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

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:

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.