Instigator / Pro
7
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Topic
#2708

The state of being omnipotent is logically contradictory.

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
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Wagyu
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
4
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

-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

**************************************************
>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."

-->
@Barney
@gugigor

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.

-->
@Barney
@gugigor

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.

-->
@gugigor

Fancy voting again, since your vote was removed?

vote bump

-->
@seldiora

**************************************************
>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.

-->
@Barney

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.

-->
@drafterman

Oh, it's you.

I don't know

-->
@Benjamin

Why did you ping me?

-->
@Theweakeredge

Thank you.

-->
@Benjamin

I'll vote based on who reached their goal post. That is it.

-->
@Benjamin

I didn't plan to vote on this

-->
@drafterman
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge

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?

-->
@Wagyu

Thanks as well.

Sorry for the criticism I must give in my final verdict, you gave me no choice :(

-->
@Benjamin

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?"

-->
@Intelligence_06

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)."

-->
@Intelligence_06

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