An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

Before rebuttals, I would like to apologize. I realized only now that the resolution states "An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist", when I had intended the resolution to be "An Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent Being Does Not Exist". I think that my definitions of omnipotent and omnibenevolent in the first round and use of the Logical Problem of Evil should be proof of my ignorance of my own error. To make certain that all arguments made by my opponent and myself are topical, I request a change of the formal resolution to: "An Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent (OOO) Being Does Not Exist". --- BoP Argument: "BoP is on Pro to prove that such a being does not exist[.] .... 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)[.]" 1. Actually, Con does have a (small) BoP within this debate. It is possible for all entities to not exist, while it is only possible for non-contradictory (either with itself or with reality) entities to exist. My opponent must prove that an OOO entity is not contradictory with reality or with itself. Otherwise, it would be impossible for said entity to exist, and we would automatically vote Pro. --- 2C1: "[H]umans do not know everything[.] .... 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." 1. Actually, in the absence of knowledge, as I pointed out in 2P3, we would assume that an OOO god does not exist. 2. Further, logic is not based on expandable knowledge. If we can disprove something now using only logic and not external observations, that will not change in the future and as such this epistemological problem doesn't matter. (So 2P2, if not 2P1, stands unharmed.) --- 2C2: "P1: An omnipotent, omniscient god is conceivable. P2: An omnipotent, omniscient god is not inherently contradictory. C: Therefore, in a possible world, an omnipotent, omniscient god exists." 1. As my opponent states, I contend that P2 is incorrect. See 2P1 and 2P2 as to why. If 2P1 OR 2P2 stands, then P2 and this contention fall. 2. Additionally, we are not debating over whether an OOO entity CAN exist in a potential reality, but whether it DOES in this reality. While it might be possible for an OOO entity to exist in a reality with no evil (and some way out of the Paradox of Omnipotence), it cannot exist in ours and thus does not. 3. Further, it's rather unlikely (to understate) that we discover something out in the stars that proves that evil doesn't exist. --- 2C3: "[A]n 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." 1. An entity cannot be temporarily (as opposed to eternally) limited, because if it limits itself and then removes that limit, then that limit did not, in fact, limit the entity's power, which means that the entity was unable to actually limit itself. 2. Accepting 2C3.1, let's rephrase the question. Can an omnipotent entity bound itself by logic? If yes, then it is not omnipotent, because it would have limited its power. If no, then it is not omnipotent, because it would be unable to limit itself via logic. As such, a logically-unconstrained omnipotent entity is not, in fact, omnipotent. 3. Side note: My opponent did attempt to rebut 2P2, but I don't consider this a violation of the rules because I forgot that said rules prevented negation in the first round and would have removed them if I had remembered so. Do not mark my opponent down whatsoever. --- 3C4: 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. 1. Similar proof: P1: Shangri-La is the greatest place on earth. P2: A place that exists is greater than one that doesn't. C: Therefore, Shangri-La exists. I hope my opponent will defend the existence of Shangri-La. (I know that I didn't word it exactly as the original, but time constraints so screw it.) 2. Existence isn't an attribute, as something non-existent cannot have attributes. Fundamentally, this argument boils down to "show me a god, and I'll show you an existing god." As such, this is circular logic that does not stand. 3. This argument makes the unproven assertion that existence is "better" than non-existence. As such, the premises are invalid. 4. Further, cross-apply 2P1 and 2P2. It is NOT possible for an OOO god to exist. --- 3C5: "P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. [T]he cause cannot be impersonal, for ... 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." 1. Premise one is based on observational evidence that we do not, in fact, know whether applies to the creation of the universe or not or to situations without time. As such, it is not objectively known, but is gathered from living in the universe, and is thus subjective rather than objective or logical. This makes the rest of argumentation against the point unnecessary, as the conclusion is not necessarily valid. 2. My opponent must provide a mechanism through which a "first cause" would come to exist, without in fact ever beginning to exist. (Spot the contradiction yet?) I'm sure my opponent will have an answer to this, and we can debate over just how implausible it is. 3. This is not necessarily proof of an OOO god. A god who created a universe is not necessarily omnipotent (rather merely powerful enough to create a universe), not necessarily omniscient (rather merely intelligent enough to create a universe), and not necessarily omnibenevolent whatsoever. As such, even if the proof stands, it is merely proof of a First Cause, NOT necessarily an OOO god. 4. Cross-apply 2C2. We don't know everything. We don't know if the universe requires a cause or not, or what was before the creation of the universe. As such, this is fundamentally an argument form ignorance. 5. Quantum fluctuations have no known cause, yet pop in and out of existence all the time. (I can find plenty of sources, but I don't have the time.) P1 refuted, and a potential non-OOO cause for the existence of the universe found. (IE; the universe is a quantum fluctuation, balanced by an anti-universe.) Also see Zero Energy Universe theory and various other models that potentially allow for a universe to come, uncaused, from nothing. 6. In all honesty, I don't understand the "personal/impersonal" cause dichotomy. Do explain. Preferably with an explanation with, say, citations to actual physicist who knows about how our universe could have been created, rather than a philosopher. --- 3C6: "[T]he universe is so complex ... works ... well ... likely created ... likelihood that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists." 1. My opponent's logic is as follows: P1: The universe is complex and "works ... well". P2: An OOO god could create a complex and "well-working" universe. C: An OOO god could have created the universe. While it is possible for such a creation to have occurred, this possibility has no relation to the possibility that an OOO god exists, and is thus not evidence for the existence of an OOO god. 2. If complexity and "well-working"-ness are indicative of creation by a more intelligent being, 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. As such, this argument would lead to an infinite regression of gods necessary for anything to exist, which is cumulatively less plausible than assuming that a method for universe creation by nonintelligent sources exists and additionally fails to solve the problem. 3. My opponent must provide a method through which "designed-ness" can be objectively determined. (Say, by a computer.) If my opponent cannot provide such a method, then we cannot, in fact, know whether or not complexity and "well-working"-ness are actually attributes of a designed entity, and as such, we cannot know if this statement is valid. --- Sorry if rebuttals are short, I've been busy. Apologies to Zaroette and all you guys.