Instigator / Pro
Wagyu's avatar
7
Wagyu
1516
rating
9
debates
55.56%
won
Topic
#2708

The state of being omnipotent is logically contradictory.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

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

Wagyu
Tags
Philosophy
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Benjamin's avatar
4
Benjamin
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Description

-Full resolution- The quality of being omnipotent is logically contradictory.

-Definitions-
Omnipotent = Someone or something that is omnipotent has complete power over things or people.
Contradictory = Involving, causing, or constituting a contradiction

Wagyu's burden of proof: "The quality of being omnipotent is logically contradictory"
Contender's burden of proof: "The quality of being omnipotent is logically sound."

-General Rules-
1. No new arguments in the last round
2. Since this is a thought experiment, sources are not essential
3. Burden of Proof is shared

Round 1
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
Pro
#1
Wagyu's burden of proof: "The quality of being omnipotent is logically contradictory"
Benjamin's burden of proof: "The quality of being omnipotent is logically sound."

First and foremost, I thank my opponent, Benjamin for accepting this debate. Now, I shall hop straight into things. 

==

Logical contradictions

To revisit the definitions, the state of being omnipotent is to have complete power over things or people. The implications of this is that you can do anything and everything, to anything and everything at any time and at any place. This allows for logical contradictions. My case is simple and can be boiled down to a a simple line of deductive reasoning. 

P1. An omnipotent being can do anything 
P2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory  
P3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist. 
C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist. 

  • Can an omnipotent being create a circular square?
  • Can an omnipotent being create an unbreakable bullet and unbreakable wall?
  • Can an omnipotent being create dry water?
  • Can an omnipotent being move while being stationary?
  • Can an omnipotent being die while being alive?
  • Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that s/he cannot lift it?
As this is a debate about whether being omnipotent is logically contradictory, my opponent must demonstrate how the examples I have listed are not contradictory. 

==

Conclusion

The term omnipotence is logically contradicting and cannot be achieved, thus I conclude that the state of being omnipotent is logically contradictory.



                                                                               


Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
Con
#2
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to prove that the earth is flat.

Just kidding X-D

The definitions:
the state of being omnipotent is to have complete power over things or people. 
The implications of this is that you can do anything and everything, to anything and everything at any time and at any place.
Well, it seems that this also implies both omnipresence and omniscience, as one cannot affect something over distance and one cannot change anything without knowing anything about it.

P1. An omnipotent being can do anything 
P2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory  
P3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist. 
C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist. 
The definition and logical argument contradict each other
  • Complete power over things does not imply being able to do anything, it just implies ones ability to do anything which one can do towards a thing
  • As far as knowledge goes, one cannot call something which cannot exist, "a thing"
  • In order to have power over a thing, one's actions must be able to cause a change in that thing
  • If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect. This would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.
  • This means that if an illogical thing existed, no other thing could cause an effect in it
  • This proves that one cannot possibly have power over an illogical thing
Conclusion: By the definition you gave, an illogical thing is not among the things an omnipotent being can have power over



Before I continue, take your time enjoying this masterpiece of a sentence I created, feel free to laugh:
If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect. X-D

This would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.


Your questions:

  • Can an omnipotent being create a circular square?
  • Can an omnipotent being create an unbreakable bullet and unbreakable wall?
  • Can an omnipotent being create dry water?
  • Can an omnipotent being move while being stationary?
  • Can an omnipotent being die while being alive?
  • Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that s/he cannot lift it?
Answers:
  • This is stating that A is different from B, C is not different from neither A nor B. It is an illogical object, and its existence and attributes would be independent of any power, even omnipotence.
  • Let us give both the bullet and the wall infinite power: infinite minus infinite equals zero (1-1+2-2+3-3 etc) - thus they would infinitely stand still and not break.
  • One water molecule is not wet. Wetness is a description of the properties held by a large body of water molecules.
  • An omnipotent being has no position, and thus cannot move. If you infer omnipresence by your definition this is no problem at all.
  • An omnipotent being is immaterial and thus cannot die.
  • An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything.

Critique of the definition and the conclusion:

As this is a debate about whether being omnipotent is logically contradictory, my opponent must demonstrate how the examples I have listed are not contradictory. 
Even though I have done that, your statement is not correct. By definition, anything that is possible can be done by an omnipotent being, as his power is the defining limit of what is possible to achieve. In other words, his powers would be able to control everything controllable. You claim relies on the premise that "An omnipotent being can have power over anything possible and anything impossible". This is a contradiction in itself, so it is your "hidden definition" of omnipotence and not omnipotence that is contradictory.

According to Google, this is the definition of omnipotence:
"the quality of having unlimited or very great power."

This definition is better, as power itself could be limited by the laws of logic. If I moved infinitely fast the reflection of my face would still move at light speed.
Unlimited means that his abilities are not limited by the energy, precision or speed his actions require.


Providing a solution:

As your definition implied omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, we could just as easily call him God, the ultimate reality and creator of the universe.

If that is true, we know that logic is a part of his creation. This shows us that either is both God and the universe reliant on logic, or logic is simply the laws God wrote in order to make a material universe possible. There is however a third option.

If God is the ultimate reality then nothing exists not dependant on his existence. As such he would define reality by his own rules. We could then assume that logic is the rules which God follows, either by choice or by nature. This can explain why God is logical but also the universe. 



Please read this again, if for nothing else, for the sake of humour:

If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect. 

This would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.


Conclusion:

There are three ways to rebuke your argument:

1. Your definitions are wrong and your premises internally contradictory

2. Any power over illogical things is impossible, rendering power over such a concept, not within the term omnipotence

3. Logic might only be the rule because an omnipotent being wanted it so, or it was a part of his constant, infinite nature


Thus I have basically destroyed the argument, as it is based on your subjective understanding of the terms illogical, omnipotence, possible, logic, thing, power etc

Over to you, Pro


Round 2
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
Pro
#3



Well that was all very interesting. 

I have to say, your argument was mildly confusing, but nevertheless, I shall refute it now. 

Rebuttals 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to prove that the earth is flat.
I would love to debate your regarding the shape of the earth in the near future. 

My opponent stated that 

the state of being omnipotent is to have complete power over things or people. 
The implications of this is that you can do anything and everything, to anything and everything at any time and at any place.
Well, it seems that this also implies both omnipresence and omniscience, as one cannot affect something over distance and one cannot change anything without knowing anything about it.
That would be correct. Remember, an omnipotent being is all powerful. An all powerful being can do anything. All all powerful being must be know everything, hence omniscience and an all powerful being must also know everything hence omniscience. 

  • Complete power over things does not imply being able to do anything, it just implies ones ability to do anything which one can do towards a thing
It does. To revisit, the definition I provided was as follows. 

Omnipotent = Someone or something that is omnipotent has complete power over things or people.

Everything in the universe is a thing. So an omnipotent being should have control over everything. They can do anything they want, with everything and anything. 

As far as knowledge goes, one cannot call something which cannot exist, "a thing"
There are two issues with this. 
1. If an omnipotent can't effect something which doesn't exist, then they are not all powerful, thus not omnipotent. 

2. The definition of a thing is as follows.  


From this, we can gather that everything, is a thing, whether created or not. Thing can refer to anything and to put it plainly, as an omnipotent being has, and I quote, "complete power over things or people", then it can be concluded that they can effect things which exist and things which don't exist alike. 

  • In order to have power over a thing, one's actions must be able to cause a change in that thing
And as we are talking about an all powerful being, this should pose no issue.

  • If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect.
As you can see from the highlighted, my opponent has contradicted themselves. They have referred to something illogical as a "thing" and then immediately say that it is "neither a thing nor possibly existing". 

To put it in short, everything is a thing. A thing refers to anything, any event, any feature, any person and any organism. 

Now, to your joke. 

If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would ignore any logical law, including the law of cause and effect. X-D
Again, the same mistake. 

I'm afraid I do not understand the punchline, though admittedly, I am terrible with jokes. 

===

My questions, rebuttal

The following is my claim, followed by Benjamin's response.  

Can an omnipotent being create a circular square?

This is stating that A is different from B, C is not different from neither A nor B. It is an illogical object, and its existence and attributes would be independent of any power, even omnipotence.
This is essentially a concession. We can conclude that I have found something which an all powerful being cannot do. 

Can an omnipotent being create an unbreakable bullet and unbreakable wall?

Let us give both the bullet and the wall infinite power: infinite minus infinite equals zero (1-1+2-2+3-3 etc) - thus they would infinitely stand still and not break.
If this was the case, then the omnipotent being clearly has not created an all powerful bullet, as the target is not broken. 

Can an omnipotent being create dry water?

One water molecule is not wet. Wetness is a description of the properties held by a large body of water molecules.
So no? 

Can an omnipotent being move while being stationary?

An omnipotent being has no position, and thus cannot move. If you infer omnipresence by your definition this is no problem at all.
And another thing that an all powerful thing cannot do! 

Can an omnipotent being die while being alive?

An omnipotent being is immaterial and thus cannot die.
And another thing that an all powerful thing cannot do!

Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that s/he cannot lift it?

An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything.
And another thing that an all powerful thing cannot do!

Critique of the definition and the conclusion rebuttal 

By definition, anything that is possible can be done by an omnipotent being, as his power is the defining limit of what is possible to achieve... In other words, his powers would be able to control everything controllable.
Well that's true, considering that an omnipotent being is someone or something that has complete power over things or people. Something which has complete power over things are able to control everything controllable. 

You claim relies on the premise that "An omnipotent being can have power over anything possible and anything impossible". This is a contradiction in itself,
Concession after concession. But this is exactly what omnipotence is! An omnipotent being has complete power over things! You saying that it is a contradiction is exactly what I am trying to point out. For one to claim that "He is omnipotent" is already impossible. 

"the quality of having unlimited or very great power."

This definition is better, as power itself could be limited by the laws of logic. 
Firstly, my definition came from Collins dictionary, a reputable source. 

Secondly, God (a being usually assigned the characteristic of being omnipotent) is defined as follows. 


On top of this, the Cambridge, Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Vocabulary.com, Oxford Learners dictionary and Britannica all define omnipotence as something along the lines of "being all powerful". Not logically powerful. Not partly powerful, but all powerful. 

It is also worth noting that theists, whilst talking about their Gods of whom are omnipotent, usually say that they are "all powerful, all mighty, the most powerful", I don't usually get much modesty when theists are talking about their God. 

==

Providing a solution rebuttal

As your definition implied omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, we could just as easily call him God, the ultimate reality and creator of the universe.

If that is true, we know that logic is a part of his creation.
Does this mean that God is bound by his own creation? 

or logic is simply the laws God wrote in order to make a material universe possible.
Remember, this debate isn't about whether an omnipotent being can do these particular illogical things in this particular universe, the debate is about whether he can do it anywhere. If "being in this universe" is what prohibits this being from completing these illogical acts, then why can't s/he just create another universe where this is possible. My argument is that these acts are impossible everywhere and anywhere. 

===

Mapping all of my opponents concessions.

The following is a list, provided by Ben, which shows all the things that this omnipotent being cannot do. If the being cannot do these things, then s/he's not all power, is s/he?
 
1. It is an illogical object, and its existence and attributes would be independent of any power, even omnipotence.

2. An omnipotent being is immaterial and thus cannot die.

3. An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything

4. An omnipotent being has no position, and thus cannot move

5. An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything

===

Conclusion

I will once again emphasise that the widely recognised definition is someone or something that is omnipotent has complete power over things or people. I have successfully shown that your case against this definition is faulty. 

In order for you to win this debate, you must show that the quality of omnipotence is not self-contradictory. I have provided examples, such as "can an omnipotent being create a stone which it cannot lift", to which you provided little rebuttal. Unless you can demonstrate how the statements I have shown are not contradictory, then 

Vote Pro 
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
Con
#4
Pro, you start with this statement of victory:

 I have successfully shown that your case against this definition is faulty. 
But you forgot my reaction to your P2: "As far as knowledge goes, one cannot call something which cannot exist, "a thing" "

You rejected it easily and gave us a broader, supposedly better definition of a thing

To put it in short, everything is a thing. A thing refers to anything, any event, any feature, any person and any organism. 

You must choose one of these paths to destruction:
  • Claim your definition is the correct one
  • Admit that mine is the correct one
Let us assess the results of both choices:

First choice:

If it is true that "everything is a thing. A thing refers to anything, any event, any feature, any person and any organism".

Using that very definition of "thing", the laws of logic are "things", and thus are under the control of omnipotence. 

Now if logic is controlled by an omnipotent being, and not the opposite way around, then your argument is totally wrong. If God controls logic, logic cannot control or dictate his existence, abilities or possibilities. Logically proving the nonexistence of a being that controls the rules of logic would not be possible, believable or reasonable. Thus we can conclude that this path would end the argument and give 100% victory to me and my argument.

In conclusion, your entire argument is wrong if your definition of a thing is correct


Second choice:

If your definition of "thing" is incorrect and mine the correct one, we must conclude that only things possible to control are under the control of omnipotence. This opens up for the very same logic that I used to destroy your argument my first time around.

Only based on your own main argument:

  • P2 claims that God can create an illogical thing
  • P3 claims that illogical things cannot exist
  • What is illogical and cannot exist, is not a thing
  • This renders the "illogical" things God supposedly are able to create, vulnerable to this remarkably foreseeing quote:

If an illogical thing existed despite neither

being a thing

nor

possibly existing
 
it would ignore any logical law,
including the law of cause and effect.
  
 
This would render its existence and actions independent of all other possible things, possible things not actually being things, impossible things and even impossible things not being things.
 
 

 This means that if an illogical thing existed, it would not have been caused or created, and no power would be able to controll it.

As such, an omnipotent God could not cause or create an illogical thing, since such a thing could only exist without a cause.
This would easily be rendering your argument stripped of any real evidence. 


After all, your argument is based on a twisting circle-argumentation.
Let me make this clear by rewriting it:
  1. Premise: God can do anything, even impossible illogical things
  2. Premise: God can do impossible illogical things
  3. MiniConclusion: Illogical things are impossible
  4. Conclusion: since God can do anything, even impossible illogical things, he does not exist
You are basically just running around in circles, around this statement:

"I do not believe that God can do the impossible, but he can (according to me), therefore he does not exist"




















Time to be less serious and more chill and able to enjoy our time:

I want to point out the points where we agree:
  • Omnipotent implies omnipresent and omniscient
  • This being can be called God
  • Omnipotence means having the ultimate power over things
For the sake of convenience, I will use the word, God instead of "omnipotent being.




Your questions burned to the ground:
  1. Can God create a circular square?
    1. Things never contradict each other, only words and claims have the potential for contradiction
    2. A circular square does not describe any "thing" in particular, as the two descriptive words annihilate the meanings of each other by contradiction
    3. The question then becomes: can God create "something" (a thing that is not anything in particular)
    4. The answer is yes. 
  2. Can God create an unbreakable bullet and an unbreakable wall?
    1. First of all "unbreakable" is not an attribute a physical thing can have and still be a physical thing
    2. If still somehow both a bullet and a wall were unbreakable, the wall is the only thing stuck to the ground
    3. Thus, the bullet would stop, and neither of the objects would be broken in the slightest
    4. The answer is yes
  3. Can God create dry water?
    1. Yes - ice is technically dry water   XD
  4. Can God move while being stationary? Can God be dead and alive at the same time? Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?
    1. Problem - God is not a "thing" and does not have power over himself according to you
    2. Problem - God does not have a physical body and cannot move, die or lift anything
    3. Problem - God cannot exist both as a cause for the universe and an effect of the universe (a body)
    4. The answer is: No answer exists. This question was build by ridiculous amounts of ignorance.
This was just for fun though, I do not put any of my "evidence" in the argument that no contradiction exists.
The first one I will comment, though. Things, being able to exist, are not able to contradict each other. 
Only ideas, words and descriptions can contradict each other, thus no "thing" can contradict itself. 
If you want to construct two ideas that contradict each other, it does not prove any contradiction withing things,
rather it would just go to show that it is the descriptions, not things, that are able to be contradictory.





Your entire argument burned to the ground:

P1. An omnipotent being can do anything 
P2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory  
P3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist. 
C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist. 


P1.  An omnipotent being can do anything
Who claimed that, when did you introduce that idea, where did you get that premise from? It is clearly wrong, as supported by the arguments below.

You made a definition of omnipotence, and reinforced it the second time:

an omnipotent being is someone or something that has complete power over things or people. Something which has complete power over things are able to control everything controllable. - you admited it yourself
So by definition, an omnipotent being is restricted to the realm of control. Anything that is not "controllable" in essence, even God cannot create or control. We agreed about this, so it is too late to change your position on this very essential part of your argument.

Furthermore, if ANY regulation, law or limit is more absolute that God, he must follow it, just like humans with super technology could never break the laws of physics.



P2: An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory  
I want to show the definitions first:

Contradictory: If two or more facts, pieces of advice, etc. are contradictory, they are very different from each other (Cambridge dictionary)
 
Illogical: not reasonable, wise, or practical, usually because directed by the emotions rather than by careful thought (Cambridge dictionary)
 
Thing: an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to - OR  - an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being. (Oxford dictionary)
What can be illogical or contradictory? The answer is ideas, opinions, beliefs and pieces of advice, not "things"!

According to the definitions, a "thing" in a classical sense cannot be illogical or contradictory. You cannot abuse the broader definition you introduced by saying that things and concepts and ideas should be placed in one big chunk. If you do not want to change this premise in desperation, we have no reason to trust this premise at all.



P3:  Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist. 

Remember the definitions.
In fact, illogical and contradictory things (ideas, concepts, plans, opinions) DOES exist

Thus this premise is also false, as illogical and contradictory things, namely human ideas and discussion, CAN indeed exist.



C1: An omnipotent being cannot exist. 
This comes unexpectedly out of nowhere.

In P1 and P2, you made it clear that an omnipotent being would not be restricted by the laws of logic.

In P3, you made it clear that an omnipotent being would, in fact, be restricted by the laws of logic

One would expect that the conclusion would create at least two possible endings.

Nope, he does not exist, that is the conclusion.




This is how the entire argument unfolded in my imagination:

God started to exist in order to be intellectually tested.

He started to read the terms and conditions of being a God. When he found P1 and P2 he accepted immediately without reading the rest of the document.

He was full of Joy as he believed he could act independently of logic and have a lot of fun.

He immediately went to the beach and started making a sandcastle out of frozen and contradicting ideas when suddenly Wagyo showed up to arrest him. 

"You are not allowed to do that thing here, sire" He shouted, cuffing his hands.

God claimed his innocence: "I am allowed to break logic, it is written in P2 and P1 of the terms and conditions"

Wagyo was not impressed: "Did you not read the entire document, including the part I added just now?"        . . .       "no", God answered.

God was tested in court, and found guilty of C1 - breaking the laws of logic without permission from more than two of three members of the premise

The fact that God were entitled to this ability by at least two basic God rights, did not matter to the judges, or Wagyo for that matter.

Realizing he could not redeem himself, he started to resist the fabric of reality, fighting with everything he could.

But eventually, he was taken down, deemed nonexistent and put to jail for the Next Millenium or so.




The joke should be obvious, Pro has expertly created a death trap, where God must do illogical things but at the same time cannot exist if he does so.

There is nothing one cannot prove by clicking the correct buttons, but not this time.

Surely, your argument was a masterpiece of a death trap, and there is no doubt God would have died in prison had I not taken his case to the court yet again and found him innocent. 


He now has three possible paths to take:
  • Being limited by the laws of logic
  • Letting logic be a part of his nature
  • Creating logic as a rule only non-supernatural beings has to follow



This was a very fun argument to write.

Thank you again, Pro, for giving me an opportunity to shine the true light of argument jokes and joke arguments, as well as some seriously advanced stuff there somewhere

Round 3
Wagyu's avatar
Wagyu
Pro
#5
Well that was all very interesting. 

==

Foreword 

I'm glad to see that you seem to be enjoying this debate and that you seem to slide humour in whenever you can. Nevertheless, you claim shall now be refuted. 

Rebuttals

Pro, you start with this statement of victory:

 I have successfully shown that your case against this definition is faulty. 
But you forgot my reaction to your P2: "As far as knowledge goes, one cannot call something which cannot exist, "a thing" "
Actually, I remember saying that everything, is a thing, whether created or not. This means that even if something hasn't been created, as long as it can be addressed, it is a thing. Something doesn't exist is simply a non existent thing. 

I'm also quite confused as to why you are bringing this point up in the first place. If this were true, are you attempting to argue that an omnipotent being has no control over things which don't exists (as they are not things) and thus cannot create anything? This seems rather odd. 

You must choose one of these paths to destruction:
  • Claim your definition is the correct one
  • Admit that mine is the correct one
Very exciting indeed! I will stick with option 1. 

Option 1 rebuttal

If it is true that "everything is a thing. A thing refers to anything, any event, any feature, any person and any organism".

Using that very definition of "thing", the laws of logic are "things", and thus are under the control of omnipotence. 
Correct. 

Now if logic is controlled by an omnipotent being, and not the opposite way around, then your argument is totally wrong. If God controls logic, logic cannot control or dictate his existence, abilities or possibilities. Logically proving the nonexistence of a being that controls the rules of logic would not be possible, believable or reasonable. Thus we can conclude that this path would end the argument and give 100% victory to me and my argument.
Incorrect.

God is omnipotent. He has complete power over things or people. For the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right. Even if logic is controlled by God, the question still remains. Can God do things that are illogical within the realms of logic? Can he bound himself by his own laws of logic and still "create a stone too heavy for him to lift"? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent as an omnipotent being can do anything. 

 "If God controls logic, logic cannot control or dictate his existence, abilities or possibilities". 
Even though logic cannot control God's existence, God, being an omnipotent being can (or should) be able to tie himself up with his own laws of logic. Can he, after bounding himself, still achieve these seemingly illogical acts? Can he, in this world, in front of me, create a stone too heavy for him to lift? 

My question burned to the ground and resurrected. 

  1. Can God create a circular square?
    1. Things never contradict each other, only words and claims have the potential for contradiction
    2. A circular square does not describe any "thing" in particular, as the two descriptive words annihilate the meanings of each other by contradiction
    3. The question then becomes: can God create "something" (a thing that is not anything in particular)
    4. The answer is yes. 
A switch and bait. You quite literally asked yourself a question and then answered it. You generalised the result of drawing a circular square to drawing "something" but you failed to make sense of what the "something" is. This is like if I was asked "Find all rational zeros of P(x) = x3 - 7x + 6" and you answer A (undetermined variable) and said, well yes A is undetermined, and so is the answer. The point is that you need to find A and tell me what it is instead of saying "it's something". 

So the question remains, can God create a circular square. In order to answer this question, you must prove to me that it is not contradictory. 

  1. Can God create an unbreakable bullet and an unbreakable wall?
    1. First of all "unbreakable" is not an attribute a physical thing can have and still be a physical thing
    2. If still somehow both a bullet and a wall were unbreakable, the wall is the only thing stuck to the ground
    3. Thus, the bullet would stop, and neither of the objects would be broken in the slightest
    4. The answer is yes
Miswording on my half. Can God create an unstoppable bullet and unbreakable wall. 

  1. Can God create dry water?
    1. Yes - ice is technically dry water   XD

  1. Can God move while being stationary? Can God be dead and alive at the same time? Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?
    1. Problem - God is not a "thing" and does not have power over himself according to you
    2. Problem - God does not have a physical body and cannot move, die or lift anything
    3. Problem - God cannot exist both as a cause for the universe and an effect of the universe (a body)
    4. The answer is: No answer exists. This question was build by ridiculous amounts of ignorance.
The highlighted show 3 things which show what this all powerful being cannot do. An omnipotent being can do anything, and as you have provided 3 things which he cannot do, he is not omnipotent. 

My entire argument burnt to the ground and resurrected

After all, your argument is based on a twisting circle-argumentation.
Let me make this clear by rewriting it:
  1. Premise: God can do anything, even impossible illogical things
  2. Premise: God can do impossible illogical things
  3. MiniConclusion: Illogical things are impossible
  4. Conclusion: since God can do anything, even impossible illogical things, he does not exist
You are basically just running around in circles, around this statement:

"I do not believe that God can do the impossible, but he can (according to me), therefore he does not exist"
I don't see the issue. What you've said is true.

Whatever is impossible to do cannot be done. Fact. God can do anything/everything according to you. Fact. Everything includes that of which is impossible. Fact. God cannot do what is impossible fact, because of the nature of something being impossible. The simple fact is that the impossible is definitionally impossible to achieve. It is also worth nothing that you haven't actually pointed out where the issue in my reasoning is. The following is my reasoning. 

P1. An omnipotent being can do anything 
P2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory  
P3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot physically exist. 
C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist. 

Where do you have an issue. 

P1.  An omnipotent being can do anything
Who claimed that

Anything that is not "controllable" in essence, even God cannot create or control.
If there is something which an omnipotent being cannot control, then the being is not omnipotent. 

Furthermore, if ANY regulation, law or limit is more absolute that God, he must follow it, just like humans with super technology could never break the laws of physics.
But surely one could argue that, as God is an omnipotent being, he can bend the rules of physics (some may even argue that these laws were created by him). An omnipotent God is not bounded by laws. An omnipotent being is, after all, omnipotent. 

According to the definitions, a "thing" in a classical sense cannot be illogical or contradictory. You cannot abuse the broader definition you introduced by saying that things and concepts and ideas should be placed in one big chunk. If you do not want to change this premise in desperation, we have no reason to trust this premise at all.
If this is true, then the confusion still remains. Why are you making this point? You are arguing that an omnipotent being has no control over that which does not exist. If this were true, then God couldn't create anything. 

Of course, religious people love to point at how their God created everything from nothing, which plainly contradicts what you are saying. 

And then you finish off your argument with quite a long joke. They allude to some sort of "death trap" which must be so expertly crafted that I don't even know I've fallen into it. 

==

An issue with my opponents argument.

If my opponent can successfully debunk my following scenario, I will be extremely impressed. 

If God really were all powerful, can he take the shape of you, Ben, and still perform supernatural acts? Can he restrict himself to the resources that of a mere moral (such as you and I)  and still fly? As an omnipotent being can do anything, they should be able to bound themselves up and still be able to do anything. 

If you cannot fly and shot laser beams  out of your eyes, you yourself are evidence that an omnipotent being is not possible. 

==

Conclusion.

To wrap up, I have some questions that need clarifying from my opponent. 

Can God create an unstoppable bullet and unbreakable wall? 

Can God die while being alive?

Can God create a circular square?

My opponent needs to demonstrate that these are not contradictory by explaining and providing a sound explanation for these seemingly contradictory events. 


I shall now provide a list of quotes from my opponent. 

1. It is an illogical object, and its existence and attributes would be independent of any power, even omnipotence.

2. An omnipotent being is immaterial and thus cannot die.

3. An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything

4. An omnipotent being has no position, and thus cannot move

5. An omnipotent being has no body and thus cannot lift anything

7. God is not a "thing"

8. God does not have a physical body

9. God cannot move

10. God cannot exist 

The only proper vote is to vote pro. 

Sincerely, 
Wagyu, 
5/02/2021




Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
Con
#6
Thank you, Wagyu

==

Sorry for the criticism, I have been forced to give it due to Pros last argument.
Nothing personal, I am starting to respect Wagyu.



Who had better conduct?

Before you give a conduct point to pro, remember he committed this atrocity:

I shall now provide a list of quotes from my opponent. 
...
different quotes taken out of context
...
"God cannot exist"
Seriously, is he taking my line out of context like that? Con maybe has a better structure, I certainly was not perfect, but this kind of trick does not deserve a conduct point.

My original line was: 
3. Problem - God cannot exist both as a cause for the universe and an effect of the universe (a body)
Clearly, Pro took it out of context and showed a bad sense of conduct by misrepresenting my line either intentionally or by mistake.
Also, he failed to reject my statement that: God by definition has no body, and he is omnipresent, and thus cannot move.
It seems like Pro had to constantly dodge every argument by twisting a word or just ignore it, hoping I would forget it.
Please do not give conduct points to any of us, that would make this debate unfair for either one of us. Nobody wants a cheap victory.




My opponent's confessions
I will not take my opponents line out of context as he did with my life

"""
After all, your argument is based on a twisting circle-argumentation.
Let me make this clear by rewriting it:
  1. Premise: God can do anything, even impossible illogical things
  2. Premise: God can do impossible illogical things
  3. MiniConclusion: Illogical things are impossible
  4. Conclusion: since God can do anything, even impossible illogical things, he does not exist
You are basically just running around in circles, around this statement:

"I do not believe that God can do the impossible, but he can (according to me), therefore he does not exist"
""""
I don't see the issue. What you've said is true.
As you see, Pro admits he is making a circle argument based on his own subjective feelings and opinions.
Pro feels like omnipotence does not make any sense, and made this illogical argument.
That is why p3 contains the well-hidden premise "God does not exist". Because if God exists, then illogical things CAN exist, according to the definition he provided.




an omnipotent being is someone or something that has complete power over things or people. Something which has complete power over things are able to control everything controllable. - you admited it yourself
Pro admitted himself that omnipotence is the complete power of what is CONTROLLABLE.




Showing the flawed rhetoric Pro uses


I'm glad to see that you seem to be enjoying this debate and that you seem to slide humour in whenever you can. Nevertheless, you claim shall now be refuted. 
Pro did not refute my arguments, he just accepted everything I said and ignored it.




Can God create a circular square?
I am tired of using my space telling you the same basic fact: only statements can be illogical, not any other thing. "Circular" and "square" are words, and they contradict each other's meanings. A circular square does not describe a thing God cannot create, they simply don't describe anything. You are basically asking a meaningless question, like this: Can God create "adoifjeoafmcoawejmfoefjcoMoioi"? In essence, my opponent refuses to understand the limits of language, God can create anything, but we cannot describe anything except what is logical. Therefore all of his examples make no sense and are completely irrelevant, they show the illogical nature of Pros arguments, not God.




 You are arguing that an omnipotent being has no control over that which does not exist
Pro is putting up a straw man fallacy. The argument assesses that "everything is a thing, whether created or not.", a fact on which we agree. However, my claim was that "if some concept CANNOT exist, is not a thing God can make exist". If God can create something, that thing CAN exist, and thus anything that cannot exist God cannot create. All of this is based not on my definitions, but pros. Pro intentionally misrepresents my argument, making it a straw man fallacy, and his counterarguments are thus irrelevant. Pro forgets that according to his own claim (p3), illogical things cannot exist, thus rendering my claim as being his own claims. Pro is lying about my claims.




P3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot physically exist.  
Pro has already changed his argument, sneaking the word "physical" into the argument, the word was not present originally. Again, a mistake or a trick. By doing this, he is retreating to a position where he cannot be attacked, simply because he does not tell me where his new position is. Dishonest conduct or a mistake, yet again.




For the sake of the argument, let's assume you are right. 
Why does Pro say "lest assume you are right" when the claim I discussed was proposed by him. Pro is not debunking my argument, but his own claim, and yet he calls it my statement. This to me seems quite dishonest, so I hope this was a mistake on Pros part and not an intentional lie.





Can he bound himself by his own laws of logic and still "create a stone too heavy for him to lift"? If he cannot, he is not omnipotent as an omnipotent being can do anything. 
According to Pros claim, he could do whatever he wants. Yes, he can bound himself by the laws of logic that he created, and he can break it, but he chooses not to do so. My opponents have hidden the premise, namely that since God has not broken the laws of logic, he cannot. Again, this is an implied "faith/truth" of his, that he never puts on display, instead, he hides it. Again I hope it was a mistake and not a lie on Pros part.





Remember, this debate isn't about whether an omnipotent being can do these particular illogical things in this particular universe, the debate is about whether he can do it anywhere. If "being in this universe" is what prohibits this being from completing these illogical acts, then why can't s/he just create another universe where this is possible. My argument is that these acts are impossible everywhere and anywhere. 
Well, then you third premise: "Illogical things cannot exist, even if God exists" - p3,  is not a premise, but a conclusion of another argument, but you use it as the only premise in this debate that is a premise, not a definition. And I want to point out that his third premise is basically the conclusion in disguise, they mean the same.




God can do anything/everything according to you.
Again, a false claim. Pro was the one to claim that God can do anything and everything, even illogical things. I point back at the first arguments.




If there is something which an omnipotent being cannot control, then the being is not omnipotent. 
We have no reason to take that as a fact, given this debates premise: God can do anything. If something cannot be done by God, that thing is not a part of "anything".
Pro is making a groundless and illogical assumption in order to prove his point.




Basic debunking


Even if logic is controlled by God, the question still remains. Can God do things that are illogical within the realms of logic?
Here Pro is using the age-old argument that God should be able to limit himself and still break those limits.

Pro, if you have trouble understanding this, think about this:
"A dictator creates laws, but he can still break them without being arrested." - this is the same with God.

Personally, I believe the laws of logic are not actually a law, but just axioms. A = B, B = C and thus A = C, they are not laws, but how existence work, God cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Pro obviously does not believe that.

Con accepts the idea that logic is controlled by God according to his definition. Still, he believes that it would be illogical for God to break the laws of logic, even if they are under his control, and have no power over him. Let me rephrase his first argument, with the exception that "logic" is swapped with "Gods laws".

  1. God can do anything
  2. God can break his own laws
  3. It is impossible to break his laws
  4. Thus God cannot exist
This is a strange argument, reliant on the hidden premise that God is being controlled by the laws he creates. This hidden premise creates a "death trap", in which God cannot exist after he creates a law. Pro claims that God has complete power over logic, but that logic prevents him from existing. In other words, by the same logic Con uses, I could prove that God cannot exist based on the fact he can break the laws of physics. Any intelligent and non-biased being should be able to understand how this argument is bad.




 An omnipotent being can do anything, and as you have provided 3 things which he cannot do, he is not omnipotent. 
No, rather Pro has shown us 3 sentences that carry no meaning and point to nothing. He is claiming that God cannot do "laeomaoiemxiaosfjoise", for which pro has no evidence. The problem with the argument is that when you use two contradictory words, they carry no meaning. Thus his pillars are not worthy of being called evidence.




...Pros first argument...
Where do you have an issue. 
I told Pro many times, he never gave a proper answer.




Well, I must say that you kind of took my quote out of context, it was a rhetorical question.




Of course, religious people love to point at how their God created everything from nothing, which plainly contradicts what you are saying. 
Yes, an omnipotent being defined the universe, or the universe has no beginning. Science leads one to believe the universe has a beginning and thus a cause. This cause not only had to create energy, but also the laws of physics, which are fine-tuned perfectly to allow for life to exist. It does not contradict anything I am saying, I showed it clearly above, Pro confuses "does not exist" with "cannot exist".




Whatever is impossible to do cannot be done. Fact. God can do anything/everything according to you. Fact. Everything includes that of which is impossible. Fact. God cannot do what is impossible fact, because of the nature of something being impossible. The simple fact is that the impossible is definitionally impossible to achieve.
You already know that Pro bases his argument on 1. the lie that we use my definition, and 2. the straw man that God can contradict himself. Pro, stop writing "fact" all the time, "fact" does not mean "logical", it means "observation agreed upon".


You generalised the result of drawing a circular square to drawing "something" but you failed to make sense of what the "something" is.
No, I do not. I simply tell you that the words circular and square cannot fit inside the same sentence. Thus, its either a square, or a circle, or neither of them. The object you claim God should be able to create, he can create. It is just that "circular square" has just about as much descriptive meaning as "oeiimeieuxceiiax". Your argument, not God, is illogical and contradictory. YOU failed to make sense of what "something" is.



My question burned to the ground and resurrected. 
"Sorry, you used dry water to stop the fire"
-Punchline of the day   ; D

I have debunked them using different methods every argument, but you keep on changing them. Also, they are contradictory because they are not things, but sentences.



My entire argument burnt to the ground and resurrected
Good luck convincing the readers by writing "incorrect... where do you have an issue". I know you wrote a tiny bit, but what you wrote as the defence made no sense, it was just a mess. You seemingly randomly picked different sentences and put different labels on them. You did not even acknowledge who had claimed what correctly.







Head on against the argument:


P1. An omnipotent being can do anything 
P2. An omnipotent being can create something something illogical/contradictory  
P3. Illogical things which are contradictory cannot exist. 
C1. An omnipotent being cannot exist. 
Proof by contradiction.

What does P2 mean exactly?
  1. God can create something illogical
  2. Illogical things can exist because something illogical can be created by God
What does P3 mean exactly?
  1. Illogical things cannot exist
  2. God cannot create something illogical, since if he could, the first point would be incorrect

Thus, pros argument goes like this:
  1. God can create something illogical
  2. God cannot create something illogical
  3. God cannot exist
As you all see, the argument for the title is contradictory in itself. And since it is contradictory, one of the premises must be false.

Either:
  • God is bound by logic, and his power is limited to the logical realm (A is not the opposite of A)
  • God created logic, and only he can create something illogical
I believe in the first option, as it makes sense. All theists believe that if they have reasoning abilities.
Pro clearly wanted to abuse the sentence "God can do anything" to prove his existence.




Proof by finding the secret premises:

P1 and P2 clearly tell us one thing, God can do something impossible, even illogical things.

P3 clearly tell us one thing, that illogical things are impossible (which we already knew)

So the argument then becomes:
  1. God can do something impossible
  2. God can do something illogical
  3. Illogical things are impossible
  4. God is impossible
That is a wrong conclusion, he does not know how logic works. The correct logical conclusion would be: "God can do something impossible", which we already knew.






Final conclusion

My first argument
"Illogical things ignore the law of cause and effect and are thus not controllable. Pro admitted that power can only control controllable things."

His first response?

But surely one could argue that, as God is an omnipotent being, he can bend the rules of physics. An omnipotent God is not bounded by laws. An omnipotent being is, after all, omnipotent. 
Thank you, Pro, for proving my point, you contradict yourself.
Either God can break logic or he cannot, but Pro thinks both options are true at the same time.

Pro is disproving an illogical, nonexistent concept in which no one believes except for him, not the God of theism.

Pro seems to be like a dog biting its own leg.
He makes a ridiculous argument, based on contradictory premises, and when I discuss the implication of the definitions, he claims his own premises are incorrect, believing they are my premises. To be honest, my opponent shows no sign that makes me believe that he understands his or my arguments, or logic in general.



Pro has failed in every aspect of the debate except structure. His argument is illogical and his premises self-contradictory. In addition, he misrepresents my claims and confuses terms, including his own.

"If an illogical thing existed despite neither being a thing nor possibly existing, it would have to be Pros argument."
Joke


Anyways, I enjoyed this debate, Wagyu is a cool guy. But he is wrong.

Vote Con