The state of being omnipotent is logically contradictory.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
-Full resolution- The quality of being omnipotent is logically contradictory.
-Definitions-
Omnipotent = Someone or something that is omnipotent has complete power over things or people.
Contradictory = Involving, causing, or constituting a contradiction
Wagyu's burden of proof: "The quality of being omnipotent is logically contradictory"
Contender's burden of proof: "The quality of being omnipotent is logically sound."
-General Rules-
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Since this is a thought experiment, sources are not essential
3. Burden of Proof is shared
- Can an omnipotent being create a circular square?
- Can an omnipotent being create an unbreakable bullet and unbreakable wall?
- Can an omnipotent being create dry water?
- Can an omnipotent being move while being stationary?
- Can an omnipotent being die while being alive?
- Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that s/he cannot lift it?
the state of being omnipotent is to have complete power over things or people.The implications of this is that you can do anything and everything, to anything and everything at any time and at any place.
P1. An omnipotent being can do anythingP2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictoryP3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist.C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist.
- Complete power over things does not imply being able to do anything, it just implies ones ability to do anything which one can do towards a thing
- As far as knowledge goes, one cannot call something which cannot exist, "a thing"
- In order to have power over a thing, one's actions must be able to cause a change in that thing
- If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect. This would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.
- This means that if an illogical thing existed, no other thing could cause an effect in it
- This proves that one cannot possibly have power over an illogical thing
If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect. X-DThis would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.
- Can an omnipotent being create a circular square?
- Can an omnipotent being create an unbreakable bullet and unbreakable wall?
- Can an omnipotent being create dry water?
- Can an omnipotent being move while being stationary?
- Can an omnipotent being die while being alive?
- Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that s/he cannot lift it?
- This is stating that A is different from B, C is not different from neither A nor B. It is an illogical object, and its existence and attributes would be independent of any power, even omnipotence.
- Let us give both the bullet and the wall infinite power: infinite minus infinite equals zero (1-1+2-2+3-3 etc) - thus they would infinitely stand still and not break.
- One water molecule is not wet. Wetness is a description of the properties held by a large body of water molecules.
- An omnipotent being has no position, and thus cannot move. If you infer omnipresence by your definition this is no problem at all.
- An omnipotent being is immaterial and thus cannot die.
- An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything.
As this is a debate about whether being omnipotent is logically contradictory, my opponent must demonstrate how the examples I have listed are not contradictory.
If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect.This would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to prove that the earth is flat.
the state of being omnipotent is to have complete power over things or people.The implications of this is that you can do anything and everything, to anything and everything at any time and at any place.Well, it seems that this also implies both omnipresence and omniscience, as one cannot affect something over distance and one cannot change anything without knowing anything about it.
- Complete power over things does not imply being able to do anything, it just implies ones ability to do anything which one can do towards a thing
As far as knowledge goes, one cannot call something which cannot exist, "a thing"
- In order to have power over a thing, one's actions must be able to cause a change in that thing
- If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect.
If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect. X-D
This is stating that A is different from B, C is not different from neither A nor B. It is an illogical object, and its existence and attributes would be independent of any power, even omnipotence.
Let us give both the bullet and the wall infinite power: infinite minus infinite equals zero (1-1+2-2+3-3 etc) - thus they would infinitely stand still and not break.
One water molecule is not wet. Wetness is a description of the properties held by a large body of water molecules.
An omnipotent being has no position, and thus cannot move. If you infer omnipresence by your definition this is no problem at all.
An omnipotent being is immaterial and thus cannot die.
An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything.
By definition, anything that is possible can be done by an omnipotent being, as his power is the defining limit of what is possible to achieve... In other words, his powers would be able to control everything controllable.
You claim relies on the premise that "An omnipotent being can have power over anything possible and anything impossible". This is a contradiction in itself,
"the quality of having unlimited or very great power."This definition is better, as power itself could be limited by the laws of logic.
As your definition implied omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, we could just as easily call him God, the ultimate reality and creator of the universe.If that is true, we know that logic is a part of his creation.
or logic is simply the laws God wrote in order to make a material universe possible.
I have successfully shown that your case against this definition is faulty.
To put it in short, everything is a thing. A thing refers to anything, any event, any feature, any person and any organism.
- Claim your definition is the correct one
- Admit that mine is the correct one
- P2 claims that God can create an illogical thing
- P3 claims that illogical things cannot exist
- What is illogical and cannot exist, is not a thing
- This renders the "illogical" things God supposedly are able to create, vulnerable to this remarkably foreseeing quote:
If an illogical thing existed despite neitherbeing a thingnorpossibly existingit would ignore any logical law,including the law of cause and effect.This would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.This means that if an illogical thing existed, it would not have been caused or created, and no power would be able to controll it.
- Premise: God can do anything, even impossible illogical things
- Premise: God can do impossible illogical things
- MiniConclusion: Illogical things are impossible
- Conclusion: since God can do anything, even impossible illogical things, he does not exist
- Omnipotent implies omnipresent and omniscient
- This being can be called God
- Omnipotence means having the ultimate power over things
- Can God create a circular square?
- Things never contradict each other, only words and claims have the potential for contradiction
- A circular square does not describe any "thing" in particular, as the two descriptive words annihilate the meanings of each other by contradiction
- The question then becomes: can God create "something" (a thing that is not anything in particular)
- The answer is yes.
- Can God create an unbreakable bullet and an unbreakable wall?
- First of all "unbreakable" is not an attribute a physical thing can have and still be a physical thing
- If still somehow both a bullet and a wall were unbreakable, the wall is the only thing stuck to the ground
- Thus, the bullet would stop, and neither of the objects would be broken in the slightest
- The answer is yes
- Can God create dry water?
- Yes - ice is technically dry water XD
- Can God move while being stationary? Can God be dead and alive at the same time? Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?
- Problem - God is not a "thing" and does not have power over himself according to you
- Problem - God does not have a physical body and cannot move, die or lift anything
- Problem - God cannot exist both as a cause for the universe and an effect of the universe (a body)
- The answer is: No answer exists. This question was build by ridiculous amounts of ignorance.
P1. An omnipotent being can do anythingP2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictoryP3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist.C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist.
P1. An omnipotent being can do anything
an omnipotent being is someone or something that has complete power over things or people. Something which has complete power over things are able to control everything controllable. - you admited it yourself
P2: An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory
Contradictory: If two or more facts, pieces of advice, etc. are contradictory, they are very different from each other (Cambridge dictionary)Illogical: not reasonable, wise, or practical, usually because directed by the emotions rather than by careful thought (Cambridge dictionary)Thing: an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to - OR - an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being. (Oxford dictionary)
P3: Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist.
C1: An omnipotent being cannot exist.
God started to exist in order to be intellectually tested.He started to read the terms and conditions of being a God. When he found P1 and P2 he accepted immediately without reading the rest of the document.He was full of Joy as he believed he could act independently of logic and have a lot of fun.He immediately went to the beach and started making a sandcastle out of frozen and contradicting ideas when suddenly Wagyo showed up to arrest him."You are not allowed to do that thing here, sire" He shouted, cuffing his hands.God claimed his innocence: "I am allowed to break logic, it is written in P2 and P1 of the terms and conditions"Wagyo was not impressed: "Did you not read the entire document, including the part I added just now?" . . . "no", God answered.God was tested in court, and found guilty of C1 - breaking the laws of logic without permission from more than two of three members of the premiseThe fact that God were entitled to this ability by at least two basic God rights, did not matter to the judges, or Wagyo for that matter.Realizing he could not redeem himself, he started to resist the fabric of reality, fighting with everything he could.But eventually, he was taken down, deemed nonexistent and put to jail for the Next Millenium or so.
- Being limited by the laws of logic
- Letting logic be a part of his nature
- Creating logic as a rule only non-supernatural beings has to follow
Pro, you start with this statement of victory:I have successfully shown that your case against this definition is faulty.But you forgot my reaction to your P2: "As far as knowledge goes, one cannot call something which cannot exist, "a thing" "
You must choose one of these paths to destruction:
- Claim your definition is the correct one
- Admit that mine is the correct one
If it is true that "everything is a thing. A thing refers to anything, any event, any feature, any person and any organism".Using that very definition of "thing", the laws of logic are "things", and thus are under the control of omnipotence.
Now if logic is controlled by an omnipotent being, and not the opposite way around, then your argument is totally wrong. If God controls logic, logic cannot control or dictate his existence, abilities or possibilities. Logically proving the nonexistence of a being that controls the rules of logic would not be possible, believable or reasonable. Thus we can conclude that this path would end the argument and give 100% victory to me and my argument.
"If God controls logic, logic cannot control or dictate his existence, abilities or possibilities".
- Can God create a circular square?
- Things never contradict each other, only words and claims have the potential for contradiction
- A circular square does not describe any "thing" in particular, as the two descriptive words annihilate the meanings of each other by contradiction
- The question then becomes: can God create "something" (a thing that is not anything in particular)
- The answer is yes.
- Can God create an unbreakable bullet and an unbreakable wall?
- First of all "unbreakable" is not an attribute a physical thing can have and still be a physical thing
- If still somehow both a bullet and a wall were unbreakable, the wall is the only thing stuck to the ground
- Thus, the bullet would stop, and neither of the objects would be broken in the slightest
- The answer is yes
- Can God create dry water?
- Yes - ice is technically dry water XD
- Can God move while being stationary? Can God be dead and alive at the same time? Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?
- Problem - God is not a "thing" and does not have power over himself according to you
- Problem - God does not have a physical body and cannot move, die or lift anything
- Problem - God cannot exist both as a cause for the universe and an effect of the universe (a body)
- The answer is: No answer exists. This question was build by ridiculous amounts of ignorance.
After all, your argument is based on a twisting circle-argumentation.Let me make this clear by rewriting it:
- Premise: God can do anything, even impossible illogical things
- Premise: God can do impossible illogical things
- MiniConclusion: Illogical things are impossible
- Conclusion: since God can do anything, even impossible illogical things, he does not exist
You are basically just running around in circles, around this statement:"I do not believe that God can do the impossible, but he can (according to me), therefore he does not exist"
P1. An omnipotent being can do anythingWho claimed that
Anything that is not "controllable" in essence, even God cannot create or control.
Furthermore, if ANY regulation, law or limit is more absolute that God, he must follow it, just like humans with super technology could never break the laws of physics.
According to the definitions, a "thing" in a classical sense cannot be illogical or contradictory. You cannot abuse the broader definition you introduced by saying that things and concepts and ideas should be placed in one big chunk. If you do not want to change this premise in desperation, we have no reason to trust this premise at all.
I shall now provide a list of quotes from my opponent....different quotes taken out of context..."God cannot exist"
3. Problem - God cannot exist both as a cause for the universe and an effect of the universe (a body)
"""After all, your argument is based on a twisting circle-argumentation.Let me make this clear by rewriting it:
- Premise: God can do anything, even impossible illogical things
- Premise: God can do impossible illogical things
- MiniConclusion: Illogical things are impossible
- Conclusion: since God can do anything, even impossible illogical things, he does not exist
You are basically just running around in circles, around this statement:"I do not believe that God can do the impossible, but he can (according to me), therefore he does not exist"""""I don't see the issue. What you've said is true.
an omnipotent being is someone or something that has complete power over things or people. Something which has complete power over things are able to control everything controllable. - you admited it yourself
I'm glad to see that you seem to be enjoying this debate and that you seem to slide humour in whenever you can. Nevertheless, you claim shall now be refuted.
Can God create a circular square?
You are arguing that an omnipotent being has no control over that which does not exist
P3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot physically exist.
For the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right.
Can he bound himself by his own laws of logic and still "create a stone too heavy for him to lift"? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent as an omnipotent being can do anything.
Remember, this debate isn't about whether an omnipotent being can do these particular illogical things in this particular universe, the debate is about whether he can do it anywhere. If "being in this universe" is what prohibits this being from completing these illogical acts, then why can't s/he just create another universe where this is possible. My argument is that these acts are impossible everywhere and anywhere.
God can do anything/everything according to you.
If there is something which an omnipotent being cannot control, then the being is not omnipotent.
Even if logic is controlled by God, the question still remains. Can God do things that are illogical within the realms of logic?
- God can do anything
- God can break his own laws
- It is impossible to break his laws
- Thus God cannot exist
An omnipotent being can do anything, and as you have provided 3 things which he cannot do, he is not omnipotent.
...Pros first argument...Where do you have an issue.
Of course, religious people love to point at how their God created everything from nothing, which plainly contradicts what you are saying.
Whatever is impossible to do cannot be done. Fact. God can do anything/everything according to you. Fact. Everything includes that of which is impossible. Fact. God cannot do what is impossible fact, because of the nature of something being impossible. The simple fact is that the impossible is definitionally impossible to achieve.
You generalised the result of drawing a circular square to drawing "something" but you failed to make sense of what the "something" is.
My question burned to the ground and resurrected.
My entire argument burnt to the ground and resurrected
P1. An omnipotent being can do anythingP2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictoryP3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist.C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist.
- God can create something illogical
- Illogical things can exist because something illogical can be created by God
- Illogical things cannot exist
- God cannot create something illogical, since if he could, the first point would be incorrect
- God can create something illogical
- God cannot create something illogical
- God cannot exist
- God is bound by logic, and his power is limited to the logical realm (A is not the opposite of A)
- God created logic, and only he can create something illogical
- God can do something impossible
- God can do something illogical
- Illogical things are impossible
- God is impossible
But surely one could argue that, as God is an omnipotent being, he can bend the rules of physics. An omnipotent God is not bounded by laws. An omnipotent being is, after all, omnipotent.
"If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would have to be Pros argument."
I scratch my head over this debate, especially how Con says illogical things downright don't exist. Con argues that God can just create the vague definition of the words that refer to them. Con argues that "circular square" is similar to saying "asoierhoaeihr a...". But anyways. Con said that that God's immaterial nature makes it so that he cannot move, he cannot lift anything, among many other actions. As there are things outside of God's power, Con basically gave away this debate. I need to see why God's transcendental nature makes it so that even the contradictions that cannot exist may result from God's power. But Pro poked a lot of holes in con's argument, especially with lack of physical impact of God's being. I can't buy that "X while not X" is not a thing and just gibberish, because omnipotence seems to infer that even illogical objects can be produced. Con tries to display that the concepts are contradictory instead of objects, but it's difficult for me to understand his muddy explanation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: gugigor // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0 (3 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
So this one was pretty tough to make a decision on.
To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
The voter accomplished this, but it was largely accomplished through him stating he did or didn't grasp certain arguments. While it certainly isn't ideal, ultimately I think the vote is sufficient.
Ragnar gave some commentary on it in the mod Discord that pretty much sums up how I feel about this:
"It's one of those things where I dislike it for his lack of understanding of the concepts, but it's the debaters job to explain them while enough and concise enough to the voters, rather than depending on people like me with a religious education."
I did not say that illogical things cannot exist - Pro claimed that such a thing cannot exist.
Pro's argument is internally contradictory - premise1 and premise2 cannot be true at the same time. Therefore your "argument" point cannot be based on that.
Your entire reason for voting Pro is that you did not understand what we said. You must explain why the arguments from either side is better than the other.
Fancy voting again, since your vote was removed?
vote bump
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:0 (3 points awarded to PRO)
>Reason for Decision:
"I scratch my head over this debate, especially how Con says illogical things downright don't exist, God can just create the vague definition of the words that refer to them. Con argues that "circular square" is similar to saying "asoierhoaeihr a...". But anyways. Con conceded that God's immaterial nature makes it so that he cannot move, he cannot lift anything, among many other actions. As there are things outside of God's power, Con basically gave away this debate. What a weird rebuttal."
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter said CON conceded the debate, without going over parameters for victory... the main content of the debate was over them, so ultimately, the voter did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
It seems like seldoria neither read the whole debate nor understood what we said.
Could you remove the vote? We would also be happy if you left a reasonable vote instead of the bad one present now.
Oh, it's you.
I don't know
Why did you ping me?
Thank you.
I'll vote based on who reached their goal post. That is it.
I didn't plan to vote on this
Nobody gives a vote until you have read the entire argument.
Please
I am not even trying until my last argument, and there I prove that Pros argument is internally contradictory.
I do not want to lose because only the first arguments are read.
At least read the last argument?
Thanks as well.
Sorry for the criticism I must give in my final verdict, you gave me no choice :(
Thanks for a great debate ben!
Quote from Round 1:
P1. An omnipotent being can do anything
P2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory
I'm curious to know if anyone actually argues for this supposed definition of "omnipotence?"
I also agree with Pro that:
An omnipotent being that both is independent on the laws of logic but also dependent on them, is logically contradictory.
My argument is that an omnipotent being is not logically contradictory. It is Wagyu's argument that is logically contradictory.
I want to use a quote from PsychometricBrain
"Furthermore, this argument does nothing whatever to disprove a God that is not bound by the physical laws but able to do everything that is logically possible (i.e. omniscient)."
Are you managing to follow on?
"An omnipotent being has no position, and thus cannot move. If you infer omnipresence by your definition this is no problem at all."
"An omnipotent being is immaterial and thus cannot die."
"An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything."
He's a little confused, but he's got the spirit.
If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing
totally laugh every time I read that sentence.
I agree with pro