CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Orgone

Reward Points:3
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
81%
Arguments:5
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
5 most recent arguments.
2 points

The argument can't move on to discussing the consequences of the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being if you don't first settle the argument about whether an omnipotent being is even possible. I.e. You don't waste time arguing over the properties of unicorn horns if you don't think unicorns exist.

"Omni" is a superlative prefix, like "est" is a superlative suffix (e.g. 'tallest', 'biggest' etc). I've argued elsewhere in this debate that the omniscience and omnipotence of God are compatible in their own terms, without having to limit the domain of God's omni properties and powers, which creates it's own problems. 'Tallest' and 'tallest in the room' mean very different things.

1 point

Because nothing can bring about or create a logically impossible action or object, I don't think it follows that 'logic' is 'more powerful' than God, I don't think that even makes any sense.

God isn't 'bounded' by logic, as the creator of everything, God in a way 'is' logic. In terms of pure mathematics, God cant make 2+2=5, without changing the very underlying nature of 'twoness', 'fiveness', or 'plusness', in which case we would all mean something different when we said '2', '5' or '+'.

Here's another argument: Describing an action or object as "logically impossible" is just another way of saying "meaningless", "empty" or "nonsense". For example, "a liftable unliftable rock" is an empty concept, a label which points to nothing, a noise with no meaning. To say that God can't create a liftable unliftable rock doesn't imply a limit to God's powers, it implies a failure in our thinking and use of language.

0 points

Firstly, "the liftable unliftable rock" is an empty concept. A label which points to nothing. A noise with no meaning. It signifies no possible thing. The properties of 'liftable' and 'unliftable' cancel each other out, leaving an impossible rock. If God can lift it, it's not unliftable. You might as well talk about "the soiqwjndoiuqiuwdncjdwjryr rock".

Secondly, God can't become 'more' omnipotent or omniscient, these are superlative qualities (like 'tallest' or 'oldest', and you cant be 'more tallest'). Not only this, but God, being eternal, cannot 'become' anything at all, though any process of change, comparison or action, being perfectly omnipotent/omniscient from the very moment it exists (i.e. since forever).

3 points

Omnipotence does not grant the power to do anything logically impossible, like 'make a square circle', or 'bake a red decade'. Things like this are examples of meaningless statements.

The statement 'God change his mind' is meant to be an example of something that, because of his omniscience, God cannot do, and this is meant to refute his omnipotence. However, logically speaking, the statement 'God change his mind' is as equally meaningless as the statement 'make a square circle'.

Part of the definition of God, due to his omniscience, is that there is nothing that he does not know. Given this, if it is a possible item of knowledge, then God knows it. This, therefore, includes all possible counterfactuals (i.e. all 'if... then...' items of knowledge).

Given this, God cannot learn anything 'new' because he already knows everything. Is this a problem for his omnipotence? No. God cannot make a perfect circle any more circle than it already is, that's simply a logical consequence the definition of a 'perfect circle'. Likewise, an omniscient God cannot learn anything new (make his knowledge more perfect), simply as a logical consequence the definition of omniscience (perfect knowledge). Given that, as argued before, omnipotence does not grant the power to do anything logically impossible (because these things are meaningless), not being able to learn anything new is no refutation of omnipotence of a God that is already omniscient.

If God can't learn anything new, can he change his mind?

'Changing your mind' is a cognitive process involving the manipulation of items of knowledge resulting in a certain outcome. A process, by definition, is something which involves change over time. God's knowledge state cannot change over time because from the very moment it exists it is completely perfect. As argued before, the definition of omniscience entails the possession of every possible 'if...then...' item of knowledge, including the outcomes of all possible manipulations of all possible items of knowledge - instantly! Therefore, logically, the fact that God could not 'change' his mind is no more a refutation of God's omnipotence than the fact that he cannot learn anything new, any more than him not being able to make a square circle, or a perfect circle more circular.

2 points

Unfortunately your logic is flawed.

Omnipotence does not grant the power to do anything logically impossible, like 'make a square circle', or 'bake a red decade'. Things like this are examples of meaningless statements.

The statement 'God create a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it' is equally meaningless.

Part of the definition of God, due to his omnipotence, is that there is no possible physical thing that he could not lift. If we take this as true, then by logical equivalence, part of the definition of every possible physical object is that it is liftable by God. Therefore, 'a rock so heavy that God cannot lift it' is like 'a square circle', it's just a meaningless, self-contradictory idea.

P.S. I don't believe in God myself, this is just an argument about possibilities.

Orgone has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Green Party
Country: Kiribati

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here