God cannot lie because that would be oxymoronic - one who only ever speaks the truth, and whose essential qualities are immutable, cannot lie because that would be contradictory. That wouldn’t mean he isn’t omnipotent, just that he (by virtue of his own consistent nature) cannot violate himself.(God cannot violate himself, he cannot lie)The problem with this is that it asserts God must be able to perform contradiction; it assumes that a being who can do everything must be able to tell us what he cannot do. This is not just a-priori absurd, but logically as well. If we’re working under the second definition of “all things”, then there’s no problem, because what’s being asked of God cannot possibly or plausibly be, ever.(God cannot tell me what he cannot do, and he cannot do logically incoherent stuff)
God must be able to all things, or he cannot be omnipotent. This is in the definition. If using the second definition, then a being who satisfies only the second one but not the first one is still non-omnipotent.
Argument: At all possible combinations
Speaking of my home and 9/11, God cannot do these listed below:
- Preventing a plane from crashing in 9/11/2001, earth calculation, while not traveling through time and space
- Let 10,000 planes crash into each other in 9/11/2001, same conditions
- Prevent me from presenting any arguments by killing me in 4/24/2006, same conditions
- Prevent CalebEr from publishing an argument in 9/10/2020, same conditions
Yep. God cannot do all of these without going back in time, knowing these either have happened undoubtedly or haven't happened at all. More than that, to be omnipotent, God must be able to do these actions at the same time, at the same place, with no alternative universes.
- Do A and only A
- Do B and only B
- Do C and only C
- Do nothing at all
Of course, they are conflicting. Again, I can set things inside boundaries until they are literally conflicting with itself(e.g. Both give me A and only A and give me B and only B at the same time), in which it became clear that God cannot do them.
- I shall make conclusions.
- Con technically conceded, saying there is stuff God cannot do.
- Con used no actual evidence to back up his claims.
- I have provided examples that prevent God from being omnipotent.
- VOTE PRO!
I’m not going to lie, I’m genuinely surprised at how low-effort my opponent’s response is. Not only did he ignore my argument, but also left my questions about his view pending. That would seem rather important, wouldn’t it?
Indeed, I did not use any sources. But that is because none are necessary. I used what I know and have known about logic and theology (for some time now) to formulate what I think was a cogent rebuttal to his points. I didn’t need any websites, books, or scholars to aid me; I just used some common sense. And no, the BOP is emphatically not shared. The onus is always, always on the person making the claim. I have made no claims at all; I’m just here to dispute my opponent's faulty ideas about the subject matter.
“Con tried to provide Bible evidence, or, to the bottom line, implying it, because that is what happened. Instead, Con did not provide specific scripture details to support his points.”
If I’m being honest, I have no idea what this means. If I squint hard enough, it becomes somewhat legible, but I’m still fairly uncertain as to what my opponent is trying to communicate. I'll take a stab at it. What I think PRO means is that I quoted the bible and that this is uncouth because the bible hasn’t been proven to be true. If that is the case, then PRO has just put his ignorance of how debate works on full display. When you are critiquing a worldview and asking its proponents critical questions, if you want your point to get across you need to make sure you’re working within the framework and parameters of that worldview. You asserted that “the God as described by Christianity is not omnipotent”. Your claim presupposes that God exists; you can’t backpedal after making that claim (especially in a debate) and tell me that I need to prove God’s existence. It would be like if I critiqued Buddhism and a Buddhist came along, saying “Actually that’s not how that doctrine works” and I responded by ranting about nirvana or something. It’s absurd and irrelevant. Whether God exists or not is a completely separate question, as is whether the bible is true. For the purposes of this debate, we assume that both are an work from there.
“ It is defined in the descriptions section of what "Omnipotent" means.”
This is precisely why I was hesitant to participate in this debate.
As I pointed out, PRO's definition is too obscure to be discussed in any meaningful manner. He said that an omnipotent being must be able to do all things, without elaborating on what “all things” means. I provided two possible definitions, one of which is perfectly consistent with Christianity. Unless PRO has some sort of knockdown argument against my proposal, or some sort of proof to levy against it, then I win. End of story.
“To achieve actual omnipotence, God not only needs to fulfill rational claims, but also chaotic jumbles that are just nonsense.”
First, now that we know which definition of “all things” PRO adheres to we must ask him why he is mandating it. No evidence or argument was provided in support of this, he merely asserts that I’m wrong about my proposal. So I ask, why should I accept this definition? It seems perfectly reasonable to just side with my definition instead, especially if we’re talking about Christianity, as the Bible touches on God’s omnipotence many times and actually defines it for us. What PRO seems to be doing is taking his abstract notion (which he has yet to defend) of what omnipotence is and then juxtaposing it on Christianity, acting surprised when he sees there is a disconnect between the two. It’s disingenuous. PRO needs to substantiate and prove that his definition of “all things” is necessarily correct within the parameters of christian belief. If he doesn’t, his argument fails.
Second, it is important at this junction to ask my opponent once more whether logic exists objectively or not. If he believes that logic could have been different, then under his view logic is a completely unreliable metric and therefore cannot be the basis for arguing against God’s omnipotence. To quote myself: “(If you believe that) logic is inherently malleable, (then) asking whether God can perform contradictions is absurd since you’ve already conceded that logic has no concrete parameters and therefore does not bind God in any way other than what he volunteers for.” You see, the debate question presupposes that contradictions cannot exist. If logic is malleable, then it would be theoretically possible for nonsensical statements to be brought about. Thus, for PRO’s argument to have any force, logic must exist objectively. If it doesn’t, then my opponent has no grounds upon which to make the claims he has made. Logic is reduced to but a mere convention that seems to work, but cannot be proven to.
And what if logic is objectively existent and binding? That would have several implications, the most important of which I will post here. If Logic exists objectively, then there are two possibilities: either the laws of logic are abstract objects (like numbers) and are therefore causally afeit; or else they are grounded in an unembodied mind (if you can come up with a third option, present it; as far as I know, these are the only two). In the former, said laws would be removed from reality, and therefore unable to impose themselves on it. In other words, if logic is just abstract, then it doesn’t have any sovereignty or governance over reality; indeed, that’s what it means to be “abstract”. Now, if these laws are grounded in an unembodied mind, that would not only resolve this issue but give us a profoundly intricate basis for affirming Logic’s inherent significance, since this mind (being the creator of all) would have, due to the internal consistency of his nature, woven logic throughout all of creation.
So we see that even if logic is objective and binding, if it isn’t grounded in some sort of being, then it means nothing, and therefore cannot be the basis for an argument against said being.
But would this being have omnipotence? Again, it depends on how you define it. I have yet to see anyone provide a sound argument to rebut the definition I gave. PRO does not get to just assert that I am wrong and move on with his day. He needs to show how my reasoning is flawed, being as specific as possible.
Is God omnipotent? No, not in the sense that PRO has described, hence why I have challenged his description by proposing another one. This is a common debate tactic; if you go into an argument and you disagree with your opponent on a definition, you call it into question and provide your own. Your opponent should be expected to interact with your definition insofar as it is reasonable and doesn’t drastically alter the initial one. Dramatic definition-shifts should only be supplied if necessary.
Is my new definition too drastic? I don’t think so. All I did was add one modifier, namely that “all things” only encompasses logical possibilities. Therefore, I expect and require my opponent to show why my definition is necessarily false. If he does not, I think we’ll all know who has won.
I will rule out my argument as such.
- Getting Rational
- Getting Biblical
Of course, I can accept Con's definition that only contributional, rational claims need to be fulfilled in order to be declared "Omnipotent", but believe or not, God cannot fulfill even those rational and contributional claims. I will show all the people in this world(that are apparently boring enough to read this hell of a constructive discussion) just that.
My opponent is probably assuming that I have used chaotic nonsenses that are non-understandable as proof that God is not omnipotent. However, I have used none of that. Let's take back one kind of example(If I prove that God cannot fulfill one rational claim, it means he cannot fulfill all of the rational claims, which he is not omnipotent).
- Preventing a plane from crashing in 9/11/2001, earth calculation, while not traveling through time and space
- Let 10,000 planes crash into each other in 9/11/2001, same conditions
- Prevent me from presenting any arguments by killing me in 4/24/2006, same conditions
- Prevent CalebEr from publishing an argument in 9/10/2020, same conditions
Note, that none of these are actual contradictions, but these cannot be done by God. It is not anything even remotely close to "You have to do A and non-A at the same time without doing anything else". These obviously could be done, and they make sense. However, I have yet to see God doing so, and as a result, God cannot fulfill all rational claims, which means he is not omnipotent, even according to my opponent. I can obviously list other things, such as ban my account on 9/1/2020, but you would get the point.
Not only that, but the Bible supports that God is not omnipotent, through its verses. Nothing logically impossible will be presented below.
 Exodus 6:3
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself fully known to them.
God cannot tell his name to the people without a burden, or at least in that point of the time
 Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
God cannot be wrathless in the entirety of time, or at least at that point in time.
 Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
God cannot destroy Hell nor can he put everyone into heaven nor can he put everyone in hell, or at least at that point in time.
 Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
God cannot lie at will, or can he be a man.
 John 9:31
We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.
God cannot grant the prayers of all the sinners at will, nor to not grant the prayers of all the faithful and moral people.
I have listed 5 different quotes that show that God is non-omnipotent. Vote Pro. If he says the bible is true, then there is no way for God to make the Bible false. Vice versa.
My opponent has decided to reiterate the same argument he has already laid out twice now, albeit with a few more examples. I’ll address them here.
“If I prove that God cannot fulfill one rational claim, it means he cannot fulfill all of the rational claims, which he is not omnipotent”
Here’s the problem. CON hasn't proven that God cannot do these things. He made a blank assertion that God is incapable and left it at that, as though it was self-evident and didn’t require any further discussion. The examples he gives of this purported incapability are mostly predicated on time, and whether God is strong enough to alter events that have already occurred. For instance, on 9/11/2001, terrorists launched several attacks on the US, killing thousands of people in the process; these attacks sent ripple effects across the nation and drastically changed our approach to foreign policies and affairs, especially in the east.
My opponent has insinuated that, since this event has already happened, it is irreversible, meaning God cannot reverse it, implying that he is not all-powerful. Now, this argument only has force if we ignore the obvious time-paradoxes that would necessarily flow from such a reversal - if we factor them in then clearly the problem would dissipate, as you would be asking God to perform something that would cause paradoxical (and even contradictory) results. For the sake of argument, we’ll ignore these difficulties and just deal with the contention itself.
If we ignore all the paradoxical baggage that comes along with reversing an event in time, then what is the problem with affirming that God can perform this action? If it isn’t contradictory, then there’s no issue with believing God could theoretically change past events. And if it is contradictory, then why exactly are you stating God must be able to do it? Didn’t you just admit a second ago that it is absurd to say God should be able to create contradictions?
“ These obviously could be done, and they make sense. However, I have yet to see God doing so, and as a result, God cannot fulfill all rational claims”
This doesn’t follow at all. The fact that you haven’t personally seen God make the changes you desire does not mean he is unable. God may be able to do something, but that does not imply he will, especially when what's being asked of him is absurd on its face. To take your example, you demand God change the past even though he promised that he will run the universe in a consistent and reliable fashion (Genesis 8:22). God made a promise, and therefore will fulfill it (for he cannot lie) - are you asking him to forget about what he said there and supersede his own decree? Wouldn’t that be just as contradictory? And remember, this is all assuming that time-reversals aren’t paradoxical. Once you recognize that such reversals would result in absurdity, every demand CON has made of God becomes irrelevant, as all of them are based on actualizing contradictory propositions.
“God cannot tell his name to the people without a burden, or at least in that point of the time”
I’m unsure of what this means, so I’ll just have to skip over and ask my opponent to elaborate.
“God cannot be wrathless in the entirety of time, or at least at that point in time.”
True, but this is because he is, by nature, righteous and just, and therefore cannot tolerate evil forever. You’re demanding that God violate himself in order to assuage your unreasonable claims against him. I see God’s consistent nature as a virtue, not a nuisance that somehow impedes his power.
“God cannot destroy Hell nor can he put everyone into heaven nor can he put everyone in hell, or at least at that point in time.”
The last paragraph addresses this. God is just, and so must render judgement to all individuals for their actions and transgressions against him. This is beautiful, commendable, and perfectly consistent.
“God cannot lie at will, or can he be a man.”
This actually isn’t true; later in the Bible (as I’m sure you know) we are told that God is, in fact, able to take on flesh and that he does this through the person of Jesus Christ. The specific verse you’re quoting here is about mankind’s vices and sinful propensities; it’s saying “God is trustworthy, even though men typically aren’t.” It isn’t ruling God out from becoming man, it's just saying that he is not tainted by sin.
“God cannot grant the prayers of all the sinners at will, nor to not grant the prayers of all the faithful and moral people.”
This isn’t actually what that verse says. It’s not “God can’t” but rather “God won’t”; the reasons for this go without saying, of course - men are sinners and do not get to make demands of God, especially when their requests stem from stubborn rebellion and not a genuine pursuit of holiness.
“I have listed 5 different quotes that show that God is non-omnipotent. Vote Pro. If he says the bible is true, then there is no way for God to make the Bible false.”
Because that would be … contradiction.
Now that I have addressed all of my opponent’s points, I would like to ask him one more time to address mine. It’s unfortunate that he has left my questions pending so long, and I hope that before this debate is over he will make some sort of attempt to address them at least somewhat. Do you affirm the absolute objectivity of logic, and that it is always reliable in every circumstance?
I'll leave it there. Thank you all again for listening in.
I repeat the logic Pro would need to have sufficiently proven to win this debate, if not being trumped by my opponent.
- An omnipotent being must be able to fulfill every rational(not nonsensical jargon) and possible(not self-contradictory) claims;
- There are examples that prevent God from fulfilling all rational and possible claims;
- God is not omnipotent.
This set of statements is in the format of Modus Tollens, in which it goes like this.
- If P is true, then Q is true;
- Q is not true;
- Therefore, P is not true.
Note that this is no new argument, this is a mere structural summary of my logic in all 4 rounds.
Con1: God is of no need for contradicting himself, etc
We have established that in order for God to be omnipotent, he must be able to fulfill all rational and possible claims, however, this point of Con's completely defeats his idea, as since one can be contradictory to himself, it is possible, and we can understand it, so it is rational; God somehow cannot do it. There is a list of things that Con asserts that God cannot do.
- Contradict his own words
- Become a sinful human(Jesus wasn't sinful, common sense)
- To be evil
As well as these that Pro asserts.
- Ignore sin
- Destroy hell
- Destroy heaven
- Answer sinners' prayers all the time
- Make this world miserable
- To sin
- To be a non-god
- To not exist
- Condemn all religions and promote atheism
If we assume that everything in the bible is indeed true, then things above will be impossible. I am pretty sure everything above is basically common sense to the audience of my scope.
Con is dismissing everything that God cannot do as contradictory. In fact, that is why he is not omnipotent. If he cannot even contradict himself(being that contradicting one's words is indeed possible for us), he is not omnipotent. This is still barring the claim stated in round one and revised according to the definition, in which it is, "To recite a rational and possible claim that is not fulfillable by God".
In other words, God needs to be able to sin and contradict himself to be omnipotent. If "contradicting" is in my opponent's sense, then being late to a party is also impossible. Being liberal after writing a book supporting conservatism should also be impossible by my opponent's definition.
Con2: God won't
If God can in fact answer sinners' prayers, but he won't, that is equivalent to not being able to do things in a specific time and space while not traveling through spacetime. If I will only do my homework in 8:30-9:30 PM, that means I cannot do my homework at every single increment of time. God cannot fulfill every sinners' prayers at will.
So in conclusion, "God won't do ___" means "God cannot do ___ at all times, based on human understanding". In fact, in order for God to be omnipotent, he must be able to do everything as well as nothing at every single increment of time. This means he must be able to pass 10,000,000,000 years in 0.0001 seconds, human notations. I completely ignore Con's case because his definition of "contradictory" is technically incorrect as everything, as long as one claim violates one's another, is contradictory and thus will not count in Con's definition. Nothing is contradictory within my arguments.
God's non-contradiction actually bars him from being omnipotent, ultimately, as he cannot be evil, disobey himself, and be contradictory. Thank you for reading this large chunk of text and vote Pro if you think my argument is more convincing.
My opponent has essentially reiterated everything he already said, and has continued to ignore the questions I aimed at him. This is symptomatic of an underlying viewpoint that simply can't hold any water; PROs argument cannot be harmonized with his real position, and he knows it. PRO doesn't actually believe that logic is objective and binding. If he did, he wouldn't be an atheist. You cannot affirm that Logic is objectively binding and also deny laws of causality, yet PROs abject refusal to answer my questions seems to imply that that's exactly what he does - he takes these two contradictory ideas, readily switching between them when it's convenient. Here he makes arguments that assume logic is a reality, even though elsewhere he has almost assuredly denied this and stated the opposite. This is what perplexes me about the atheist movement. On the one hand, they hold God to logic and act as though he must adhere to it, and on the other hand they stubbornly deny that the universe needs a cause. Is there a place where this catch-22 gets resolved? Because it's not looking that way to me.
“There are examples that prevent God from fulfilling all rational and possible claims;”
No such example was provided. Everything my opponent has tried to levy in support of this all stem from the same place - contradiction. God can’t sin, not because he isn’t omnipotent, but because he is the very antithesis of sin. He is the standard. That which does not align with God’s nature is sinful because of its unalignment. Therefore, saying God must be able to sin is tantamount to demanding that he create a square circle. In both cases, you’re commanding him to perform nonsense. You’ve taken the immutable, unchangeable standard from whom we derive all our moral convictions and then asked him to perform something that does not comport with the standard. It’s blatantly contradictory. Whatever God does must be, by definition, good. Since God is unchanging, and since whatever he does is good, the standard for morality is reliable and consistent. Asking him to controvert this consistency and, indeed, himself, is simply absurd and should be quickly rejected as such.
Everything else that was listed follows in that vein. In every instance, you’re asking God to do something that amounts to ridiculous nonsense; one who always speaks the truth cannot lie, one who is always good cannot sin, one who is always just cannot ignore evil, one who always exists cannot not exist. It’s all contradiction, and since we’ve already established that God should not be expected to do things that are contradictory, we shouldn’t even really be talking about this. Once my opponent conceded that, the debate was over.
The irony here is not lost on me. Here my opponent is, protesting against God and asserting that he does things that are contradictory:
“If he cannot even contradict himself(being that contradicting one's words is indeed possible for us), he is not omnipotent.”
And yet, earlier on the same page he admits that nonsense cannot be performed:
“An omnipotent being must be able to fulfill every rational(not nonsensical jargon) and possible(not self-contradictory) claims”
If you can hold to both of these incompatible propositions together, then what exactly are you protesting against? Doesn’t the fact that you, on the same page, contradict yourself show how little you care about this subject? Isn’t it a tacit admission that you don’t really believe contradictions are impossible? How morbidly ironic is that? The fact that you do the very thing you have precluded God from doing?
“If God can in fact answer sinners' prayers, but he won't, that is equivalent to not being able to do things in a specific time and space while not traveling through spacetime. If I will only do my homework in 8:30-9:30 PM, that means I cannot do my homework at every single increment of time. God cannot fulfill every sinners' prayers at will.”
I mean this with all sincerity: but HUH?? I genuinely have no idea what this means, nor can I identify the logic you used to reach this conclusion. “I can ignore you right now, but I won’t; therefore I must not be able to ignore you.” What? Here I am once more, scratching my head at the incomprehensible garbage my opponent has been continually spewing this entire debate. He has made little to no effort to address my arguments, let alone defended his own. Every single round all he does is rehash everything he’s already said, even though it’s all been refuted. Three times I’ve addressed his arguments, and every time I find myself responding with the same essential points. I can’t issue a new response if there’s nothing new to respond to.
This is not meant to be a personal attack on my opponent, though it may come across that way. But his arguments were not good at all. I trust the voters to use their discretion and decide who the winner is wisely.