Instigator / Pro
49
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#1215
The Omnipotence Paradox is a flawed argument for the Atheist trying to "disprove" God or the unreasonableness of faith
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
21
6
Better sources
14
10
Better legibility
7
5
Better conduct
7
1
After 7 votes and with 27 points ahead, the winner is...
GuitarSlinger
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
22
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Description
The argument goes something like this:
To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything. If God can do anything, he ought to be able to create a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it. However, this creates a paradox: if God cannot lift the stone, he is not almighty; if God cannot make the stone, he is not almighty. From this, it becomes clear the God cannot be omnipotent, since omnipotence is logically impossible given the paradox. Therefore, God does not exist.
My contention is that this argument is flawed, illogical, and does not disprove God's existence, nor does it disprove His omnipotence, but rather it does nothing but highlight the arguer's misunderstanding of what it means to be "omnipotent" from a Theological/Christian perspective.
Round 1
Pro
#1
The paradox is often used by the “Arguer” as a way to “disprove”
God. “God should be able to do
absolutely anything, if he is Omnipotent. If there is something He can’t do, then it means it’s “not God”. But this argument operates on the notion that
an “Omnipotent” should be able to create or do absolutely ANYTHING, even things
that are “logically absurd”, such as creating “married bachelors”, “Square
circles”, “one-ended sticks”, “triangles with 2 sides”, and yes, even “creating
a rock so heaven even He can’t lift it.”
These things (one-ended sticks, square circles, and yes, an Omnipotent Being creating a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it) are not possible not because the Omnipotent Being doesn’t have sufficient power to make it be, but rather because they are logical contradictions. A triangle, by definition, has 3 sides and 3 angles, so having a “2-sided triangle” is a logical contradiction. That’s like asking “Can an Infinite Being, a being without limits, impose limits on Himself?” The very definition of an infinite being eliminates that possibility. Or put another way—can an All-Powerful being do something that limits His power. The very idea of an All-Power being with power that is limited is illogical- Beign All-Powerful rules out the possibility of being limited. Or put another way, there are some things an Omnipotent can’t do precisely because he is Omnipotent. You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
The Christian understanding of Omnipotence is not that an Omnipotent Being should be able to do absolutely anything, but rather those things that are logically possible. It’s worth noting that “Defying logic” and “Defying physics” are two different things. One might argue “You Christians think God can walk on water- that defies logic!” To that I would argue, no, it defies physics, not logic. Making a square circle defies logic. As a Christian, when we say “God can do the impossible”, we don’t mean that God can do the “logically impossible” (i.e. make married bachelors, square circles, etc).
A rock (stone) by definition is made of matter and is of a finite size. An Infinite Being, by definition, is not finite. So in order for a rock to be too Heavy for an infinite Being, it would need to be of infinite size (and weight for that matter). But, by definition, this is not a rock.
In short, the “Stone Too Heavy to Lift” Paradox does not “prove” Omnipotence is not possible, and thus God is not possible, but rather simply illustrates that the Christian’s idea of God doesn’t meet the Arguer’s idea/concept of what it means to be Omnipotent (God).
These things (one-ended sticks, square circles, and yes, an Omnipotent Being creating a rock so heavy even He can’t lift it) are not possible not because the Omnipotent Being doesn’t have sufficient power to make it be, but rather because they are logical contradictions. A triangle, by definition, has 3 sides and 3 angles, so having a “2-sided triangle” is a logical contradiction. That’s like asking “Can an Infinite Being, a being without limits, impose limits on Himself?” The very definition of an infinite being eliminates that possibility. Or put another way—can an All-Powerful being do something that limits His power. The very idea of an All-Power being with power that is limited is illogical- Beign All-Powerful rules out the possibility of being limited. Or put another way, there are some things an Omnipotent can’t do precisely because he is Omnipotent. You’re basically asking if a Being of unlimited power can produce something to limit Him. But His unlimited power, by definition, rules out that possibility. An unlimited being cannot create limits for Himself.
The Christian understanding of Omnipotence is not that an Omnipotent Being should be able to do absolutely anything, but rather those things that are logically possible. It’s worth noting that “Defying logic” and “Defying physics” are two different things. One might argue “You Christians think God can walk on water- that defies logic!” To that I would argue, no, it defies physics, not logic. Making a square circle defies logic. As a Christian, when we say “God can do the impossible”, we don’t mean that God can do the “logically impossible” (i.e. make married bachelors, square circles, etc).
A rock (stone) by definition is made of matter and is of a finite size. An Infinite Being, by definition, is not finite. So in order for a rock to be too Heavy for an infinite Being, it would need to be of infinite size (and weight for that matter). But, by definition, this is not a rock.
In short, the “Stone Too Heavy to Lift” Paradox does not “prove” Omnipotence is not possible, and thus God is not possible, but rather simply illustrates that the Christian’s idea of God doesn’t meet the Arguer’s idea/concept of what it means to be Omnipotent (God).
Con
#2
My opponent's argument is that God can only do logically possible things, and so the Omnipotence Paradox doesn't apply to him. However, both of these statements are false. The God described in the Bible is truly omnipotent, and there are many verses that prove that. Here are some of those verses below:
But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. | Matthew 19:26 KJV
For with God nothing shall be impossible. | Luke 1:37 KJV
Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? | Jeremiah 32:37 KJV
And since the Bible is the word of God, that means God is telling us that everything is possible with him. God is telling us that nothing is too hard for him. Therefore, my opponent is denying his own religion and commiting blasphemy by challenging God's own definition of himself. Blasphemy is a serious crime and according to his own beliefs, my blasphemous opponent is going to Hell for eternity. Checkmate, Christians.
But on a serious note, you cannot just change your religion's definition of God to win an debate. The Christian God is defined as an omnipotent being with absolutely unlimited powers. There is not a single Bible verse that states God can only do things that are logically possible. If these Bible verses existed, my opponent would have cited them in his R1 argument. But he did not, because those verses do not exist and never have.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Eh, Checkmate? Not so
fast, Comrade. You’ve barely moved a pawn.
I agree, the God described in the Bible is truly “omnipotent.” Where we disagree is you believe “omnipotent” means being able to do absolutely everything, including those things which are logically impossible (can God make a married bachelor? No, then not God!), contradictory (can God make 2 + 2 equal 4 and not equal to 4 at the same time? No? Then not God!), or which go against His Nature. I, on the other hand, believe that “omnipotent” doesn’t necessarily mean being able to do absolutely everything. I believe, and which is the subject of the debate, is that the atheist, who, in this instance happens to actually go by the name “TheAtheist”, has a misunderstanding of what it means to be “omnipotent” from a Christian perspective. Most reputable Theologians adhere to the notion that at there are indeed some things God can’t do (they would against His nature, which warrants a much deeper discussion). Certainly within the Catholic faith, doctrine and Church teaching uphold that there are indeed some things which God cannot do.
My opponents cites passages from the Bible, and uses this same Bible to lay the foundation for his claim that the Christian believes God is an omnipotent being, one that has absolutely unlimited powers. This is the heart of the Paradox. The arguer believes that if “omnipotent” means “unlimited powers”, God is believe to be “unlimited”. If the arguer could somehow cleverly devise a scenario that would appear to “limit” God, this “proves” God is not omnipotent, and therefore proves God doesn’t exist. To which I respond, “No, no no.” The Christian faith (mine in particular) believes there are some things God can not due by virtue of the fact that he IS omnipotent.
The Bible, as with all texts written by a human hand (the Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans) must be taken into context. I truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God—written by humans over the course of time and inspired by God. At the same time, I believe that the Bible passages must be taken into context (who wrote them, when did they write them, who was the targeted audience at the time of writing, etc) in order to be properly understoof.
The early Biblical writers employed, as do writers of our own age, literary techniques in their writings. How can you be sure that when the writers of the Bible say (imply) that “God is Omnipotent,” they mean (imply) that He can truly do EVERYTHING, even those things which are contradictory? How can you be so sure that when you read a text from the Bible, your understanding of it is the exact same understanding of the writer who wrote it (or God who inspired it, for that matter)? This argument is based on an assumption that YOU interpret something (a text) exactly the way it was intended. My challenge to you is this—how are you so sure YOUR understanding of texts that describe God as having, as you put it, “Absolutely unlimited powers” is the correct understanding? Keep in mind, I’m asking you this because you (not me) were the one that brought the Bible into the discussion as a basis for your position. I did not (at least not yet anyway).
Just to give you an example of what I’m talking about—and these are examples, not “Strawmen”—I’m using these as examples to illustrate my point. Writers in the 80’s and 90’s would often describe Michael Jordan (and sports stars today) as being “impossible to stop” and “he could do no wrong during the game.” Now, does that truly mean he could not be stopped—AT ALL? No. Certainly some men stopped him and kept him from scoring, but they employed a literary technique to underscore how great he played. Biblical writers did the same thing. How can you be so sure when they say “For with God nothing shall be impossible” that they also mean God can do that which is contradictory or logically impossible?
You say that God tells us everything is possible with him. Yep, he does. Where we differ is you believe this means ABSOLUTELY everything, even those things that are logically impossible or contradictory (e.g make triangles with just 2 sides and angles, etc) whereas I say God can only do the logically possible. God also tells us, in that same Bible, that there are indeed things He cannot do (see below).
You say the Christian God is defined as having absolutely unlimited powers. WRONG. The Bible does in fact put limits on what God can’t do. Interesting—you seem to presume the reason I didn’t put these in R1 was because these passages didn’t exist. There are passages in the Bible that state there are indeed certain things God cannot do:
a. Impossible for God to lie
Hebrews 6:17-18 “So when God wanted to give the heirs of his promise an even clearer demonstration of the immutability of his purpose, he intervened with an oath, so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to hold fast to the hope that lies before us.”
Romans 3:4 “God must be true…”
b. He can not deny himself
2 Timothy 2:13 – “he can not deny Himself.”
This refutes your statements that Bible says (unequivocally) that the God is omnipotent by your definition/understanding of “omnipotent”. I say, no—the Bible does indeed place limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, he can’t “not be true” , he can’t deny himself).
I agree -- the Bible doesn’t say outright that God can only do the things that are logically possible. However, the Bible is silent about a myriad of things. The Bible is curiously silent about putting your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. However, we can use other passages, teachings, and context to infer that the Bible would not condone the putting of your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. Likewise, one can infer (from other passages, teachings, context) that there are some things God cannot do. So, the fact that the Bible doesn’t say X, doesn’t mean X is not true.
Finally, just as you state that the Bible states nowhere that God can only do the logically possible, I can likewise state that neither does the Bible state that God has absolutely unlimited powers and is able to do the logically impossible. You cite a few passages that you believe “prove” that the Christian God should be able to do EVERYTHING, including the logically impossible. However, I just showed you some passages where the Bible does indeed put limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, deny himself, etc), underscoring the notion that the Christian idea of omnipotence does not include being able to do the logically impossible, the contradictory, or the absurd.
Because I have characters, let’s recap. The crux/formula of the “Stone Paradox” essentially goes like this.
A. The arguer defines “Omnipotence” as being able to do absolutely everything, without having any limits. The arguer may not outright define it as such, but it becomes evident as the Paradox plays on that this what they believe. The arguer immediately assumes that his definition of Omnipotence is in 100% alignment with how the Christian defines “omnipotence”.
B. The arguer then devises (or borrows) a contradictory scenario, which is illogical, in the form of “If God is Omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that not even He can lift it?”. Other similar, often funny, scenarios might take the shape of “Can God create a Square that has 5 sides?”, “Can God beat Himself up in a fist-fight?” “Can God devise a problem that not even He can solve?”, etc.
C. When the Christian answers “No”, the arguer then counters “See! There IS something God can’t do (be it create a stone so heavy, make 2 sided triangle, etc). You’ve just put a limit on God. God is not omnipotent, therefore, God doesn’t exist!”. The arguer then claims victory, often punctuating the exchange with a clever statement, such as “Checkmate.”
However, the problem is with the initial understanding of “Omnipotence”.
I agree, the God described in the Bible is truly “omnipotent.” Where we disagree is you believe “omnipotent” means being able to do absolutely everything, including those things which are logically impossible (can God make a married bachelor? No, then not God!), contradictory (can God make 2 + 2 equal 4 and not equal to 4 at the same time? No? Then not God!), or which go against His Nature. I, on the other hand, believe that “omnipotent” doesn’t necessarily mean being able to do absolutely everything. I believe, and which is the subject of the debate, is that the atheist, who, in this instance happens to actually go by the name “TheAtheist”, has a misunderstanding of what it means to be “omnipotent” from a Christian perspective. Most reputable Theologians adhere to the notion that at there are indeed some things God can’t do (they would against His nature, which warrants a much deeper discussion). Certainly within the Catholic faith, doctrine and Church teaching uphold that there are indeed some things which God cannot do.
My opponents cites passages from the Bible, and uses this same Bible to lay the foundation for his claim that the Christian believes God is an omnipotent being, one that has absolutely unlimited powers. This is the heart of the Paradox. The arguer believes that if “omnipotent” means “unlimited powers”, God is believe to be “unlimited”. If the arguer could somehow cleverly devise a scenario that would appear to “limit” God, this “proves” God is not omnipotent, and therefore proves God doesn’t exist. To which I respond, “No, no no.” The Christian faith (mine in particular) believes there are some things God can not due by virtue of the fact that he IS omnipotent.
The Bible, as with all texts written by a human hand (the Bible was inspired by God, but written by humans) must be taken into context. I truly believe that the Bible is the Word of God—written by humans over the course of time and inspired by God. At the same time, I believe that the Bible passages must be taken into context (who wrote them, when did they write them, who was the targeted audience at the time of writing, etc) in order to be properly understoof.
The early Biblical writers employed, as do writers of our own age, literary techniques in their writings. How can you be sure that when the writers of the Bible say (imply) that “God is Omnipotent,” they mean (imply) that He can truly do EVERYTHING, even those things which are contradictory? How can you be so sure that when you read a text from the Bible, your understanding of it is the exact same understanding of the writer who wrote it (or God who inspired it, for that matter)? This argument is based on an assumption that YOU interpret something (a text) exactly the way it was intended. My challenge to you is this—how are you so sure YOUR understanding of texts that describe God as having, as you put it, “Absolutely unlimited powers” is the correct understanding? Keep in mind, I’m asking you this because you (not me) were the one that brought the Bible into the discussion as a basis for your position. I did not (at least not yet anyway).
Just to give you an example of what I’m talking about—and these are examples, not “Strawmen”—I’m using these as examples to illustrate my point. Writers in the 80’s and 90’s would often describe Michael Jordan (and sports stars today) as being “impossible to stop” and “he could do no wrong during the game.” Now, does that truly mean he could not be stopped—AT ALL? No. Certainly some men stopped him and kept him from scoring, but they employed a literary technique to underscore how great he played. Biblical writers did the same thing. How can you be so sure when they say “For with God nothing shall be impossible” that they also mean God can do that which is contradictory or logically impossible?
You say that God tells us everything is possible with him. Yep, he does. Where we differ is you believe this means ABSOLUTELY everything, even those things that are logically impossible or contradictory (e.g make triangles with just 2 sides and angles, etc) whereas I say God can only do the logically possible. God also tells us, in that same Bible, that there are indeed things He cannot do (see below).
You say the Christian God is defined as having absolutely unlimited powers. WRONG. The Bible does in fact put limits on what God can’t do. Interesting—you seem to presume the reason I didn’t put these in R1 was because these passages didn’t exist. There are passages in the Bible that state there are indeed certain things God cannot do:
a. Impossible for God to lie
Hebrews 6:17-18 “So when God wanted to give the heirs of his promise an even clearer demonstration of the immutability of his purpose, he intervened with an oath, so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to hold fast to the hope that lies before us.”
Romans 3:4 “God must be true…”
b. He can not deny himself
2 Timothy 2:13 – “he can not deny Himself.”
This refutes your statements that Bible says (unequivocally) that the God is omnipotent by your definition/understanding of “omnipotent”. I say, no—the Bible does indeed place limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, he can’t “not be true” , he can’t deny himself).
I agree -- the Bible doesn’t say outright that God can only do the things that are logically possible. However, the Bible is silent about a myriad of things. The Bible is curiously silent about putting your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. However, we can use other passages, teachings, and context to infer that the Bible would not condone the putting of your neighbor’s arm in a meat grinder. Likewise, one can infer (from other passages, teachings, context) that there are some things God cannot do. So, the fact that the Bible doesn’t say X, doesn’t mean X is not true.
Finally, just as you state that the Bible states nowhere that God can only do the logically possible, I can likewise state that neither does the Bible state that God has absolutely unlimited powers and is able to do the logically impossible. You cite a few passages that you believe “prove” that the Christian God should be able to do EVERYTHING, including the logically impossible. However, I just showed you some passages where the Bible does indeed put limits on what God can do (he can’t lie, deny himself, etc), underscoring the notion that the Christian idea of omnipotence does not include being able to do the logically impossible, the contradictory, or the absurd.
Because I have characters, let’s recap. The crux/formula of the “Stone Paradox” essentially goes like this.
A. The arguer defines “Omnipotence” as being able to do absolutely everything, without having any limits. The arguer may not outright define it as such, but it becomes evident as the Paradox plays on that this what they believe. The arguer immediately assumes that his definition of Omnipotence is in 100% alignment with how the Christian defines “omnipotence”.
B. The arguer then devises (or borrows) a contradictory scenario, which is illogical, in the form of “If God is Omnipotent, can He create a stone so heavy that not even He can lift it?”. Other similar, often funny, scenarios might take the shape of “Can God create a Square that has 5 sides?”, “Can God beat Himself up in a fist-fight?” “Can God devise a problem that not even He can solve?”, etc.
C. When the Christian answers “No”, the arguer then counters “See! There IS something God can’t do (be it create a stone so heavy, make 2 sided triangle, etc). You’ve just put a limit on God. God is not omnipotent, therefore, God doesn’t exist!”. The arguer then claims victory, often punctuating the exchange with a clever statement, such as “Checkmate.”
However, the problem is with the initial understanding of “Omnipotence”.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeiting this round so TheAtheist can publish his argument originally intended for R2.
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:
Con FF the majority of the debate, that's poor conduct!
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:
Full forfeit
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:
FF because R1 with forfeits means FF in the CoC.
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:
Convincing arguments goes to pro because con failed to respond to any of pro's rebuttals effectively conceding the debate.
Conduct goes to pro because Con forfeited most rounds.
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:
Forfeit from Con, although Con had some interesting points if he wanted to continue. Unfortunately, he never took the time to attempt to defend them from Pro. Pro was more convincing for me, kudos to him; albeit, he had little competition unfortunately.
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:
67% Forfeiture.
I would have been tempted to award conduct for the R1 insults of blasphemy for initiating this debate... It could have been a somewhat valid claim later by lowering God to the standard of Michael Jordan,
This was a disagreement over if Christians define God as omnipotent anyways, and maybe should have just been a debate on if Christians define God as omnipotent or not, since pro clearly does not (well at least not without a healthy dose of moving the goalpost).
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:
2/3 forfeit, neither side convinced me
For starters, Ragnar's link makes no mention of Proof that Jesus is Joseph's blood son. I read Genesis 12:1-3, here's what it states inthe link:
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father's house, to the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed"
Not sure how you can make the leap and say that this proves the Messiah would be a blood relative of Abraham and thus Jesus is the blood son of Joseph.
Alright, let the record show I"ve been blocked by Ragnar. Guess I need to tone down the sarcasm. He provided a comment on a debate I was having,a comment which goes against what my faith and Christianity teach. So naturally, rather than be silent, I'm going to challenge that comment.
I do not believe (a) that Jesus was the "blood son" of Joseph, nor do I believe Matthew "proves" Jesus was the blood son of Joseph. Perhaps you took offense to my sarcasm (theological bombshell), if so, i apologize.
Matthew states lineage and nowhere does it state or imply that (a) Mary and JOseph had sex or (b) Jesus is the biological (blood son) of Joseph.
Matthew specifies the lineage of multiple generations from Abraham to "Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Of her was born Jesus who is called the Messiah."
Not sure how you can make leap to say this proves He was the blood son of Joseph.
I can trace my brother's genealogy likewise:
From my great-great-great grandfather down to Robert (my dad) the father of Michael (my brother), the husband of Melissa. Of her was born Ian.
Can you definitively say "Ian" is the blood son of Michael? Yes? No?
For those itching to know, Ian was adopted and is not blood related to Michael. Michael still calls Ian "my son" and Ian calls Michael "my Father", but there is no blood relationship.
I've been now blocked by RationalMadman and Ragnar, both of whom made comments which go against my faith or what it teaches. When I challenged them on
it, they seem to take offense.
Nice job trolling, I actually fell for it.
In case you're being serious that you're not familar with the conversation you were taking part in, I'll give a refresher before blocking you for trolling:
See previous post: "He was required to be in order to be the messiah (well any male path descendant of Abraham would do). That's why the book of Matthew spent so long at the start proving he was the blood son of Joseph." ... That you're "very familiar with the story, so no need to recite the lineage" but are now obtusely denying it, is why I'm calling you out for trolling.
That you claim didn't see Genesis 12:1-3 (or various others within the link stipulating whose bloodline the messiah had to come from), either speaks of your trolling mastery or your reading comprehension; out of respect for you I am assuming the former.
If you are referrring to the blueletterbible link you provided, I did.
I could not find anywhere where it says that Jesus was the blood son (biological) of Joseph.
See previous posts in conversation.
Mary and Joseph had sex and Jesus was conceived as a result? really? What are you basing this off of? What writings or teachings? You realize this is a Theological bombshell that has the potential to crush close to 2000 years of Christianity?
Seriously-- what texts / resources did you use?
First, you're confusing my use of the term "move" when it comes to "change"—you’re equating it to physical moving. Don't confuse the two. When I'm using the term "moving" I'm not talking changing locations, i'm talking/referencing to a change in state.
Second, if you're omni-present, there is no need to change locations. You're already at that location....but you're also at your current location. and the other location etc. I know it's hard to understand. But imagine it like this. A simple, albeit imperfect analogy: if you were Omni-present, you could be in Phoenix Arizona, Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and L.A. all at the same time. But humans are imperfect and are bound by the laws of physics. A human being isn’t omnipresent. So someone like say, Steve Miller, has to take a Big Ol’ Jet Airliner and go from Phoenix Arizona all the way to Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, L.A. So God is not “stuck”. God has no “need” to move around.
Third, actually yes—“unmovable” is actually another attribute of God’s Nature (he’s Omni-Present, remember?). If you move point A to point X, that implies that you were not in Point X, which goes against the idea of “omnipresent.
Fourth, no offense, but I’m putting my money on God in your hypothetical pickup game with the Almighty. I haven’t seen you play, but God, being all-power could certainly win if he wanted to, and lose if he wanted to.
This is all so very hard to understand, I know. But trying to understand God and his ways is very challenging. It’s sort of like a 6 year old learning basic Math trying to understand Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.
Fine. In that case, how about I use something, that is both physically and logically possible, as my example: moving.
Moving is both physically and logically possible, and is defined as changing positions/locations.
However, you yourself said this:
- When an something "changes", it moves from one state to another. It, essentially, becomes either "better" or "worse".
- To be "perfect" is indeed as "good as can possibly be" as you state
- So, if something that is "perfect" changes, then 1 of 2 things happen:
a) It becomes "less perfect" (worse)
b) it becomes "more perfect" (becomes better). But this, again makes no sense. If something is as good as possible, it can't become better (more perfect) because it is already, by definition "as good as can possibly be"-- there is no "getting any better".
- It follows that if something is perfect (all perfect), then it can't possibly change. If it changes then (a) it loses the perfection it had or (b) it gets better (which means/implies it wasn't "perfect' in the first place).
Also, I'm pretty sure that the Christian believes that God is "omnipresent" (which means to be literally everywhere) in addition to being "omnipotent". However, to be everywhere means that you cannot leave any one location and move to another, as being omnipotent would mean that you are already in the "perfect" location.
So that means God can't move at all; he's stuck, even though we can move around. I also highly doubt that moving would be against his nature too, so you couldn't simply say that it's just against his nature.
That means that God can't beat me in a game of basketball, soccer, or any other sport that requires some kind of movement, even though I'm a crappy basketball player.
That means God can't beat me in a race.
Take that.
Seriously though, this was a lame debate. Was hoping TheAtheist wouldn't forfeit 2 rounds in a row. Oh well.
Basically Joseph and Mary had sex, Jesus was one of the children that resulted; hence why Joseph's lineage matters.
As for prophecies about Jesus' parentage, I did a little Googling for you rather than trying to do it justice myself: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_234.cfm
Perhaps you can clarify then, what exactly do you mean by "blood son"? How did you define it in your thesis?
To me "blood son" has a very specific connotation a blood relative, a biological relative. I have intercourse with my wife, and she conceives, a bears a son. This son is my blood relative, my blood son. However, I can also adopt a child that has different biological parents. I can raise this child as my own and call him my son. I don't think though this would be called my "blood son".
So i'm curious, what do you mean by "blood son", and how exactly does Matthew prove Jesus is the "blood son of Joseph". I'm very familiar with the story, so no need to recite the lineage.
Also, I"m curious as to where it says in order to be the Messiah he had to be the "blood son" of Joseph (or blood relative of Abraham).
He was required to be in order to be the messiah (well any male path descendant of Abraham would do). That's why the book of Matthew spent so long at the start proving he was the blood son of Joseph.
Ok. NOw i'm really curious. "Christ being Joseph's son by blood". Explain that to me. How is Christ Joseph's son by blood?"
It being a full forfeit I only skimmed it to provide light feedback.
At university I actually wrote a paper about an example of God being truly omnipotent, which was the paradox of Christ being Joseph's son by blood.
While the prevoius 2 concerns are why I wont' accept, I do have additional questions (these additional questions are not preventing me from accepting, they are just questions I have):
1. Do you think the Bible, in particular, the New Testament, represents the sum total of everything Jesus said, did and taught? Or do you think that there were some things that he said, did, or taught that were not written down in the NT? And if so, do you think it's possible that these unwritten sayings, actions, teachings could have very well survived and been handed down through the generations?
2. Is there particular sect/denomination of Christianity you are interested in covering in this debate. The various sects have different believes and practices. Or are you planning on proving that ALL denominations are bad?
I'm not willing to accept the debate as it's written, here is why:
- Christianity is not a faith that is just solely focused on the NT. One must also include the OT (Jesus and others in NT make reference to it). Plus it was "Christianity" after all that developed the canon of the Bible in the first place, which includes the OT.
- I refuse to use the KJV. Here's why: The King James version, when looked at from the history of Christianity, is a relatively new version-- having first been published in the early's 1600's, some 1570 years or so after Christ's death and roughly 1100 years after the canon of the Bible was first incorporated. The KJV is basically a product of the Protestant Reformation
Those are the big two issues preventing me from accepting the debate outright (more to come in next comment)
Just saw your vote and comments. Appreciate the feedback. Based on what you wrote in "Reason" on the vote tab, I don't think you understood what the debate was about. You state "This was a disagreement over if Christians define God as omnipotent anyways". No-- that's not what the disagreement (debate) was about. It wasn't about whether or not Christians define God as "Omnipotent". They (we) do, and I thought that was made apparent in the description when I wrote "what it means to be omnipotent from a Theological/Christian perspective". I would think this implies that the Christian does think God is omnipotent, so what then becomes up for discussion is "what does it mean to be omnipotent, which is what the debate was about. "
Anyway, not looking to change votes or anything (not even sure if that's possible here), just wanted to highlight that what you put in your reason to me seems inaccurate. Again, thanks for reading all this stuff and voting nonetheless!
Made it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1244/is-christianity-a-good-moral-system-to-follow
Accept if you want
I'll make the debate and you can choose to accept. It'll but if you are there first you can accept.
I'll notify you when it is created.
Can't really think of too many arguments.
I could also think of your explanations given here and some other possible ones which I don't think would be eventful.
Can you think of something else?
Looks like TheAtheist forfeited the remaining rounds. Next time I'll make the argument times longer.
Are you interested in debating this?
Your choice.
what would you rather the topic be changed to? Or how would you have it phrased?
The flipside of this argument is this. I believe these things below to be logical impossibilities. My challenge to you is this, do you believe these to be logical possibilities? In other words, do you believe any of these to be "logically possible?"
1. Square circle
2. A 2-sided triangle
3. A married bachelor
4. An unlimited being that can be limited
If you would be so kind, just provide a simple yes or no (i.e. "Yes, logically possible"). Again, I'm talking "logically possible" not "physically possible").
This isn't just MY understanding, it's what the Church, and giants of the Church (like Aquinas, et al) believe. You are confusing the "logic" and "physics". YOu are saying because something is impossible for you and me, it's not logically possible, and therefore doesn't make sense that God would do them. That is incorrect. Just because something is impossible for you or me, doesn't necessarily mean that it is (a) logically impossible or (b) impossible for God.
Keep in mind, there is a difference between "defying logic" (doing the logically impossible) and "defying physics" (doing what humans consider "physically impossible"). What my faith believes is God can do the physically possible (it may be impossible for you or me, but it's possible for God). "Walking on water" may be physically impossible...for you and me. Would you call this "not logically possible?" I wouldn't. But from a physical standpoint, the "ability to walk on water" has the potential to be, we (you and I) just can't realize that potential. A being not bound by the laws of physics (aka an Omnipotent God) would be able to realize that potential of walking on water.
Also, don't fall into trap of equating 1 day for God as being equivalent for 1 day for you and me (one day for God is like a 1000, or something like that).
So, according to you, omnipotence "means being able to do that which is possible (logically or has the potential for possibility)". Well in the bible, God has done tons of things that wouldn't be logically possible.
According to the book of Genesis, he created the heavens, earth, sun, and moon, waters, plants, and animals, by simply speaking them into existence (let there be light). That isn't logically possible, yet God was still able to do it.... all in one day, mind you.
Then it goes on about how God formed a man from dust in the ground and breathed into his nostrils to make him a living being (another logically impossible task).
Afterwards, God decided that the man needed a "suitable helper" and caused him to fall asleep somehow, taking one of his ribs and making a woman out of that (another logically impossible task).
Later, when they both disobeyed God, God banished them from his garden and put "a flaming sword" to guard it (which is also not logically possible).
In the book of Exodus, it talks about 10 different plagues that God created, which is also not logically possible. https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/what-are-10-plagues-egypt
The way God freed those egyptians from the pharaoh (dividing an ocean and making wheels come off of his chariots) would also be logically impossible.
Is God really limited to only "logically possible" things? If so, then how does God do all that in the bible, and so much more? If not, then he should certainly be able to do other logically impossible things like creating a married bachelor, right?
And those were just a select few examples out of the many of them.
Can you change the topic or make it more general because there really isn't too much to argue with this?
Okay.
I don't mind debating it with you-- just let me finish this one, if you don't mind. I have hard enough time managing two debates simultaneously.....
If you want. I'll accept if you create this again.
Sorry I read that badly. I realize what this debate is about. It was your argument against a typical argument against God not what I was going at.
um -- didn't I put that in the description? The debate description starts off like this:
"The argument goes something like this.........To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything....."
Granted, I didn't preface it with the words 'Omnipotent in this debate is defined as...". But I figured it would be understood that this is is how the arguer defines "omnipotence", since I do say "the argument goes something like this...." I then later say that this is a flawed argument and then leave it to the Rounds to debate if it's flawed or valid.....
Not the Christian perspective just a definition like Omnipotence is God can do anything. Pro will be arguing how this is not illogical whereas Con will be arguing it is illogical.
I would say the Christian (Aquinas/Catholic) definition of "omnipotence" is not vague at all. It's actually very clear-- "omnipotence" means being able to do that which is possible (logically or has the potential for possibility) and not contradictory in nature (God's nature). "Omnipotence" does not mean having the power to do whatever scenario you or anyone else can conceivably come up with.
** The outcome of this debate is going to rest on whatever/whosever definitions the audience/voters agrees with, and I doubt they're going to agree with the fuzzy one that you have given over the opponent's one. **
But the opponent's definition pretty much opens the door to anything imaginable, even nonsensical challenges that are words strung along together (and I use "opponent" in a general sense, not specifically pointing to TheAtheist)
It's like the opponent/arguer is now expecting God to do his bidding in an attempt to prove He's God, no matter how nonsensical the requests are:
Ok-- you think you'r all powerful, God? Part the Red Sea!
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Heal this man's arm
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Create a stone so heavy not even YOU can lift (nonsense)
OK-- you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me flavor "brown" is (nonsense)
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me how much the number 7 weighs (nonsense)
Ok - you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me the name of the bachelor's wife (nonsense)
Ok - you think you're all powerful, God? Make me a 3-sided figure with only 2 sides (nonsense)
So you'd rather I'd list in the debate description the Christian's idea of omnipotence? I guess that could've been done-- but where would the fun be in that :).
Your "lying 'FIRE!' to get someone's attention" scenario is considered a good lie, in your opinion. But this is actually an excellent example of why lying is a "shortfall", and smacks in the face of perfection. Wouldn't a PERFECT being (human) be able to get another PERFECT being (Human) attention by using the truth (conforming to reality) as opposed to lying (saying something that contradicts reality)? But Humans are imperfect. So, due to the imperfection on the part of the sayer (person trying to get the attention) or the imperfection of the hearer (the person who is being summoned), or both, the sayer has to resort to lying. A perfect being would not have to resort to such tactics. AGain, don't attribute to God that which humans do or need to do in certain circumstances. Likewise your other scenario the so-called "need to lie" argument is solely based on man's imperfection.
The problem, the MAIN problem, the crux of the issue, with the "God can not be All Good" is that people often think that what THEY deem as "good" or "bad" should also be viewed by God as "good" or "bad". In other words, they see things as "bad" (or "good" for that matter), and expect God to view them in the same way. Put another way, they are essentially claiming to see things as "God" sees them, which some have considered the height of arrogance. Then they put forth all these bad things (children dying, rape, murder, mass shootings, etc) and use those as "proof" that God can not possibly be all Good.
um, no. I'm thinking you do not have a proper understanding of what it means to be "perfect" and what "change" means in respect to "Perfection".
Again, voluminous tomes have been written on God's immutability (Unchanging Nature). "Change" is contradictory to "Perfection".
- When an something "changes", it moves from one state to another. It, essentially, becomes either "better" or "worse".
- To be "perfect" is indeed as "good as can possibly be" as you state
- So, if something that is "perfect" changes, then 1 of 2 things happen:
a) It becomes "less perfect" (worse)
b) it becomes "more perfect" (becomes better). But this, again makes no sense. If something is as good as possible, it can't become better (more perfect) because it is already, by definition "as good as can possibly be"-- there is no "getting any better".
- It follows that if something is perfect (all perfect), then it can't possibly change. If it changes then (a) it loses the perfection it had or (b) it gets better (which means/implies it wasn't "perfect' in the first place).
Be careful, you fall into the trap that a lot of people do-- they take circumstances that are applicable to humans (lying, changing, etc) and expect those to apply to God. That's not how it works.
AGain, I'm wanting to debate "omnipotence", but as I suspected folks start arguing all of God's other attributes (Perfection, Omni-Benevolence, etc). I can address (and will address) your other concerns shortly.
And, again, the topic of the debate is not whether or not GOd's Omnipotence is real or able to proven, whether or not God is All-Good or not, etc-- the subject of the debate is whether or not the "Stone Paradox" is good or flawed argument against God's omnipotence.
If the debate is centered around if omnipotence disproves God then you should give a neutral view of the definition. Something that both parties can agree on.
Like God can do anything.
From that you can allow the contender to start to list out problems then from that you can lay out how they are not problems. Doing it this would allow the definition to be known so that it isn't really a problem when arguing.
You said that the Christian defines omnipotence as being able to do everything that is possible that is also not against God's nature, and, according to your idea of God's nature, he "is Perfect, Omni-potent, Eternal, Omniscient, All-Good."
The definition of perfect is "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be." https://www.google.com/search?q=define+perfect
You yourself said that God lacks the ability to lie or change, and lying and change can both be "desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics". Guess he isn't perfect then.
It cannot possibly be proven that God is eternal or omniscient.
Again, how can God be "all-good" when he does bad things? My problem with the whole idea of "all-good" is that you see it as all black-and-white, and that you don't take into account the fact that some things can be very good in certain situations, but also be bad in others. For instance, lying is bad when you know you did something wrong and that you could own up to it and just tell the truth, but what if someone yells "FIRE" in order to get attention and they need immediate help? Sure they lied, but that could be a good lie since it would lead to a good outcome.
What if someone tells you that they want to come for you in real life and harm you, and they ask you for personal information like your real name or address so that they can find you, but you lie and give them fake information so that you protect yourself and your safety. Sure, you lied, but it was for a good cause, right?
This is the problem with Aquinas's definition of omnipotence, and of God's nature. They're both either vague, cannot be proven, or don't take into account other external factors like what I just mentioned.
The outcome of this debate is going to rest on whatever/whosever definitions the audience/voters agrees with, and I doubt they're going to agree with the fuzzy one that you have given over the opponent's one.
that's kinda what the debate is about though. Part of my argument(s) was going to be put forth or explain a definition. In R1 I did lay forth the Christian's perspective of what it means to be "omnipotent". Didn't really see a point in putting this in the Debate description-- since that is what my argument was going to be-- the Christian's perspective.
I have to ask-- what exactly is the Christian's definition of "omnipotence" since you mention it contradicts Aquinas?
Go back and read more Aquinas. He's written VOLUMES of stuff on God and HIs nature. I'll admit, it's very heady stuff. Takes a while to grasp and sink in.
Aquinas posits that God is "immutable" (i.e. unchanging). This means he does not change. (refer to his Summa again).
Everything has a nature, that which is inherent to it-- you...me..God..... If Goes goes against His nature, then that means that He would be exhibiting features, quality, or character that were not basic or inherent to Him. In essence, He would change. But again, he says God does not change-- He is immutable.
As far as explaining what "God's nature" is, it can be summarized as follows-- He is Perfect, Omni-potent, Eternal, Omniscient, All-Good.
The foundation of this concept of "omnipotence" is basically being able to do "that which is possible". We can string along words in all sort of ways to create some scenarios, but these scenarios must be "logically possible". Some scenarios are just pure nonsense or gibberish-- just because something makes sense "grammatically" doesn't necessarily follow that is sensible or possible. "God, please prove your omnipotence by telling me what flavor 'yellow' is. CAn't do it? Then you're not God!". See how this is nonsensical this is?
That's the problem here. The Christian's definition of omnipotence is different from Aquinas's one, and they both contradict each other.
According to Aquinas's definition, "God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
According to "the Christian," "it is NOT possible for God to lie. Why? Because it is NOT in God's nature. The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect. The reason God can't lie is because it's inconsistent (Contradictory) with his All-Perfect nature."
Except Aquinas's definition doesn't specify that God can do all things that are possible that are also not against his nature. It just says that God can do all things that are possible, period (without including anything about God's nature).
If we go by Aquinas's definition, then God should be able to lie and do other harmful things like you and I can.
If we go by the Christian definition, then not only does God do many things that should also be against his nature, but then you also have to take that extra step and go through the trouble of explaining what "God's nature" is supposed to mean, since the Christian defines omnipotence as being able to do everything that is possible that is also not against God's nature, but doesn't define God's nature itself, and neither does Aquinas.
I'm trying to show you that, no matter what definition of omnipotence we go by, whether it's TheAtheist's, the Christian's, or Aquinas's, you would still easily be refuted based on any and all 3 of those different definitions.
Basically lay out definitions when you create the debate.
#21
Implied here
"This debate is I think going to revolve around the definition of omnipotence since GuitarSlinger didn't bother to give one."
um, what did you ask me to do, specifically. I just scanned your comment again and I really don't see a request from you for me to do something....Perhaps you can just reference the specific request and the comment # for that request?
I asked you to do something.
You then reply with something I didn't ask for.
You then decide to confirm that I did state one thing yet you did another.
What you should do when moving forward in these debates is clearly lay out definitions so that you are not arguing definitions instead arguing with the definitions in mind.
You didn't, and I didn't say you did. You basically said though that I didn't provide a defnition. SO in my comment to you, I was seeking to do a few things:
1. Explain what "Omnipotence" is NOT from a Christian's perspective.
2. Offer up what I believe to be a suitable definition of "omnipotence" from a Christian perspective.
When did I argue what Omnipotence was when I specifically stated have a definition?
First off, "Omnipotence" does not mean that "God can do anything you can say." We can say all sorts of things that basically amount to gibberish. We can string along words in all sorts of ways, and then challenge God to do what we say to prove He is God. Here is an example "Can God make colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" This is gibberish-- it makes no sense whatsoever. It's illogical.
If it pleases the court, how about we use this definition or description that Aquinas put forth in his Summa. Pretty straightforward which basically amounts to God be able to do whatever is possible :
"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
The Contender can indeed use his own definition of Omnipotence, but he would need to show that the Christian also adheres to this definition of "omnipotence". This is after all what the debate is about....
Response to your Paragraph 1 - Again, begs the question—what versions of the Bible are you referring to that you say state God says Adam would surely die “that day”, and it begs the further question, is that version “authoritative”? I ask because it’s important. If I wanted to know what MLK thought about civil rights, I’d read HIS version of his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, not some version of some dude down the street who reinterpreted it. The version of the Bible I use does state that God says they would die “that die”, but rather that they would surely die….and guess what….they did die.
Response to your Paragraph 2 - Not sure what the point is of your 2nd paragraph (“You keep bringing up how…”). I’m giving you facts (and TheAtheist). SO far I’ve mentioned how the Christian does NOT believe that God can do the logically impossible (create a square circle, etc).
Response to your Paragraph 3 – As I implied in my other comment, my faith believes that the “Teaching Body of the Church”, technically known as the Magisterium, is able to authoritatively interpret the Bible. I’m sure you won’t accept that and we can debate that particular topic if you want. But my faith holds that Jesus gave his disciples the authority to teach and interpret the Bible, and this authority has been passed down, unbroken, to this day.
Paragraph 4 – My faith teaches that God has a nature—he is Almighty, All-Good, All-Knowing, Perfect, Unchanging, etc. Now by bringing up your examples of what you call “insane stuff”, you are effectively trying to refute the notion of God being All-Good (aka Omni-benevolent). This debate is more about debating God’s Omni-potence, not God’s Omni-Benevolence. As I mentioned elsewhere, debating/discussing all these at once is challenging—each is worthy of separate discussions. I prefer you stick to the topic of Omni-Potent. We can have a separate debate/discussion on God’s Omni-Benevolence—would you want to engage in such a debate?