BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of God is Possible

From what I can deduce thus far it would appear that the debate is beginning to break down over what is little more than linguistic confusion. It is very important that we clear this up before we move forward with any kind of an intelligible exchange. I'm not arguing that God can change the future, as you understand the future. The "future" doesn't get changed, because the "future" entails whatever will occur. By definition, the "future" is unchangeable. [1] However, I am arguing that God, under the broadly accepted Christian conception of God, could in theory use his omnipotence to alter the outcome of events that can occur. [2]-[3] And if God knew that any specific event would occur at a later time he would be unable to change it. Consequently, we have a paradox. *Case Con* ========= Contention 1: Regarding the future ========= The future is comprised of any possible future events. Given this understanding, altering what may happen does not entail any sort of a logical contradiction. For example, a freefalling apple will hit the ground unless someone catches it. And if it could be known that the apple would in fact hit the ground any other outcomes would be impossible. This is why my opponent's argument breaks down. A logical contradiction only occurs when God is claimed to be both omnipotent and omniscient. [4] Therefore, we can safely conclude that the existence of the Christian God is in fact impossible. ---References--- [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.newadvent.org... [3] http://www.religionfacts.com... [4] Refer back to my first and second syllogism.
The Existence of God is Possible

My thanks to Freeman for his response. I shall now point out what I see to be mistakes in his opening argument. My opponent misunderstands the nature of omnipotence. Omnipotence, as believed by the Christian, is simply the ability to actualize any metaphysically possible state of affairs. Since tasks such as changing the past and the future are logically impossible, God cannot do these tasks because they do not fall under the extent of omnipotence. But this has no bearing on omnipotence whatsoever, for omnipotence has been traditionally understood as the ability to do only things which are logically or metaphysically possible [2] By definition, the future is what will happen. God cannot make an event that will happen not happen, as this entails a logical contradiction [3] Under an A-theory of time (Which I presume my opponent is presupposing), it is logically impossible to change the future. As such, that type of task does not fall under the omnipotence of God. There are many things that God cannot do, but these are psuedotasks that cannot be accomplished in principle. [4] The inability to actualize logical impossibilities does not mean that God is not omnipotent, as he is still able to do anything that is possible with power. I thus conclude that my opponent's argument does not hold due to a misrepresentation of the Christian view of omnipotence. ________ FOOTNOTES [1]. JP Moreland and William Lane Craig, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity. 2003) 528. Also see Thomas Flint and Alfred J. Freddoso, "Maximal Power", pp. 81-113 in Alfred J. Freddoso, ed., The Existence and Nature of God (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983). [2]. For example, Boethius (480-525 AD) [3]. Changing the future entails that a future event that is not a future event (P & ~P) which breaks the law of non-contradiction ~(P & ~P) [4]. God cannot, for example, make a married bachelor or a square circle
The Existence of God is Possible

Let me begin by thanking Apologician for starting this debate. There is a 2000 Character Limit. This debate will focus on the properties of the Christian God. Among other things the God of Christianity is said to be both omniscient and omnipotent. [1] *Case Con* Contention 1: The properties of the Christian God are logically contradictory. 1. Anything with logically incompatible properties cannot exist. (This is not arguable) 2. Any God that knows the future is powerless to change it, and is therefore not omnipotent. 3. Omniscience is logically incompatible with omnipotence. (2) 4. God is described as having omniscience and omnipotence. (Given) 5. Therefore, God does not exist. (1) (3) (4) Contention 2: The second and third premises of the first syllogism are valid. Allow X to represent any possible event in the future. And let us assume for the moment that God is at least omniscient to determine whether or not the addition of omnipotence is possible. 1. God knows that X will occur in the future. (Given) 2. In order for something to qualify as knowledge it must be factually correct. (This is not arguable) 3. The knowledge that X will occur is only factually correct if X actually occurs. (2) 4. The knowledge that X will occur logically necessitates its occurrence. (3) 5. The logical necessity of X occurring precludes the possibility of alternative outcomes. (4) 6. Omnipotence is impossible if alternative outcomes can't occur for a situation. (This is not arguable) 7. Omniscience and omnipotence are logically incompatible. (6) 8. Therefore, God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent. (7) ---Definitions--- Omniscience- One having total knowledge. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (This includes knowledge of future events) Omnipotence- An agency or force of unlimited power- http://www.merriam-webster.com... ---References--- [1] See comments section
The Existence of God is Possible

My goal in this debate is not to demonstrate the existence of God, but simply that his existence is _possible_. By God, I mean a being with "the greatest possible array of compossible great making properties." [1] In order for my opponent to win, he must show that it is God's existence is impossible, that is, it entails a logical contradiction (Like a married bachelor or square circle). All that is required of me is to show that the concept of God is logically coherent (That is, free of contradiction). _________ SOURCES [1] - Thomas V. Morris, "Our Idea of God: An Introduction to Philosophical Theology" (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1991) 35.
The Existence of God is Possible

I understand the argument my opponent has put forward thus far. And I concede that actualizing a logical contradiction would not fall within the realm of omnipotence. However, I don't think that my conception of omnipotence entails any kind of logical contradiction in and of itself. *Case Con* I will simply restate my old arguments in one last syllogism. If the voters find it to be unsatisfactory then I would encourage a vote for Pro. If the voters consider my reasoning to be valid then I would strongly encourage a vote for Con. 1. Anything apart from actualizing logical contradictions is possible under omnipotence. (Given) 2. God can make any event occur using his omnipotence. [1] 3. Specific event (X) does not have to occur because God can do anything if he is only omnipotent. [1] [2] 4. Knowing that a specific event will occur with omniscience precludes other outcomes. (See my 2nd syllogism round 1) 5. Omniscience is logically incompatible with omnipotence. [4] 6. God contains logically incompatible properties. [4] [5] 7. Things with logically incompatible properties cannot exist. (Given) . : Therefore, God cannot exist. [6] [7] ========= Conclusion ========= Being able to actualize any event does not entail a logical contradiction. However, a logical contradiction does occur when omniscience and omnipotence are said to coexist. And to say that Omniscience and omnipotence are necessarily compatible simply begs the question. Each is logically possible under its own merits. Nevertheless, they cannot logically coincide with each other, as I have hoped to demonstrate. Therefore, God cannot exist. :)
The Existence of God is Possible

I am a bit puzzled at the fact that my opponent does not see my argument. Nevertheless, I will try to be as straightforward as possible in my last post. "Nowhere in my revised second premise is the word future even used. You've simply spent your energy attacking an argument I haven't put forth." While you do not use the specific term, your argument most certainly does invoke talk of the future. Your contention is that God is not omnipotent because he cannot make an event that will occur, not occur. Notice however, that simply because you do not use the term "future" does not mean you are not using it in your argument. Talk of events that will occur is simply a less obvious way of talking about future events (events that will occur). Thus, on the contrary, your arguments are laden with talk about the future. You argue that because God cannot make an event X that will occur, not occur, God is not omnipotent. As I have already stated, this entails a logical contradiction, as you seem to admit: "However, once any outcome (X) is known the possibility for altering that potential to outcome (Y) is logically impossible." On that basis you argue that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. But here you attack a strawman, for you presuppose that omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible -- an assumption the Christian rejects (See my round 2 post). Since God infallibly knows that X will occur, he cannot make X not-occur. To make X not-occur would be to actualize a logical contradiction. Now, does the fact that X will occur mean that other courses of action are necessarily impossible? No. Here, you commit a modal fallacy. It does not follow from: 1. God knows infallibly that X will occur that 2. Necessarily, X will occur Could Y have occured instead of X? Yes, this is true on some possible world C. But in the actual world, X occured instead of Y. To change that is to actualize a contradiction.
The Existence of God is Possible

I sincerely fail to see how any of what my opponent wrote in his last round is relevant. Notions of the future seem to be hindering our progress in this debate. Consequently, I stopped using the word in my syllogism. Despite this, Apologician is still spending his time attacking the meaning of words that I have already given up. *Case Con: Rebuttals* "2. Any God that knows that (X) will occur is powerless to make (Y) occur instead, and is therefore not omnipotent." – Revised premise "On the Christian understanding of the future, (2) is logically contradictory because the future is determinate." -Apologician Nowhere in my revised second premise is the word future even used. You've simply spent your energy attacking an argument I haven't put forth. Altering the "future" may be impossible. However, altering potential events is logically possible. This is where my opponent seems to be equivocating potentialities with future determinates. [1] God, in his omnipotence, could make any event occur. Logically, event (X) (Y) (Z) etc could occur at a future time because they are contingent upon God's will. However, once any outcome (X) is known the possibility for altering that potential to outcome (Y) is logically impossible. [2] Therefore, omniscience and omnipotence are indeed incompatible. (Resolution Negated) ---References--- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Refer back to my second syllogism. I eagerly await your last round and wish you good luck in the process. Best, Freeman
The Existence of God is Possible

I have several points to make against Con's contention that will in turn make my point clear (per Con's second request). Firstly, however, I have noticed your definition you offered of "future" in the last around is circular. "The future is comprised of any possible future events." But this is not at all helpful, since you have defined the future in terms of what is future (You have defined something by itself). This does not tell us what the future is. But let us ignore that and define the future as the set of events that will happen. Secondly, your argument does in fact presuppose an indeterminate future. Elsewhere, you stated that the future was "what may happen." This of course, presupposes that the future is not determinate, and this is what is problematic with your argument. The Christian denies this and affirms that the future is determinate, such that future contingents (Statements about the future) have a definite true value (As opposed to being indeterminate on your view by virtue of not having transpired yet). My argument is thus not a straw man. This brings me to your revised second premise: "Any God that knows that (X) will occur is powerless to make (Y) occur instead, and is therefore not omnipotent." On the Christian understanding of the future, (2) is logically contradictory because the future is determinate. Therefore, the task described by (2) falls out of the range of omnipotence. In order for God to actualize (2), he must make an event that will happen not happen, which entails a logical contradiction. Perhaps a simplification will help: 1. God knows the truth values of future contingents 2. Therefore, the future is determinate 3. The future will happen 4. Changing the future is logically impossible (see my previous footnote) 5. Actualizing a contradiction is a pseudotask that does not fall under omnipotence .: Therefore, Con's argument does not show that omnipotence and omniscience are impossible.
The Existence of God is Possible

There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding the term future. So, I have altered my second premise of my first syllogism to clear up any ambiguity. It would be a shame to see this debate devolve into quibbling over semantics. *Case Con: Rebuttals* "This simply begs the question by presupposing a scenario that is valid only given God's non-existence. My opponent defines the future as indeterminate, which is simply false given the Christian conception of God. In order for his reductio to work, therefore, my opponent must presuppose a determinate future." My argument doesn't presuppose that the future is indeterminate or that God doesn't exist. This is a highly irrelevant straw man argument. [1] Secondly, what exactly are you trying to argue? *Case Con* (The second premise has been altered to avoid ambiguity.) Contention 1: The properties of the Christian God are logically contradictory. 1. Anything with logically incompatible properties cannot exist. (This is not arguable) 2. Any God that knows that (X) will occur is powerless to make (Y) occur instead, and is therefore not omnipotent. 3. Omniscience is logically incompatible with omnipotence. (2) 4. God is described as having omniscience and omnipotence. (Given) 5. Therefore, God does not exist. (1) (3) (4) Contention 2: The second and third premises of the first syllogism are valid. My second syllogism remains unchanged. You can refer back to it in my first round if needed. ======= Conclusion ======= There is no logical contraction in altering potential events in the A theory of time. [2]-[3] Therefore, my opponent's only real issue with my syllogism can be rightfully dismissed. I thus conclude that the existence of the Christian God is indeed logically impossible. ---References--- [1] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Should phones be aloud in school for edicational purposes

Phones should not be allowed in school. They are a distraction to learning. Sure, they could be used as an easy way to look up words, but they also can be used for games and social media, which distract students from getting a full and proper education. Phones are unnecessary and avoidable disturbances in the learning environment. Other resources provided at schools should be able to trump the "education" purposes of these mobile devices, as ulterior motives for usage (in and out of school) include communication, games, social media, etc.
Legalization of Gay Marriage in the US

Although studies have shown that adoptions have increased due to gay marriage. Studies have also shown that children are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused by their own parents. "Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%)". Sources : http://www.frc.org... As to the last argument, posted in round 2. Lots of testing is still needed in that type of reproduction. It is still a very unstable method of reproduction, and most importantly the health of the child is at risk. The child could be born with disabilities, In which the child will not be able to live a normal life. And it is not normal. That way of reproduction is not traditional, it still needs lots of testing.
Legalization of Gay Marriage in the US

Human beings are given three unalienable rights. As stated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." If a person wishes to pursue happiness legally in another person, that person should be, by human rights, able to practice pursuing happiness as they see fit. Aren't all Men created equal, as stated in the Declaration of Independence? This statement was meant to apply to all people and not one specific group. Sources: 1.) www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Studies have shown that gay marriage has decreased the number of children in adoption centers and homes. More than 6 million to 14 million children live in a household with at least one set of gay parents. LGBTQ parents raise up to 4% of the worlds adopted children. The influx of gay marriages makes for a lesser number of children who are put in adoption homes and never adopted. This makes the child in question be able to settle in a stable home rather than a series of substandard foster homes. Also the children who live with same sex parents have statistically shown that the children have less social and academic problems as opposed to a heterosexual family household. If the parents are not married, however, that shifts the stability that would otherwise be strong had the homosexual couple be married. Sources: 1.) www.lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics 2.) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... 3.)https://www.aclu.org...
Legalization of Gay Marriage in the US

However, the definition of marriage is the "legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." Therefore, marriage does not have to be only between a man and women. Gay marriage is technically not stopping the human race from procreation. Recent studies found that using the DNA of a female mouse and tweaking the chromosomes, you can create female sperm. Women have the XX chromosome which makes them female. Due to the fact that before genders was decided in the womb, all humans had both XX and XY chromosomes. The studies show that gathering the DNA of the female and changing the chromosomes to create an XY chromosome, female mice can make sperm and fertilize the egg. The same can be said for men, where the male mice XY chromosomes can be changed to create an egg. Scientists are constantly changing and editing the formula to make the procedure available for humans. Sources: 1.) http://www.scientificamerican.com... The First amendment of the United States constitution is the right of Freedom of speech, which has clearly been used for the people who are against gay marriage. Hostility and discrimination has been used against gays for years with numerous hate crimes as well. More than 14% of all hate crimes are towards homosexuals, which ranked the third highest category of hate crimes. Also twelve states have made job discrimination based on sexual orientation, which enacted the Employment Nondiscrimination Act or ENA. Sources: 1.) www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/sexualorientation.html?referrer=https://www.google.com...
Legalization of Gay Marriage in the US

If marriage was only used for procreation, infertile women or couples who do not wish to have children should be banned from marriage as well. "According to the U.S. Census Bureau"""s Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012."(1) This percentage is the highest of childless women since the Bureau began collecting this information. Also the cost and time needed in raising child is expensive. Sources: 1.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Reverting back to my previous argument in round one, the refusal of allowing certain people to marry allows the act of discrimination to occur and can create a type of second class. Discrimination has already been served to minorities, the disabled and the poor as well, which to those who are wealthy or better living citizen, makes them believe that they are better than minorities or disabled people.(1) Sources: 1.) http://www.seattlepi.com...
Legalization of Gay Marriage in the US

The First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights signifies the separation of the state and religion. This also shows how no one person or group of person shall infringe on someone Else's freedom of speech, press, and assemble. In the Bill of rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." Therefore, while religion might disagree, has no say or do with the affairs of state law or court. Sources: 1.) http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org... 2.) https://www.law.cornell.edu... 3.) http://www.ushistory.org... Gay Marriages can also help boost the economy by supporting the government fiscally. Marriages licenses and income taxes from married couples bring in revenue to spend for any programs needed within the state. 10% of New York's marriage licences are made up of gay marriages. Stores used in marriage occasions such cake stores, flower boutiques ,etc. have reported profit values rising due to the numerous gay marriages occurring in states that have legalized gay marriage. States like New York have reportedly said 259 million dollars has entered its economy since the legalization of gay marriage. With the payment of reception halls, hotels and restaurants the economy of New York became boosted on just weddings alone. Massachusetts has also reported of $111 million entering its economy on gay weddings after legalizing gay marriage as well. Sources: 1.)http://money.cnn.com... 2.)http://www.csmonitor.com... 3.)http://gaymarriage.procon.org... 4.)http://www.masslive.com...