An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

I thank FuzzyCatPotato for his response. I’m going to outline the ramifications of this debate, because my opponent is unfairly changing them: The resolution: Firstly, the resolution reads ‘An Omnipotent, Omniscient being does not exist’. This is what I accepted. It is grossly unfair that my opponent changes the resolution mid-debate, not to mention poor conduct. As for the actual logistics of changing the resolution, it makes it far easier for him to disprove such a god, as the god would require more justification due to the extra qualifier (omnibenevolence). As such, I refuse to accept the newly proposed resolution. BoP: The BoP rests solely on Pro. He is to show that an omnipotent, omniscient god does not exist. My job is to show, at the very least, that despite Pro’s arguments, there is a chance that such a god exists. That way, if I do show: 1. God may exist 2. Then: god may exist =/= god does not exist 3. Therefore, I would win the debate, based on the resolution, because “god does not exist” has not been affirmed This is where the BoP lies, in accordance to the resolution. Anything else my opponent says is wrong. 2C1: 1. This is completely wrong. In the absence of not knowing whether god exists, then we assume neither that he does nor he doesn’t exist. You can argue that because there is lack of evidence and highly demanding evidence is required for proof, it’s likely that he does not exist, but that isn’t the same as saying that he does not exist. 2. Here, my opponent begs the question. He assumes that we do know everything about god, and therefore the logic that follows is accurate. Yes, if something is logical, then it will be regardless of the timeframe. Yet you need to reach the conclusion that it is logical first. My opponent’s apparently logical argument is that of the ‘omnipotence paradox’, which I will address later. 2C2: 1. Omnipotence paradox point – addressed later. 2. My opponent thinks that ‘possible world’ means an alternative reality. As I explained, possible world means that something is possible. If I say that god can exist in a possible world, I’m saying that god can exist. Furthermore, it’s my job to show that god can exist, and it’s my opponent’s job to show that he does not. Furthermore still, to say that “it cannot exist in ours and thus does not”, is a bare assertion. 3. Proving evil isn’t relevant to the resolution. 2C3: 1. If an entity is holding a stick, even if the entity is omnipotent, the stick’s presence and properties still exist, and thus the entity is bound by them. However, an omnipotent entity could re-arrange the properties of the stick, and even make them disappear, if he so chose. But in holding that stick, the entity is still limited, but also choosing to be. Similarly, for example, if a god limits himself by the laws of the universe, he is indeed limited because the laws of the universe still apply. The limit is still there, it’s just that the limit doesn’t have to be there, hence god ‘choosing’ to limit himself. Comparatively, a non-omnipotent being wouldn’t be able to choose whether to limit his/herself. See the difference? 2. Being temporarily limited does not mean that you cannot be omnipotent. Again, god is ‘choosing’ to be limited, which is something only an omnipotent god choose to do. I quote myself from the second round: “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.” 3C4: I am dropping this contention because I am under no obligation to prove benevolence in this debate, and I don’t want that to be confused. 3C5: 1. Premise one is actually based on rigorous mathematical calculations, which proved for a fact that it is impossible for an infinite to exist via way of multiple addition. My opponent’s claim of ‘not logical’ is egregiously wrong. Yes, it’s not irrefutable proof, but it’s a lot better than evidence to contrary, meaning that premise one is formed upon great likelihood (keep in mind that in order to affirm the resolution, my opponent must eliminate all likelihood). 2. The cause was likely god, as I’m demonstrating here. 3. As I later show, the cause had to be personal, which can be answered by a creator god. Whilst it’s not proof beyond all doubt, there is surmounting evidence in my case to suggest that it was likely an omniscient, omnipotent god. 4. It is likely that this god exists, as I’m demonstrating. Likelihood is all I have to show to win this debate. 5. Just because quantum fluctuations have no known cause, that does not mean the universe cannot have been created. I have given strong evidence to show that it could well have been created. Besides, in the future, we could gather information that shows us why quantum fluctuations exist. My opponent’s second example is not explained, and is therefore a bare assertion. 6. My opponent provides no valid counter-arguments to the “personal/impersonal” dichotomy. Instead, my opponent attempts to move the goal-posts in order to get me to appeal to authority – two logical fallacies in one. Firstly, I don’t have to cite “an actual physicist” in order for my argument to be valid; an English teacher could solve a mathematics equation without being a mathematics teachers. Secondly, because I don’t, the argument I’ve provided is substantial. 3C6: 1. The correlation is strong, but yes, not absolute. Since we have the intricate universe which operates, and since we have no irrefutable explanation for it, then an omniscient, omnipotent god is a plausible explanation. 2. “then an OOO god would require a creator even more than the universe, because it is complex enough to design and create a complex and "well-working" universe.” This is a bare assertion. Not only that, but just because you can turn a noun into a verb and repeat it in a sentence, that doesn’t mean you should. Just because an exam-writer wrote an exam, does it make any sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer?’ Similarly, just because you can ask ‘who created the creator?’-, it doesn’t mean you should. 3. These attributes have the capacity to be designed. Since you are affirming the resolution, it is your job to show that there is no way an omniscient, omnipotent god designed the universe. In the event that there remains a chance, and I show it, I win the debate. Round 2 Counter-arguments 2P1: Logical Problem of Evil The PoE has the premise that god is benevolent, which is not relevant to this debate. I only have to show the potential existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god, not a benevolent one. 2P2: The Paradox of Omnipotence An entity, as I’ve shown before, can be limited by things it could remove, hence it retains omnipotence yet it is limited in that moment. I’ll provide my example again: “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.” Theme 1 and 2’s answer depends on which god chooses. Remember also that god would choosing to force logic upon himself by submitting himself to such a scenario, hence intentionally limiting himself, and therefore remaining omnipotent. Remember also non-omnipotent beings wouldn’t be able to refuse submission to such a scenario, whereas god, being omnipotent, could refuse to submit to such rules, and re-write them as he wished. 2P3: Burden of Proof I’ve outlined where the BoP stands in the first few paragraphs of this round. If my opponent appeals to Occam’s Razor, then I win, because my opponent would implicitly concede that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god is not likely, meaning that there is a chance that such a god exists, meaning that the resolution is negated and I win. Again, you don’t have to agree that god exists, or even that its existence is likely. In the chance that there is the slightest doubt as to whether the resolution “god does not exist” can be affirmed, then I win.