An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

I remind voters that the BoP is on Pro to prove that such a being does not exist; I am under no obligation to prove that one does exist. I only have to negate. If my opponent is only to prove likelihood (i. e. an omnipotent, omniscient being likely doesn’t exist), rather than the absolute (i. e. such a god does not exist), then I win. It’s a bit silly that I’m not allowed to negate in the first round, since the BoP is on Pro, and I could win if none of my arguments are upheld (i. e. I refute all of my opponent’s arguments, yet fail to defend my own), but those are the rules. A1: Humans do not know everything My opponent has yet to prove that humans know everything. In the absence of knowing everything, there could be a piece of information that proves an omnipotent, omniscient being exists. So, my argument: 1) Humans are not sure if we know everything 2) In not being sure, we don’t know something C) Therefore, humans do not know everything Humans are learning new things all the time (e. g. scientific discoveries). To argue that ‘God does not exist’, which would basically be upon what humans currently know, which is exceedingly likely not everything there is to know, cannot be justified. Again, to counter this argument, my opponent would have to prove that humans do know everything. A2: Basic possible worlds argument “Possible worlds” is basically a fancy way of arguing probability (i. e. if someone exists in a possible world, then there is a chance that he/she exists) [2]. When Pro makes the claim that such a God cannot exist, I have to rebut all arguments that prove this absolute claim. So, in the event that it is possible such a god exists, even if the likelihood is ever so slight, I win. It is conceivable that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient being. Hence, in a possible world, until my opponent proves that one cannot exist: 1) An omnipotent, omniscient god is conceivable. 2) An omnipotent, omniscient god is not inherently contradictory C) Therefore, in a possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient god exists Pro has made claims to the contrary on the second point, however since this round is not for rebuttals, I am not able to address these arguments. A3: Definition of omnipotence My opponent has defined omnipotent as: having unlimited power. I will now argue as to what this means. First, let’s define power: Power: the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way [1]. And now unlimited: Unlimited: boundless [3]. So, the definition my opponent has provided is ‘omnipotence is having boundless capacity to do something or act in a particular way’. Part of this boundless capacity would involve the ability to restrict oneself, because if an omnipotent god were not able to restrict itself, then it wouldn’t be omnipotent. It would be like Usain Bolt running on one leg. Sure, both of his legs work, and he could run faster on both, but just because he’s running on one leg doesn’t mean that he can’t run any faster, he is just choosing not to by restricting himself. Similarly, an omnipotent god could create logic, in which it restricts itself by, but that doesn’t mean such a god is eternally bound by such logic, it’s only that it is choosing to restrict itself by the logic. If a god were truly omnipotent, it would not be bound by logic. A4: Modal Ontological argument (MOA) Before I make this argument, I would like to note that this argument attempts to prove more than what is required of the resolution; I do not have to show that a god with the trait of moral perfection can exist. The only reason I am not omitting the moral perfection part from this argument, is that it’s a core component of the MOA, and so to take it out would null the argument. Definitions: Maximal excellence: To have omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection in some world. Maximal greatness: To have maximal excellence in every possible world. Alvin Platinga’s Modal Ontological Argument is logically valid, because its conclusion is logically entailed by its premises [7]. The argument is as follows [4]: 1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in said world; and 2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. 3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) 4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists. 5. Therefore, (by axiom S5 [5]) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. 6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists. The mathematical proof is as follows [6]: Ax=df x is maximally great Bx=df x is maximally excellent W (Y) =df Y is a universal property Ox = df x is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect 1) `74; (W07;x)Ax pr 2) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) pr 3) `33;(x)(BxX35;Ox) pr 4) (Y)[W(Y) iff (`33;(W07;x)Yx W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Yx)] pr 5) (Y)[(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Yx iff `33;Zx)X35; W(Y)] pr 6) (W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx) 2, Existential Generalization 7) [(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx)X35;W(A)] 5, Universal Instantiation 8 ) W(A) iff (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 4, Universal Instantiation 9) W (A) 6, 7 Modus Ponens 10) W(A)X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 8, Equivalence, Simplification 11) `33;(W07;x)Ax (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 9, 10 Modus Ponens 12) ~`74;~~(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;(W07;x)Ax) 11, Communication, Modal Equivalence 13) `74;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)Ax Double Negation, Impl 14) `33;(W07;x)Ax 1, 13 Modus Ponens 15) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx) theorem 16) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 14, 15 Modus Ponens (twice) 17) `33;(x)(Bx X35; Ox) X35; (`33;(W07;x)`33;Bx X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Ox theorem 18) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 16, 17 Modus Ponens (twice) 19) (W07;x)`33;Bx 18, Necessity Elimination A5: The Kalam Cosmological Argument Before I make this argument, I would to say that this argument tries to prove that god exists, and is likely an omnipotent, omniscient being. I do not have the BoP to prove as such, but in the event that this argument withstands my opponent’s criticism, I win the debate. The Kalam Cosmological Argument attempts to prove the existence of a creator god (one which would be omnipotent and omniscient). The argument revolves around the idea that metaphysically, it is impossible for an infinite to exist via way of infinite addition, which is accepted by modern mathematicians [9]. Given this mathematically accurate premise, in William Lane Craig’s words [8]: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Since there is definitely a cause to the universe (as the Big Bang theory also suggests, which is the prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe, and could be attributed as ‘god’ [10]), we have to decide upon what type of cause it was. There are two types of causes: personal and impersonal. Craig argues that the cause cannot be impersonal, for this cause would have to be in a state of dormancy or activity [11]. However, if the state were in dormancy, and since no events are occurring in that state (otherwise, the cause would happen before the first moment of time, which doesn’t make sense), this dormancy would remain permanent. Alternatively, if the cause were in a state of activity, then the universe would be eternal (as would be the effect), which Craig has already proven false. So, the cause cannot be impersonal. This leaves the cause as personal, as it is the only other type of cause. The personal cause also makes sense as it could conceivably transition from dormancy to activity. For a being to do such a thing, it would require immense power to act freely (could be omnipotence). In order to know how to create everything, this being would have to know a lot (suggests omniscience). Therefore, there is reasonable proof to suggest that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists. A6: Intelligent Design I argue that because the universe is so complex, that because it works quite well when it could easily not, that it is highly likely a designer created such a thing. In order for such a creation, a being would have to be: 1. Omnipotent (so as to be able to do it) 2. Omniscient (so as to be able to know what to do) This at least gives a likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists. Informative conclusion Again, my opponent has the BoP to prove that God does not exist. My arguments, particularly the latter three, go beyond my task as Con, and attempt to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists. Of course, if I do prove that such a god exists, that means I win this debate anyway, but I don’t have to prove that god exists in order to win this debate. When rebutting my opponent’s arguments, I only have to show the faintest of likelihoods that god could exist. References: [1] . https://www.google.com.au... [2] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] Oppy, Graham (8 February 1996; substantive revision 15 July 2011). "Ontological Arguments". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://jwwartick.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] Craig, as quoted in: ‘Philosophy Now’ magazine, December 2013 [9] Craig, edited by William Lane; Moreland, J. P. (2011). The Blackwell companion to natural theology ([Pbk. ed. ] ed. ). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 103. [10] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [11] . http://exapologist.blogspot.com.au...