The God of Christianity is Not Omnipotent
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Omnipotent: Able to do anything.
Christian God: The God illustrated by the Bible books
- 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.”
Omnipotent: Able to do anything.
All-powerful: Having complete power; almighty.[1]
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)
- 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
- Do A and only A
- Do B and only B
- Do C and only C
- Do nothing at all
- 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.”
“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.
- Getting Rational
- Getting Biblical
- 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
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.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
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 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?
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.
“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”
“ 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”
“God cannot tell his name to the people without a burden, or at least in that point of the time”
“God cannot be wrathless in the entirety of time, or at least at that point in time.”
“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.”
“God cannot lie at will, or can he be a man.”
“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.”
- 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.
- If P is true, then Q is true;
- Q is not true;
- Therefore, P is not true.
- Contradict his own words
- Lie
- Become a sinful human(Jesus wasn't sinful, common sense)
- To be evil
- 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
“There are examples that prevent God from fulfilling all rational and possible claims;”
“If he cannot even contradict himself(being that contradicting one's words is indeed possible for us), he is not omnipotent.”
“An omnipotent being must be able to fulfill every rational(not nonsensical jargon) and possible(not self-contradictory) claims”
“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.”
"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."
There's multiple more examples in this debate where CON blatantly states that PRO's arguments were terrible and not good. You can't just state "this is not meant to be a personal attack".
Here, let me provide examples. You are a bank manager and a robber comes in. The robber says "Sorry dude, this ain't a robbery, even though it seems like it is." Then, he proceeds to rob you and take your money. Absurd ain't it?
It wasnt by much though
I can't help but feeling a bit surprised at having lost this debate.
Keep in mind that in some places, I accidentally said "CON" instead of "PRO". It's pretty clear where those places are, so just make sure you substitute "PRO" in when the context allows it.
Vote
I'll vote on this at some point. Can't do it right now because my head is about to explode from writing that tournament argument
bump comment
You're cutting it close there, bud
I think I can do it today.
I think I'll try to tackle this one.
OHHHH ITS THIS GUY
below
wow that defintion
Want to accept this?
tempting.... But I'm preoccupied by the tourney atm