An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

The Burden of Proof: On this point, I agree entirely with Pro’s final round statement. Pro's Arguments: There is only one argument that could win Pro the debate. The other argument is an argument in my favour, and should cost Con argument points, as I'll show you. The Paradox of Omnipotence: Throughout the debate, my opponent continually conflates the power of omnipotence with an entity being able to suppress itself. This is a nuanced point, in that superficially, it will not convince you. However, with a bit of deep thought, you will see what I am talking about. All the following points were argued throughout the debate. Given that final round was mostly a reiteration of his points, rather than addressing all of my counter-points to said points (no mention of either of my analogies, and still making the erroneous multiple omnipotent gods argument), this should give you indication of the strength in my opponent’s arguments. I did not drop Pro’s question of “could an omnipotent entity permanently and retroactively remove its omnipotence”. I said that the question is not accurate, in that an omnipotent god does not remove omnipotence in limiting himself. In other words, this is a loaded question, meaning that it assumes premises that are not true, or at least have not been proven true [1]. Again, the power is still there, it is just being supressed by himself. My ‘holding a stick’ example, which disappears in Pro’s final round, shows how god could be limited by the stick’s presence, yet retain omnipotence by having the capacity to do away with the stick, if not change the stick’s properties. Again, limited yourself does not take away the capacity to do anything. If I ever have this debate again, I’ll call it the ‘holding a boomerang’ example, because it’ll be coming back. My Usain Bolt example has not been mentioned, either. My Usain Bolt example shows that people who are capable of performing highly can limit themselves to mediocrity. The example in which Pro questions how two omnipotent beings would interact, is irrelevant to this debate. I only have to dismantle Pro’s arguments for there to remain the possibility of ONE god, not anything more. It might well be that two omnipotent beings couldn’t exist, but that doesn’t mean one cannot. The fact is that an omnipotent entity’s power could never be limited, but the entity could be limited itself. Confusion only arises in conflation of these two, which I have demonstrated, via the definition Pro provided. I ask you, as a voter, to take note of how little Pro actually works with the definition provided, whilst I dedicate a whole section to it. I have shown, via Pro’s definition, how omnipotence is possible, thus refuting the only actual argument Pro made, thereby winning me the debate. Occam's Razor: My opponent throws the debate with this argument. As I’ve already argued, the underlying presumption in using Occam’s Razor is that: “Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better” [2]. Notice the ‘in the absence of certainty’ part? How about the ‘more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct’? Yet, the resolution pertains to certainty, ‘An Omnipotent, Omniscient being does not exist’. This is a colossal blunder on my opponent’s part; he has argued for my side. Con's Arguments: Before I summarise these arguments, keep in mind that none of these have to convince you, in order for me to win; it is Pro’s job to affirm the resolution. I’ve already debunked the only argument my opponent has made, that could win him the debate. However, if any of these arguments convince you, then I instantly win the debate, too. Limited Knowledge: My opponent’s sole counter-point rests solely on the Omnipotence Paradox. However, since if the paradox is debunked, seeing that it is my opponent’s only argument for the resolution, I would not even require this argument, seeing that I would win default. Possible Worlds: My point here was very similar to the limited knowledge. In a possible world, beyond perhaps our knowledge, god could exist in our world. Kalam Cosmological Argument: This argument first shows that there has to be a cause, AND THEN continues to suggest that it could have been god, even to the point where there is strong evidence that it was god. I am not confusing the two, I am arguing for both separately. As per the BoP, all this argument must do is indicate the slightest hint of uncontested possibility that God exists, and my opponent loses the debate. This argument does not have to prove anything, as my opponent incorrectly implies. Pro never addressed my personal/impersonal cause argument, so he concedes that the universe had a personal cause. It was made in the second round, and has not been touched since then. Despite what my opponent says, it was legitimate. If you do not believe me, then look for yourself! Pro fails to understand how requiring a ‘creator for the creator’ is a nonsensical proposition. Again, as explained already, it does not necessarily make sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer? ’ Just because you can turn a noun into a verb, it does not mean that you should. Also, it was not specified whether the omnipotent, omniscient god was eternal, and thus I can assume that he is, and I still negate the resolution. By solely using my Limited Knowledge argument to refute one of my points, Con either concedes the point I made (that the universe required a first cause), or concedes the Limited Knowledge argument (and concedes the debate). This is a critical error on my opponent’s part, because he has essentially boxed himself into conceding the former argument. The argument from ignorance is argued here, too. I do not have to show absolutes to win this debate, so again this cry is nullified. I am arguing likelihood, when arguments from ignorance only applies to absolutist arguments. Pro never begins to explain the argument for the Zero-Energy Universe theory, and then expects me to debunk what he said. He merely states what it is. I have no argument to address here, as, for example, having descriptions of dragons does not mean that they exist. Pro continues to argue that William Lane Craig’s argument CANNOT be true because he is not a physicist. This is so blatant of an Ad Hominem attack, that I am shocked he continues to make it. Just because someone is arguing philosophically, that does not mean all logic suddenly evaporates. Just because I am not a philosopher, does that mean I cannot argue the Kalam Cosmological Argument correctly? Attack the argument, not the man. The transition from dormancy to activity would take an immense amount of power, which is an argument of mine Pro dropped, and thus it is conceded. This heavily indicates omnipotence, as what more power could someone have? In order to know how to create everything, god would have to know a lot, which indicates omniscience. Again, Pro dropped this argument. Of course, both of these arguments are at the end of Kalam Cosmological Argument, and since the Kalam has survived up until here, then these conceded premises give a super strong argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Intelligent Design: As my opponent concedes, it’s possible that the world was created. As such, via an inductive argument, perhaps not giving 100% assurance (yet I do not need that, in this debate), I can make a strong argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god. As such, the argument is not one from ignorance, as it only suggests that god could have been the cause, rather than god being the cause. There is a strong correlation that my opponent tries to unsuccessfully waver. An omnipotent, omniscient god would not necessarily require a creator, because that is an abuse of the English language. I repeat Ad Nauseum: it makes no sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer? ’ Just because you can turn a noun into a verb, that does not mean that you should. Similarly, it does not necessarily make any sense to ask ‘who created the creator? ’ My opponent’s argument was addressed several times, and he has dismally missed my response each time. Concluding comments: The underlying problem with my opponent’s argument is that it is an absolute claim. Even if it is seriously unlikely to argue that an omnipotent, omniscient god does not exist, this is far easier to do than say he cannot exist. It is a huge BoP, in reality, and it should be clear that my opponent’s argument struggled to cope with it. But of course, that is for you to decide. I wish to thank FuzzyCatPotato for the debate. However, I would like to note that his conduct may have been less than polite. Firstly, the initial attempt at switching the resolution was poor conduct. Secondly, the impromptu, off-site argument was annoying to deal with. Finally, there was absolutely no ‘thank you’ to anyone in the last round – not for me, and not even for anyone reading. Do you think that this kind of overall conduct is acceptable? Next, I wish to point to the fact that my sources greatly outweighed my opponent’s. I had seventeen sources, all up, to ensure that my work was academically and factually sound. The only two that my opponent provided, were Wikipedia sources. My sourcing has been far superior to my opponents, and I kindly ask you to consider giving me source points. Finally, thank you very much for reading our debate :) References: [1] . http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor