CreateDebate


Debate Info

34
43
She still is, because... He never was
Debate Score:77
Arguments:90
Total Votes:80
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 She still is, because... (33)
 
 He never was (37)

Debate Creator

Iulmi(251) pic



God isn't omnipotent and I prove you why.

If God is omnipotent why does he cannot lie? Why can't she change?
He can't create a rock he cannot lift. If he does it, then he wouldn't be able to lift the rock.

She still is, because...

Side Score: 34
VS.

He never was

Side Score: 43

If God is omnipotent why does he cannot lie?

It's an impossibility, from a strict biblical standpoint, for God to lie. If something is truly impossible it has no place in existence.

Why can't she change?

He is outside of time. God never ages or decays. He remains the same.

He can't create a rock he cannot lift. If he does it, then he wouldn't be able to lift the rock.

So you asking an infinite God to make an infinite rock? How will the rock ever surpass infinity? Even then if he was to lift this rock would he have too been in the known universe and if so if the rock had infinite mass would it take up all the space in the universe? Could God just move the universe and still move the rock in some way to make it proportional to lift? Just a few questions.

Side: She still is, because...
1 point

God can create a rock that he cannot lift because god has no physical body with which to lift it. He could get the rock lifted by manipulating a physical object such as a 'jesus' equivalent that he creates to represent him though.

Side: She still is, because...
Iulmi(251) Disputed
1 point

He could get the rock lifted

Then it isn't a rock he cannot lift. He can't do that.

Side: He never was
instig8or(3307) Disputed Banned
1 point

He is not the one lifting it, he has no body to lift with.

Side: She still is, because...

It can't lie because anything he conceives, becomes true. God can't change because he is already every thing.

God doesn't have to lift anything.

Side: She still is, because...
Iulmi(251) Clarified
1 point

If God can't conceive a lie, then he isn't actually omnipotent.

Side: She still is, because...
1 point

He can conceive a lie, it just becomes true.

Side: She still is, because...
1 point

If you can use the argument that God isn't all powerful because he can't make a rock he can't lift then I can use the argument that even though God isn't omnipotent he is omnipotent.

Side: She still is, because...
Iulmi(251) Clarified
2 points

She, not he I said...

If you think my argument is a fallacy that doesn't mean you can use a fallacy as well. It's a fallacy.

Side: She still is, because...
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You said both actually.

Side: He never was
Harvard(660) Disputed
2 points

That is absurd. The point is that the notion of 'omnipotence' is logically flawed as it entails logical impossibilities. So if god is inextricably attached to omnipotence then he is, logically, inextricably attached to illogical impossibilities- which would then make him logically impossible.

Your statement, however, was just a nonsensical rhetorical device.

Side: He never was
1 point

Is that you on your display photo?? You are HOT.

Side: He never was
Atrag(5546) Disputed
1 point

If we remove the logic we can say anything we want. An omnipotent being making an rock he cannot lift is illogical in same way 2 + 2 = 5 is. So if we step outside logic we can quite easily say that he can make a rock that is both can and cannot lift. Or that he is omnipotent without being omnipotent.

Side: She still is, because...
1 point

God can't do anything logically impossible. God can't create a married bachelor, a square circle, or an unliftable rick.

Side: She still is, because...

Our church follows this line of thought. I have met others who believe in full omnipotence. That God can do everything including the logically impossible.

Side: She still is, because...
Harvard(660) Disputed
2 points

Technically if he were able to do anything and everything, that would include the logically impossible. This makes god himself logically impossible (though he can still exist, just not logically- like the biblical stories (e.g. staff to snake), those things could have happened, though not logically/scientifically).

Of course the counter to this argument is that god does not apply to the principles of logic, but that counter ensues absurdity & farcicality and thus is non-considerable (sort of like suggesting that Superman perhaps could be real- such a suggestion is not worthy of consideration).

Furthermore, the statement "full omnipotence" and the context by which you used it is fallacious. The only way you can logically minimize/reduce the extent of omnipotence is by compartmentalizing it (e.g. numerical omnipotence, geographical omnipotence, linguistic omnipotence, etc.)- though, god is construed to be universally omnipotent.

Side: He never was
1 point

When did God become a she ? Can you prove that and how ? Give up your proof !

Side: She still is, because...
1 point

So you're trying to use logic to disprove an illogical trait? Let me know how that works out.

If you acknowledge God as one who can do anything (including the illogical), it doesn't make any sense to pit logical constraints on Him. On the flip side, if you're going to argue that God can do anything within the constraints of logic, then your argument still doesn't hold, as it wouldn't be possible for there to be a rock that God can't lift (being all-powerful).

Side: She still is, because...
3 points

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God?

— Epicurus, philosopher (c. 341-270 BCE)

Side: He never was
31337(560) Disputed
1 point

Philosopher confuses "God" to mean, "Protector".

Side: She still is, because...
2 points

Not at all, he covers that with the malevolent part.

Side: He never was