CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Am I Omnipotent
Omnipotent: Ability for a being to do anything consistent with it's own nature.
For this debate, we are using a definition of omnipotence that is consistent with the Judeo-Christian God. God can do anything in accordance with His own nature. God cannot do anything that is against His nature. For example: God cannot lie nor can God be illogical, as these things are inconsistent with His nature.
Based on this, I submit that I too, am omnipotent. Being all-powerful, I can do all things- except that which is inconsistent with my nature. My nature is such that I cannot fly, turn invisible, accurately predict the future, or perform telekinesis. There may or may not be a few other miscellaneous things as well. My inability to perform these actions however, should not be taken as a lack of omnipotence on my part. On the contrary, I am all-powerful. These acts are simply inconsistent with my nature.
If you find I am not omnipotent, may I ask how many things against one's nature are allowed before ruling out omnipotence? I have pointed out 2 things which God cannot do, due to inconsistency with his nature. It is possible there are more. How many would it take for God to no longer be considered omnipotent?
I think there's a misunderstanding. The only thing God cannot do is the logically impossible, due to his nature. Square circle, stone so heavy he cannot lift, etc.
On the contrary, there are many things that you cannot do that are logically possible. Lift up a plane ( I assume, unless you're a complete tank, which is possible), fly, shoot lasers out your eyes.
Why is god incapable of doing the logically impossible? Logically it's not possible to have a square circle, or a married bachelor, yes, but logically it's not possible to have wine that's actually water, or a dead person who is alive. Gods nature is magic; his area of expertise is the impossible. He can do whatever the hell he wants - reason, logic, and laws of physics be damned.
I dont think OP is omnipotent, just wanted to point out that when measuring and evaluating a being like god, none of our assumptions about reality have any bearing because god operates outside the bounds of reason.
Logically it's not possible to have a square circle, or a married bachelor, yes, but logically it's not possible to have wine that's actually water, or a dead person who is alive. Gods nature is magic; his area of expertise is the impossible. He can do whatever the hell he wants - reason, logic, and laws of physics be damned.
Those examples are not logically impossible. Turning water into wine is logically possible, as is being resurrected.
Whereas, a square circle is logically impossible; it is either a square, or a circle, it cannot be both, no matter how powerful a being is.
What about making something be on fire without burning? Or making a girl pregnant who was never inseminated? Logically impossible?
Also, how is a dead person getting up and walking around after 3 days in a tomb more logically possible than a married bachelor? Miracles, by definition, defy reality. God can counter gravity, he can bring things in and out of existence (create/destroy matter), he can stop the sun, he can make people thrown in a fiery furnace come out unscathed, he can allow a man to survive in the stomach of a fish for a few days, he can cure and afflict crippling disease on a whim, he can make animals talk and turn them into inanimate objects and back, he can bring the dead back to life and bring the living to death, and you expect me to believe he can't change reality enough to produce a married bachelor?
Just because you can't picture something happening in reality, in this world of reason and logic you and I inhabit, doesn't mean god cant do it. God operates free of reason and logic and reality, so trying to say it's logically impossible for god to do... well, anything, really, is just silly. You're putting limitations on god based on the rules of the reality we live in, but gods power is theoretically infinite and he obviously ignores all the rules when it comes to his magic. I guess I don't see how you can reject gods square circle (which you reject because it doesn't make sense according to your conception of reality) and accept his other miracles, even though they also defy reality.
There is a difference between kinds of impossibility. There is the physically impossible, which is impossible due to limitations of the agent carrying out the act. Then there is the logically impossible, which is impossible due to an inherent contradiction in the act. This is a very important distinction.
So, the Biblical miracles are physical impossibilities. For example, Jesus' resurrection. Now, these can be done by a non-physical being with great power, because they would not be limited by the laws of physics.
However, making a square circle is a logical impossibility, and cannot be done by any being, no matter how powerful. This is because there is an inherent logical contradiction within the act, not the being. The only thing any being could do to solve this would be to change the meanings of the words, but it could still not create a square circle.
I hope the distinction clears that up. But arguing that he is not limited by logic would be inconsistent with the nature of God, I feel. He is supposedly a logical being, and would need logic in order to create anything.
Okay so how did he make wood on fire without burning? Or a girl pregnant without ever being inseminated?
Magic.
And magic is not limited by logic. God is supposedly a magic being, not a logical being, and he used magic to create everything, not logic. Magic is the nature of god, and magic is not logical, so to me gods actions not being limited by logic and reality makes perfect sense.
You are arguing against the author being omnipotent, based on the grounds that God (if he existed) would not be bound by logic and reality, unlike the author?
I don't really give a damn about OPs supposed omnipotence, my main beef is with people putting limitations on gods supposed power. My understanding of god as an all knowing, all powerful, creator of everything leads me to believe he can do whatever he wants, a position I use to argue against "could god create a rock so heavy..." arguments.
Of course. We as humans would be unable to conceptualize something like a square circle. But god is all knowing and all powerful and creator of everything; creaianly this wouldn't be a problem for him any more than making matter from nothing, or creating flames with no source of fuel, or making a girl pregnant without inseminating her, or bringing dead people back to life.
"You're putting limitations on god based on the rules of the reality we live in..."
Basically, yes. I think you have to. I believe that, in order for something to exist, it must be subject to the nature of existence. Existence behaves a certain way, and anything that can be said to exist is subject to this behavior. Axioms such as the Law of Identity are ways we describe this behavior, and serve as a basis for logic.
If something is not subject to these "laws of existence," or "laws of reality," then I don't think it can be said to exist, as it's not meeting the requirements of existence. Obviously, since theists want to show that God exists, they must allow for God to be subject the nature of what it is to exist. Thus, God cannot create or do things that are not consistent with the nature of existence.
This is why the simplest definition of omnipotence, "X can do everything," isn't valid. It doesn't exclude things that are logically impossible.
So, the definition changes to "X can do everything that is logically possible to do." This is still a problem though, because God is not just limited to the laws of existence. God is limited (mostly) to his moral nature as presented in the Bible. God cannot lie, God cannot commit an immoral act, etc. This means there are some things that are logically possible but not possible for a being with God's traditional properties.
So, the definition changes again. "X can do everything that is logically possible for a being with X's defining properties." This is the definition I was running with here, so the problem is obvious. Once you allow omnipotence to be relativised to a set of properties, it opens up the possibility for multiple omnipotent beings. You could have a being whose defining property is the inability to do anything, and it would be compatible with this definition of omnipotence.
The definition can evolve further, stating that "X can do everything that is logically possible for a being with X's defining properties to do; and there is no being conceivable with greater powers than X." But this definition runs into the same problem as the second. There are logically possible things God cannot do due to His being morally perfect. A being could be conceived that is like God, but isn't morally perfect. This being could do everything God could, as well as perform morally evil acts. This being would be more powerful than God.
If something is not subject to these "laws of existence," or "laws of reality," then I don't think it can be said to exist, as it's not meeting the requirements of existence.
Well yes. Christians and many theists are arguing for something that defies the laws of reality, and this is one of many things that leads me to believe that god doesn't exist. But this doesn't mean that he doesn't defy the laws of reality - even if you're assuming his existence for the sake of argument, that doesn't change the fact that he does the impossible.
It doesn't exclude things that are logically impossible.
I don't think it has to, as the logically impossible is just a day at work for god. If he only did easy, logical, possible things, I don't think he would be worshiped as a god.
God cannot lie, God cannot commit an immoral act, etc.
Woah, who said god can't be immoral? I know the Bible tries to paint a good picture of god for public consumption, but if you read it cover to cover I think you'll find god to be quite an immoral character. Immense power doesn't imply perfect morals - Christians just want god to work that way. Look at the Greek gods; immensely powerful, but just as flawed as humans, morally.
Once you allow omnipotence to be relativised to a set of properties
I don't. You and Chuck have been trying to do this, but when I am confronted with the idea of an all-powerful being who is by definition unknowable, I don't see myself as being able to put limitations on that power because I don't know god. I know you don't know him either, because you're a human, just like me. So I go with the standard definition of omnipotence; that any being who is all powerful can do whatever the fuck they want.
"If he only did easy, logical, possible things, I don't think he would be worshiped as a god."
I believe all of the actions attributed to God in the Bible are logically possible things. There are no logical absurdities, no paradoxical impossibilities, only physical absurdities and impossibilities. God is able to create and manipulate the laws of physics, but not the laws of logic. Of course, we are not told specifically that God cannot be illogical in the Bible; but we are given no examples to the contrary. At least, none that I am aware of at the moment. Though, the idea of "The Trinity" may come close, come to think of it.
"So I go with the standard definition of omnipotence; that any being who is all powerful can do whatever the fuck they want."
I would still contend that this definition of omnipotence is self-contradicting, and cannot exist in reality. It could exist conceptually though, I suppose; and if you're willing to disregard God's omni-benevolence, then at least a conceptual version of God could be said to exist.
For obvious reasons, an atheist or agnostic is much more likely to accept this than a theist, which was more or less my intention.
The theist either accepts that the classic definition of omnipotence is a logical contradiction of itself, and could not exist, or rationalize the definition and accept that God cannot be omni-benevolent and still be omnipotent at the same time under the new, rationalized definition.
"The only thing God cannot do is the logically impossible, due to his nature."
I disagree. We are told quite specifically in Hebrews 6:18 that "it is impossible for God to lie..." I do not believe lying is a logically impossible act. God also cannot be immoral, or commit a sinful act. God cannot commit suicide. God cannot do these things, not because they are logically impossible, but because they are simply inconsistent with His nature.
Just a little play on words showing how difficult a concept like omnipotence becomes when it must be consistent with God.
I disagree. We are told quite specifically in Hebrews 6:18 that "it is impossible for God to lie..." I do not believe lying is a logically impossible act. God also cannot be immoral, or commit a sinful act. God cannot commit suicide. God cannot do these things, not because they are logically impossible, but because they are simply inconsistent with His nature.
I wasn't actually referring to the Judeo Christian God, but whatever.
For a start, suicide is not an act of power, it's an act of lack of power.
And I would argue an omnibenevolent being does have the power to sin, be immoral, etc, but chooses not to, due to his nature. In the same way that I have the power to kill someone, but I choose not to, due to my nature.
"I wasn't actually referring to the Judeo Christian God, but whatever."
My apologies. I should have made it clearer from the start that my intention was to discuss omnipotence as it relates to the Judeo Christian God. Albeit in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner.
"For a start, suicide is not an act of power, it's an act of lack of power."
Either way, it is still an act. An act which God cannot perform due to His nature.
"And I would argue an omni-benevolent being does have the power to sin, be immoral, etc, but chooses not to, due to his nature. In the same way that I have the power to kill someone, but I choose not to, due to my nature."
But it's not the same. God is omni-benevolent, you are not (well, at least I don't think you are). If it is not in your nature to be omni-benevolent, then of course you could choose. If God's nature is omni-benevolent, as it is often asserted as being, I don't see how God has the same choice. God must act in accordance with His nature, and if His nature is to be perfectly good, then He must be perfectly good.
No your not omnipotent because humans aren't all powerful you are just a mortal like I am and we can only have a limited about of power. Try to pick up a car because humans can't pick up car with their bare hands. An all powerful person would be able to do it with their pinky finger which you can't do.
Wow, you missed the whoooooole point didn't you. Do not declare a debate over until you GET the debate...this might take a few years, but we can be patient
It is simply against my nature to lift a car with my bare hands. Like I said, I cannot do things that are against my nature, just like God can't do things that are against His nature. There may be more things that go against my nature, than against God's nature. So the question becomes; how many things does it take to make you not omnipotent?
just like God can't do things that are against His nature.
Why not? His nature is an unknowable, incomprehensible, ethereal, magic sort, therefore it is in his nature that he should be able to do whatever the hell he wants.
God cannot make a married bachelor correct? He cannot make a round square. He cannot make A equal C if A equals B but B does not equal C. Being all-powerful God cannot be not all-powerful. These are simply word games that have no bearing on anything.
Yeah, but the only way to get around it word games as well...for instance, it has been suggested that the Hebrew Word we translate into almighty does not mean "omnipotent" but rather "the most powerful dude around"...and if Christians had been translating it THAT way all of these years, atheists would have a lot fewer arguments....ahhh translation, such a word game...:)
How is god unable to produce a married bachelor, yet able to make a living dead person?
He cannot make A equal C if A equals B but B does not equal C.
Jesus = A
Dead = B
Alive = C
God cannot make Jesus alive is Jesus is dead and being dead is not being alive. Yet supposedly he did. You're trying to apply logic and reason to magic. It just doesn't work. Either accept that your religion is founded on impossible, incomprehensible black-magic or reject your religion, because there's no making sense of this kind of fairy tale reasoning.
He can't alter the properties of shapes to make the impossible, but he can alter the properties of nature to achieve the impossible? How does that make any sense?
