Instigator / Pro
17
1378
rating
36
debates
38.89%
won
Topic
#1271
The God Described in the Bible Cannot Exist
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
GuitarSlinger
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
18
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description
I will be arguing that it is impossible for the God described in the Bible to exist. My opponent will be arguing that it is possible for that God to exist. Burden of Proof is shared.
=DEFINITIONS=
Exist:
1. To have an objective reality of being
=RULES=
1. No Kritiks of the topic or of the definitions in the description.
2. No new arguments are allowed in the final round.
3. No trolling is allowed.
4. Debate structure must be followed.
5. Plagiarism is not allowed.
6. Citation of sources for quotes, statistics, and definitions is required.
7. We will use the KJV Bible in this debate. If you wish to use another version, DM me before accepting.
8. Any violation of this rule and the rules above merits a loss.
=STRUCTURE=
Round 1: Opening Argument
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Final Statement.
May the best debater win.
Round 1
=Main Argument=
According to the Bible, the Christian God is:
1. Omniscient, or all-knowing [1].
2. Omnipotent, or all-powerful [2].
3. Omnibenevolent, or all-good [3].
An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being cannot exist. Let me explain why.
==
1 - God is Omniscient
An omniscient being cannot exist. If God is omniscient, is he aware that there are things which he does not know? If he is not aware of that, then he is not omniscient, since there are things which he is not aware of. If he is aware of that, he is also not omniscient, since there exist things which he does not know. Therefore, it is impossible for someone to be omniscient, so a God described as omniscient cannot exist.
Furthermore, the claim that God is all-knowing contradicts many important tenets of Christianity. If God is omniscient, then what is the point of praying? If life is just a test, and God knows the outcome of that test, then what is the point of life? If God knew that the Serpent would convince Adam and Eve to eat the apple, why would he put the apple tree where they could eat from it? If God knew that the Devil would rebel and reject him, why would he create the Devil in the first place?
==
2 - God is Omnipotent
An omnipotent being cannot exist. If God is omnipotent, could he create a stone which he himself could not lift? If he could create such a stone, he is not omnipotent, since he would not be able to lift that stone afterwards. If he could not create such a stone, he is also not omnipotent, since there is something which he is unable to do. Therefore, it is impossible for someone to be omnipotent, so a God described as omnipotent cannot exist.
==
3 - God is Omnibenevolent
Unlike omniscience and omnipotence, omnibenevolence is actually possible. The Christian God, however, is not omnibenevolent. An omnibenevolent being cannot be responsible for evil, and yet God admits that he is responsible for ALL evil in this world in Isaiah 45:7 NABRE.
==
4 - The Problem of Evil
Let's say that omnipotence and omniscience was actually possible, and that God was omnibenevolent despite all the evil things he has done. Even then, his existence would be impossible, since a being cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent in a world where evil exists. Let me demonstrate:
If God is omniscient, he has the knowledge of how to destroy evil (A being that doesn't know how to destroy evil is not omniscient).
If God is omnipotent, he has the ability to destroy evil (A being that can't destroy evil is not omnipotent).
If God is omnibenevolent, he has the desire to destroy evil (A being that doesn't care about destroying evil is not omnibenevolent).
So, if God has the knowledge, ability, and desire to destroy evil, then why does evil exist?
A being such as the Christian God cannot exist in a world where evil exists. Since evil exists in our world, we can logically conclude that a Christian God cannot exist in our world, and that conclusion ignores that omnipotence and omniscience are logically impossible.
==
Conclusion
In my argument, I have proven that the God described in the Bible cannot exist. Over to CON.
============
SOURCES:
[1] - Psalms 147.5 NABRE, 1 John 3:20 NABRE, Jeremiah 23:24 NABRE.
[2] - Luke 1:37 NABRE, Mark 10:27 NABRE.
[3] - Pslam 100:5 NABRE, Psalm 145:17 NABRE, John 3:16 NABRE.
This is going to be fun! I’ll go out on a limb and state that my opponent is going to have a very
daunting task proving that it is impossible for the God of the Bible to exist. I
will be not be using this round to Rebut my opponent’s arguments, but rather
make the argument that “My opponent can’t
prove that it is impossible for the God described in the Bible to exist. “ Here’s why:
A. He must
rule out any and every possibility of God existing. By definition, “Impossible to exist”, when
properly understood or taken literally, means “not at all possible to exist.” He can’t prove this, as there just aren’t
enough Rounds or characters in a Round to allow him to rule out or refute every
potential possibility of God existing.
1. If there is just one possibility, no matter how
remote, this by definition means it is “possible to exist”, and thus not “impossible
to exist”. It may not be likely or
probably, but it is still possible. It
is not a debate about likelihood or probability, but rather possibility.
B. Any interpretation of Scripture by my opponent
carries with it the weighty responsibility of proving that that interpretation
is Authoritative and Correct (TRUE). In other
words, it must be proven that THAT interpretation is the CORRECT one. Failure to do so leave open the door to possibility. Failure to do so makes his interpretation no better than mine, or the guy down the street, the televangelist on TV, or the lady on the street corner, all of which may or may not be true.
Supporting
Information
1. I’ll begin with one of the basics of Philosophy,
Logic, and experience: two contradicting statements cannot both be
true at the same time. This is the foundation of logical reasoning and
debate. To believe or argue otherwise
(that two contradicting or opposing statements can both simultaneously be true)
is to base one’s argument on illogical reasoning, and any argument not based on
logical reasoning should be discarded immediately. For If you use illogical reasoning as the
basis of your argument, any illogical reason can be used to argue any
position. This is the foundation of
Philosophy and Reason.
2. Words have multiple interpretations. My opponent provided an interpretation for
“Exist”, which is great and I agree with his definition. However, he did not
provide an interpretation for “Impossible”. There are a few interpretations of “impossible”—in other words,
“impossible” can be used in many different ways:
A. Literally – e.g. “It is impossible to make water
without Oxygen”. By definition, water
consists of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms. Therefore, you can’t make water without oxygen. Therefore it is impossible to do.
B. As a figure of speech – e.g. “It was impossible
to stop Tim Duncan in the 2003 NBA Finals”. In that instance, I use “impossible” as a figure of speech, a literary
device if you will, to indicate how well Tim Duncan played. Do I literally mean it was impossible to stop
him? Obviously some people did stop him,
so it was indeed possible. In that
instance “Impossible” was used as a figure of speech to indicate how well he
played.
Since my opponent, did not provide
a definition of “Impossible”, my assumption is he is using “impossible” in this sense—literally meaning absolutely not possible not possible for God to exist. Any other use of this word cracks open the
door to possibility, which by definition, rules out “impossibility”, and the
debate is over. Let me repeat: HE is
using impossible in this sense—that it is absolutely not possible for God to
exist. I am not saying the Bible
uses “impossible” in this sense, simply HE is. In other words, he is saying it is “Absolutely not possible at all for
God to exist.”
To use “Impossible” in this sense is pretty
definitive—it means “not possible”. It
rules out ANY and EVERY possibility. It
means, by definition, that it is absolutely not possible. Even if one single, albeit remote,
possibility exists, then that means it is indeed possible, and thus “not
impossible”. Even if this “one
possibility” has only 1 Trillionth of a chance of occurring, it is still a
possibility (a remote one), and as long as there is a possibility, then one
can’t say it’s “Impossible”. I will
repeat—in order to claim that something is impossible, one must rule out any
and every possibility.
The debate is about the possibility/impossibility of God existing. It is not about whether or not He does exist,
but rather is it possible or impossible. It is not about whether or not it is probable
(likely) or improbable (unlikely), but rather is it possible or impossible.
So, with that being said, I do not need to prove that God exists nor do
I need to prove that it is likely for God to exist.
3. My opponent is basing his argument on one
interpretation of the Bible— namely, his. I think we can all agree that there are several interpretations of the
Bible. In fact, the number of “interpretations”
of the Bible is very HIGH.
In order for my opponent to win the
debate, he must, I repeat MUST, show that his interpretation is the
authoritative one and is indeed correct. In fact, he must show that any interpretation that contradicts his is indeed
wrong, as well. If he can’t show that the
other interpretation(s) is (are) wrong,
then this leaves open the possibility that the other interpretation is correct,
and thus his may be wrong, which ultimately leaves open the possibility that
the statement “it is impossible” may too be wrong.
a. It’s not enough to spout Scripture and announce “This
is what it means!” One must also provide
evidence that that is TRULY what it means. 5 different people can all provide 5 different interpretations of Scripture. If they are opposing views, then it follows that
they can’t all be true. If we shrug our
shoulders and say “well, perhaps they are all true”, then my opponents argument
falls apart.
b. It’s not enough to prove that the other possible
interpretations are incorrect, he must also prove his interpretation is the
correct one. Saying those other ones are
incorrect does not automatically make the remaining interpretation the correct
one. His may very well still be an
incorrect interpretation.
c. If he can’t prove that his interpretation is
correct, then it leaves open the door that his interpretation may in fact be
incorrect. And if his interpretation is
incorrect, then that means his premise that it is “impossible to exist” may be
wrong, and thus it may well be “possible to exist.”
As a result of the way the debate
was framed, the onus is not on me to prove my interpretations of Scripture are
correct. I simply have to say they may
be correct. My opponent on the other
hand must show they are incorrect or not possible—failure to do so leaves open the door that
they might be correct or possible, and thus it might be possible for God to exist (not impossible).
In Round 2, I will be rebutting my
opponent’s actual arguments from Round 1, as well showing how his argument:
a) Violates, or at a minimum, ignores the basic
foundation of logic—that two opposing (contradicting) statements cannot both be
true and thus his reasoning for the impossibility of God’s existence is based
on illogical (nonsensical) reasoning.
b) Is based on his interpretation of Scripture, and
that it is just that….HIS interpretation, without authority.
Round 2
Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate, and let's begin.
============
"He must rule out any and every possibility of God existing. By definition, “Impossible to exist”, when properly understood or taken literally, means “not at all possible to exist.” He can’t prove this, as there just aren’t enough Rounds or characters in a Round to allow him to rule out or refute every potential possibility of God existing."
OBJECTION: Irrelevant. To prove that the God described in the Bible cannot exist, I just have to show that his existence would be impossible, and would contradict the laws of logic and our universe. I do not have to "refute every potential possibility", whatever that is supposed to mean. In fact, if it is proven that God cannot exist, all "potential possibilities" of his existence are automatically refuted.
"Any interpretation of Scripture by my opponent carries with it the weighty responsibility of proving that that interpretation is Authoritative and Correct (TRUE). In other words, it must be proven that THAT interpretation is the CORRECT one. Failure to do so leave open the door to possibility. Failure to do so makes his interpretation no better than mine, or the guy down the street, the televangelist on TV, or the lady on the street corner, all of which may or may not be true."
Literally everything humanity has known is interpretation. When you read a textbook, you interpret what it says, and that's why different scientists have different conclusions. Why can't the same be done with the Bible? My opponent has an interpretation, and I have an interpretation, now it is up to him to prove why his interpretation is more correct than mine. That's why my opponent cannot just say that God "cannot go against his nature", he has to provide actual verses from the Bible to back that up. Same thing with me: I have to prove why my interpretation is more correct than his, and I have to provide actual verses from the Bible to back that up.
============
There isn't much else to refute, so over to Con.
Logic tells us that two mutually
exclusive propositions (statements) cannot both be true in the same sense and
the same time. This is called the Law of
Non-Contradiction (or the Law of Contradiction, refer to Aristotle Metaphysics
IV (Gamma) 3–6). Put simply, this law
states that the two propositions “X is A” and “X is not A” cannot both be true
at the same time.
It doesn’t matter what you substitute in for X or A, if the argument violates this law it is an illogical argument.
It doesn’t matter what you substitute in for X or A, if the argument violates this law it is an illogical argument.
Additionally, Logic also tells us
that if it can’t be proven that “X is not A”, then it follows that “X is A” is
still a possibility. It doesn’t say “X
is A” is a certainty, but rather remains a possibility. Likewise, Logic also tells us that if it can’t
be proven that “X is A”, then it follows that “X is not A” is still a
possibility….again, not a certainty, but a possibility.
** If God is omniscient, is he aware
that there
are things which he does not know? **
This question is self-contradicting,
illogical and thus not a sound argument. By your definition, Omniscient means “all-knowing”, therefore there can’t possibly be
things that an omniscient being does not know….yet your question says there
are. Your question violates your own
definition of Omniscient. This is like
asking “Does an All-Knowing being know there are things it doesn’t know?” You may as well ask “Do spotted leopards
without spots exist?"
Your further questions are great
questions, but unfortunately they have no bearing and are irrelevant to the
question of Omniscience and whether or not God exists. The fact that one does not understand or
comprehend or know the answers to the questions “what is the point of
praying?”, “what is the point of life?”, “why was the tree with the forbidden
fruit put in the garden?”, “why did God Create the Devil,” does not prove
“impossibility of God”, it just simply highlights the fact that one does not
know.
So this Omniscient Question does not
prove the “Impossibility of God”.
** “If God is omnipotent, could he create a stone which he himself could
not lift?”**
This question is self-contradicting,
illogical and thus not a sound argument. The question "Can an all-powerful being have limits to it's power?" is illogical. You might as well ask "Can a triangle only have 2 angles?". By definition, Omnipotent means
“all-powerful”. An Omnipotent Being
therefore, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could make any stone it
wanted and likewise an Omnipotent Being, by definition of its all-powerfulness,
could lift any stone it wanted.
So this Omnipotent Question
(Paradox) does not prove the “Impossibility of God”. Logic tells us that if it can’t be proven
that “X is not A”, then it follows that “X is A” is still a possibility. If one is not able to prove that something is
possible, it just means one can’t prove it—it still may be possible.
** Unlike omniscience and omnipotence, omnibenevolence is
actually possible. The Christian God, however, is not omnibenevolent. An
omnibenevolent being cannot be responsible for evil, and yet God admits that he
is responsible for ALL evil in this world in Isaiah 45:7 NABRE.**
My opponent’s argument is God is responsible for ALL B.
The logic, without additional explanation or proof, doesn’t follow:
Just because something creates A, doesn’t necessarily mean that something creates ALL A. Furthermore, A (woe) and B (evil) are not necessarily the same. So if a being does create A, you can’t automatically conclude that the being also creates all B, without first showing that A (woe) and B (evil) are equal.
“Woe” and “Evil” are not the same. “Woe” is subjective, and is a reaction to an event or circumstance. “Evil” is the opposite of “good”. These are two very different things. When God says “I create woe”, one interpretation is that God is saying he creates the circumstance, but whether or not it’s woe or not depends on the person. This is a valid interpretation and we experience this every day—I tell my son he can’t drive my car for a week, and he’ll exclaim “Woe is me!”. Am I creating the “woe”? No, he is perceiving as “woe.”
However, my opponent is interpreting in a different way, but he is not offering any argument explaining that HIS interpretation is the only interpretation and mine is incorrect. Thus, my interpretation is still a viable (i.e. possible) interpretation.
With that being said, my opponent does state omnibenevolence is a possibility. Therefore, it follows that it is possible for a being to be omnibenevolent.
The Problem of Evil
My opponent
does a great job at summarizing the problem of evil, but he is ignoring one important
piece: that there may actually be a
reason to let the evil happen. Aquinas
puts it this way, and I paraphrase “God allows evil to happen to bring about a
greater good” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,1,3, ad 3; ) and this is
also echoed in Romans 5:20 “The law entered in so that transgression might
increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more”
It’s
usually at this point that the person making this argument likes to drum up the
most heinous or dastardly deed they can think of (raping of children, genocide,
or some other emotionally charged scenario) and ask the person to come up with
a valid reason this would be allowed to happen.
Again, I
repeat—there may very well be a reason any particular evil or bad thing may be
allowed to happen. My opponent must be honest and admit that he
may not know what this reason is, and just because he doesn't know it or is able to comprehend it, doesn't mean a
reason doesn’t exist. To claim that “no
valid reason could possibly exist” is to elevate one’s knowledge to that of “knowing
everything”.
** Conclusion
Just to remind everyone, the debate is about the POSSIBILITY for the God of the BIble to exist, not whether or not the God of the Bible is omnibenevolent. My opponent readily admits omnibenevolence is indeed a POSSIBILITY, so it follows that it is indeed POSSIBLE for a Being to be Omnibenevolent (we are not debating if God is omnibenevolent or not, but rather if it's possible).
Nonetheless, let me address my opponents points
The Isaiah 45:7 NABRE does not
contain the words “ALL evil”—my opponent substitutes words from the actual text
in order to make his argument. So for my
opponent to say that this text says God is responsible for ALL evil is actually
a literal misreading and/or misinterpretation of said verse. The logic he is following is this:
Text
say God creates AMy opponent’s argument is God is responsible for ALL B.
The logic, without additional explanation or proof, doesn’t follow:
Just because something creates A, doesn’t necessarily mean that something creates ALL A. Furthermore, A (woe) and B (evil) are not necessarily the same. So if a being does create A, you can’t automatically conclude that the being also creates all B, without first showing that A (woe) and B (evil) are equal.
“Woe” and “Evil” are not the same. “Woe” is subjective, and is a reaction to an event or circumstance. “Evil” is the opposite of “good”. These are two very different things. When God says “I create woe”, one interpretation is that God is saying he creates the circumstance, but whether or not it’s woe or not depends on the person. This is a valid interpretation and we experience this every day—I tell my son he can’t drive my car for a week, and he’ll exclaim “Woe is me!”. Am I creating the “woe”? No, he is perceiving as “woe.”
However, my opponent is interpreting in a different way, but he is not offering any argument explaining that HIS interpretation is the only interpretation and mine is incorrect. Thus, my interpretation is still a viable (i.e. possible) interpretation.
With that being said, my opponent does state omnibenevolence is a possibility. Therefore, it follows that it is possible for a being to be omnibenevolent.
No
disrespect to my opponent, but he has limited knowledge—he does not know
everything, and his is basically what he
is admitting to in Round 1. So, with that being said, suffice it to say
my opponent does not know the reasons behind everything that happens in the
universe. And I will gladly admit to the
same.
Perhaps
there is a reason that “bad”, “painful” , “evil” things are allowed to
happen. There may very well be a reason
to allow any particular evil or bad thing to happen, we just may not know what that reason is. SO it is indeed POSSIBLE for there to be a valid reason to let any particular bad/evil thing happen.
In my argument, I have proven that the God
described in the Bible cannot exist. **
No, you haven't, as shown above. And so, as long as you have not been able to "prove" the "impossibility of God", then it follows that "the possibilty of God" is still an option. Remember, logic tells us that if it has not been proven that "X is not A", then "X is A" is still a possibility.
Round 3
1. God is omniscient.
"By your definition, Omniscient means “all-knowing”, therefore there can’t possibly be things that an omniscient being does not know….yet your question says there are."
In order for my question to be self-contradictory, it would have to say that omniscience is possible, which it does not. Rather, my question points out that omniscience is impossible. My question points out how the Bible's claim that God knows everything would contradict itself, and yet my opponent twists that into saying that my own question contradicts itself. Here's an analogy for what my opponent is doing:
A: Spotted leopards without spots exist.
B: If spotted leopards without spots exist, how can they be both with and without spots at the same time?
A: Your question assumes that spotted leopards without spots exist and that is impossible, so you're wrong.
Notice how person B is not saying that spotted leopards without spots exist, he is pointing out that they cannot exist. Person A is the one who is saying those leopards exist. Can't you see that the person who is wrong is person A and not person B? By questioning someone's illogical statement, you do not have to believe that that statement is true, but my opponent doesn't seem to understand that. He is instead arguing against his own religion's position: that God knows absolutely everything.
2. God is omnipotent.
Same thing as with my "God is omniscient" question. In order for this question to be self-contradicting, it would have to assume that omnipotence is possible, which it does not. Rather, it's my opponent who says that omnipotence is possible, and he is wrong.
"By definition, Omnipotent means “all-powerful”. An Omnipotent Being therefore, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could make any stone it wanted and likewise an Omnipotent Being, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could lift any stone it wanted."
It would be impossible to make an unliftable stone and then lift it, and that's why omnipotence cannot exist. Something that is impossible cannot exist by definition, and since omnipotence is impossible, it cannot exist.
3. God is omnibenevolent.
My argument here was not that omnibenevolence is impossible. Rather, it was that the God of the Bible is said to be omnipotent but his other characteristics contradict that claim.
Would my opponent agree that God created everything? If yes, that means God is responsible for all evil since he created everything and all evil counts as everything. But a being responsible for evil cannot be omnibenevolent, so how can God be both responsible for evil and omnibenevolent at the same time?
The answer is: he cannot. So, we have established that God can either be not responsible for evil or not be omnibenevolent. But, a God not responsible for evil and a non-omnibenevolent God would both contradict the Bible's definition of God, and thus the God described in the Bible cannot exist.
4. The problem of Evil.
While the rebuttal my opponent has offered is one of the best I've seen, it still has an unanswered question left:
If God loves us and does not want us to suffer, and he is omnipotent, why does he let us suffer?
It's impossible for a being to not want its creation to suffer, to have the ability to stop its creation from suffering, and yet still to allow its creation to continue suffering. God either wants us to suffer or is not omnipotent. But a non-omnipotent God and a God that wants us to suffer both contradict the Bible's definition of God. The Bible defines God as both omnipotent and loving, which is impossible, so the existence of the God defined in the Bible is impossible.
I’ll continue on the ”Omniscient” and ”Omnipotent” scenarios my
opponent poses as “proof” that Omnscient/Omnipotence are impossible (“Does an
Omniscient being know there are things it doesn’t know?” and “Can an Omnipotent
being create a stone so heavy it can’t lift?”). While on the surface, these may look like “Gotcha!” questions that
“prove” both concepts are impossible, they are actually nonsense (illogical
questions).
Humans have a great capacity for
letters, words, and language. We can
combine letters/words in such a way that they make perfect sense. Likewise we can combine them in such a way
that they are completely illogical and nonsensical and/or incoherent. Just because we can combine words in certain
ways doesn’t necessarily prove a point—if the way the words are combined are
done so in an illogical way, nonsensical or incoherent way, it proves nothing—it’s
nonsensical / illogical statement.
Take this grouping of words: “Dune buggies silver can dry-roasted Tim
Duncan and John Petrucci”
If I were to say those words, I’m sure my
opponent and others would say “That
makes absolutely no sense.” Now what if
I were to pose it as a question: “Ok,
Bobby, if you are so smart, then answer this question: Dune buggies silver can dry-roasted Tim
Duncan and John Petrucci?” If Bobby
can’t answer the question, does that prove Bobby is not smart? Of course not. You may counter “Well, that is not even
question!”. I would then challenge you,
“Why not? Because it’s illogical? Incoherent? Because it’s Nonsense?”
Now, what if we were to follow
grammatical rules and thus rephrase it so that it conforms to the rules of grammar
(i.e. subject, verb, object), does that now automatically make it a logical,
coherent, and sensible question? No of
course not.
The sentence “The number 3 weighs
blue centimeters” is just as incoherent and illogical. Why? Because the sense/meaning of the words renders the statement illogical
and senseless.
We may be able to string along words
in any way we want, but the statement or question has got to be meaningful, and
if it is a self-contradictory statement or question, it loses all meaning and
sensibility.
The question “Is an Omniscient Being
aware of things it doesn’t know?” or “Can an all-powerful being do something that
implies it’s not all-powerful?” makes as much as sense as “Are 3-wheeled
unicycles easier or harder to ride then 4 wheeled vehicles?” or “Can you tell
me the name of the bachelor’s wife?” or “Is that 2 angled circle heavy or
light?”
To paraphrase CS Lewis, nonsense is nonsense, it matters not if you re talking about musicians, cars, animals, vehicles, concepts, fairies, Jeep Wranglers, sea turtles, etc- substituting the word "God" and "all-powerful" doesn't automatically make it sensible or logical.
In order for my question to be self-contradictory, it would have to say that omniscience is possible, which it does not. Rather, my question points out that omniscience is impossible. My question points out how the Bible's claim that God knows everything would contradict itself, and yet my opponent twists that into saying that my own question contradicts itself
Actually,
your question does not point out that it’s impossible. Your question is a nonsensical question. I don’t need to twist what your saying—your
own definition and words contradict themselves. Your question does not point out that the Bible contradicts itself, but
rather that YOU contradict yourself. Your question is a contradiction in terms, pure and simple:
1. You define Omniscient as “all-knowing”…this definition rules out
“things that are not known” (if there are thigns not known, then by defintion, it is not "all-knowing"). By
definition “all-knowing” means knowing all things, and this rules out things
that are “not known”.
2. You then ask the question is “If X is “all-knowing” (meaning knowing
all things) is X aware there are things X does not know”. That question makes no sense in light of your
definition. Your question makes a
fundamental mistake—it assumes that there are things an all-knowing being
doesn’t know. The question makes no sense
in light of your definitions. If there are things it doesn’t know, then you
cannot say it is all-knowing in the first place. You couldn’t say that the Being is
all-knowing. This doesn’t prove that
“All-knowing” is impossible, it proves that whatever being you are talking
about is not all-knowing because there are things it doesn’t know. That might be your point, but that doesn’t
prove “omniscient” is impossible…..your question does highlight/underscore an important
point—violating the law of non-contradiction is not a sound argument. What the Law of Non-Contradiction says about
your “omniscient” question is this: it
is impossible for an All-Knowing being to “not know things”, the contradiction
being “knowing all things” and “not knowing all things”. It doesn’t prove that being “all knowing” is
impossible, but being “all-knowing and not knowing things” is impossible.
A: Spotted leopards without spots exist.B: If spotted leopards without spots exist, how can they be both with and without spots at the same time?A: Your question assumes that spotted leopards without spots exist and that is impossible, so you're wrong.
Your analogy is off-base--- that is NOT what I’m saying. What I’m saying is you can’t use as proof a statement
that is a contradiction in terms. It’s illogical. Here is the a better
analogy:
Person A (you): I define a
“spotted leopard as a leopard that has spots” (relating it to our debate, "You define ‘omniscient’ as all-knowing, i.e.
knowing all things”)
Person A (you): Can a spotted
leopard that is spotless do _____________________?” (relating it to our debate,
“Is an All-Knowing being aware that it doesn’t know all things?”)
Person B (me): Hold on. That “thing” you are referring to is not
really a “thing” at all. a spotted
leopard that is spotless (an all-knowing being that doesn’t know things), is
not even a “thing” according to your definition. In light of that, your question makes no
sense. Everything that follows from that point on is built on nonsense.
Notice how person B is not saying that spotted leopards without spots exist, he is pointing out that they cannot exist.
Exactly. In exactly the same way a spotted leopard
without spots can’t exist, nor can “an All-Knowing being that lacks knowledge”
exist. A spotted leopard, by definition,
has spots, and therefore cannot be “lacking in spots”. Likewise, an all-knowing (omniscient) being,
by definition, knows all things, and therefore “can’t be lacking in
knowledge”. Any subsequent question/scenario
involving a contradicting in terms is senseless, thus any subsequent
scenario/question related to spotted leopards without spots, or an All-Knowing
being lacking knowledge, is nonsense.
Person A is the one who is saying those leopards exist. Can't you see that the person who is wrong is person A and not person B?
Exactly. Why is person A in your analogy wrong? It is because they are using a contradiction in terms (spotted leopards without spots) as their starting point.
Spotted Leopards without spots don't exist because it's a contradiction. This doesn't prove spotted leopards aren't possible
Red Apples that are not red don't exist because it's a contradiction. This doesn't prove red apples aren't possible
All-Knowing Beings lacking knowledge isn't possible, because it's a contradiction. This doesn't prove omniscient beings aren't possible
All-powerful Beings that are not all-powerful isn't possible, because it's contradiction. This doesn't prove all-powerful beings aren't possible.
By questioning someone's illogical statement, you do not have to believe that that statement is true, but my opponent doesn't seem to understand that.
Yes, but if a statement or position is illogical, then it should be discarded. If you accept "nonsense" or "illogical statements", then you are basically throwing logic out the window and are allowing any reason to be used.
He is instead arguing against his own religion's position: that God knows absolutely everything.
Nope, that is not what I'm arguing. What I"m arguing is your using nonsense (illogical and contradictory statements) as the basis of your arguement
Same thing as with my "God is omniscient" question. In order for this question to be self-contradicting, it would have to assume that omnipotence is possible, which it does not. Rather, it's my opponent who says that omnipotence is possible, and he is wrong.
Nope. You haven’t shown “omnipotence” is
impossible—you simply say it is and use as your “proof” a scenario built on a
contradiction of terms, an all-powerful being that is not all-powerful (just
like the Omniscient).
"By definition, Omnipotent means “all-powerful”. An Omnipotent Being therefore, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could make any stone it wanted and likewise an Omnipotent Being, by definition of its all-powerfulness, could lift any stone it wanted."It would be impossible to make an unliftable stone and then lift it, and that's why omnipotence cannot exist. Something that is impossible cannot exist by definition, and since omnipotence is impossible, it cannot exist.
Why, exactly, is it impossible to
make an unliftable and then lift it? You
haven’t explained why. I would challenge you to explain why it is impossible make an unliftable stone and then lift it. My guess is your reasoning would rely heavily on logic. The idea of lifting an unliftable object is a contradiction in terms. Because it makes
no sense, right? It’s illogical,
right? It is because it’s a
contradiction in terms, right? An
unliftable stone that can be lifted? It
violates the law of non-contradiction, which states that two contradicting
positions can’t exist at the same time in the same sense. If a stone can be lifted, then it’s not
unliftable. An “unliftable stone that can be lifted” is not even a “thing”
because it’s a contradiction in terms, just like a Triangle with only 2 angles,
a Unicycle with 2 wheels, a Married Bachelor, a true lie are not "things"-- they are simply words put together.
All-powerful beings that are not all-powerful are not possible because it's a contradiction, but this not proving that all-powerful beings are not possible. Your Stone Paradox scenario uses a senseless illogical use of words to try and prove a point.
In short,
because the “omnipotent” scenario my opponent has used is based on a contradiction in terms, it is
not a sound argument and thus should be discarded.
Would my opponent agree that God created everything?
That’s an
irrelevant question. We are not debating
if God creating everything or not. I
would say God creates things, yes . But also humans participate/cooperate with
God in his creation (refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 372). Man
has been given Freewill (see Sirach 15:14). God allows man to make his own choices and decisions. When man chooses to do “the bad”, he is
creating evil, not God. Think about
it….in order for God to create a world without evil (sin), He would have had to
remove our Free Will. Evil only has meaning in light of "Good", it is the absence of "Good".
If God loves us and does not want us to suffer, and he is omnipotent, why does he let us suffer?It's impossible for a being to not want its creation to suffer, to have the ability to stop its creation from suffering, and yet still to allow its creation to continue suffering.
This is an irrelevant question. This question is a “nice to know” question—it
would be nice to know the answer to it. But because he or I do not know, does not mean there is not a valid
reason. Again, my opponent is leaving
out one critical aspect—there could very well be a valid reason to allow or
enable the suffering. My opponent knows
this. There could very well be a good reason. My opponent in his limited knowledge does not know the reason behind everything under the sun. Likewise, me in my limited knowledge do not know the reason behind everything that happens. There could very well be a good reason to allow suffering and pain. We allow suffering and pain all the time to enable a greater good, so that is not a foreign concept. While my opponent likes to couch this topic as a “Problem of Evil”,
he is neglecting the possibility that there could be a “Solution To Evil”, which is indeed God’s Omnipotence
and His ability to bring about Good out of Evil. The greater good. If there is indeed a "greater good", then that could very well justify any temporal (temporary) pain, suffering, etc.
Again, it's usually around this time that folks like to offer up the most heinous or traumatic instances (i.e. rape, murder, etc) and ask "What could possibly justify that??"
But as I said in prior rounds, there may very well be a reason any particular evil or bad thing may be allowed to happen. My opponent must be honest and admit that he may not know what this reason is, and just because he doesn't know it or is able to comprehend it, doesn't mean a reason doesn’t exist. To claim that “no valid reason could possibly exist” is to elevate one’s knowledge to that of “knowing everything”
In conclusion, the Omnscient/Omnipotent arguments used by my opponent are based nonsensical, illogical reasoning and should be discarded. The Omnibenevolent and "the Problem of Evil" arguments simply highlight the fact that there could very well be good reasons to allow something (bad) to happen-- the greater good.
Round 4
Forfeited
Arguments must be based off of sound logic and sound reasoning. Any argument not based on sound logic/reasoning or on illogical questions, should be discarded.
In previous rounds I've shown how the "Omnipotence" and "Omniscient" questions are based on illogical or nonsensical questions, and thus should be discarded.
I've also that simply because Omnibenevolence and the so-called "Problem of Evil" might have lingering questions remaining, these questions are irrevelant and do not prove that Omnibenevolence is not possible.
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
You should have argued the ontological argument
Did Pro concede the debate in Round 4? I would like to cast a vote but I want to understand more clearly why Pro forfeited in round 4.
"Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible"
This would make a great debate topic!
That's a great question that many people don't realize or understand. In short, the KJV is a relatively "new" creation, borne out of the Protestant Reformation. Prior to the Luther, there were not "Protestant" churches-- there was one Church, and this one Church compiled the Canon of the Bible
1. The canon of the Bible came into existence around the 3rd or 4th century and it had 73 books (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament)
2. This Bible was in use for over 1000 years until the "Protestant Reformation"
3. As a result of the reformation, 7 books from the OT were removed and this "new version" of the Bible began to be used by Protestant demoninations. The KJV is what is often referred to as a "Protestant" Bible, and is "missing" 7 books that are contained in the "Catholic Bible".
The NABRE version has the approval of the Holy See (Catholic Church) for use and retains the 7 books that the Protestant Bible does not contain (which explains many of the disparities between Catholics and Protestants).
So, on the surface KJV may look similar to the NABRE version, but in reality the KJV is lacking 7 books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch)
How and why the books were removed is subject to very lengthy debate as well....
It's all good. And can I ask, why did you want to use the NABRE? I compared its verses to the KJV and they are pretty similar.
Hey I'm sorry for posting Bible Version in the comments and not directly messaging you. It wasn't until after I posted the comment that I realized you specified to DM you. My bad.
Per my opponent's request, we will be using NABRE version of the Bible in this debate.
dammmmmmit, I was going to accpet
Also, can you please provide a definition for what you mean by "objective reality" ?
I'm game. But you never really participated in my debate on the whole "Omnipotence" argument.
Can we use the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE)
http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm
The KJV is a relatively new invention. Whereas the NABRE has the approval of the Holy See and is true to the version the Holy See has been using for some 1600 years or so.
hmmmm... I've seen many debates over the PROBABILITY of a God existing, but not as many over the POSSIBILITY. It has seemed to me that many don't question the possibility of a God so much as the probability of one. I look forward to hearing your take on this!
...and, perhaps, if no one accepts, I may take you up on this for fun.
I really want to get back up to 7 and 7 and a even win ratio and I think TheAtheist is a worthy opponent I can handle. I will see how things shape up in my gambling debate.
Great job with the no kritiks. Can't challenge assumptions have to work under what you wanted out of the debate.
Good luck on this debate. To predict some counterpoints, you may want to skim through one of my debates on this topic from a few months ago: https://www.debateart.com/debates/566/the-existence-of-god-is-impossible
And no, I do not want to debate this right now. I've been hounded by a couple false flag Christians lately, and don't want to imagine how they think.
Done! Thank you for your suggestion.
First, your definition is a bit of an ad lib as the citation states, "to have real being, whether material or spiritual"; if you operate on this definition, then you'll lose this debate in an expedient fashion. A competent debater will use it against you. (So I recommend you edit your description for your own benefit.) If after some time, no one else accepts, I'll consider accepting your challenge.