An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

I thank FuzzyCatPotato for making the effort to post his round, despite having internet problems. The resolution: My opponent has conceded that the original resolution stands. BoP: At the risk of playing semantics, my opponent says that, “if I prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god cannot exist, then I win.” Whilst cannot is not quite the same as does not, ‘cannot’ entails ‘does not’, as the latter logically follows, so I think it’s fair that are equated as the same. Again, I reiterate this because my opponent strays from this later on: my opponent must prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god cannot exist. If I successfully argue doubt, or if my opponent fails to prove the resolution, I win. Logical Problem of Evil We have both agreed that this argument is not relevant, and thus it has been dropped. The Paradox of Omnipotence This is the only argument, in the entire debate, that my opponent has provided, which could win him the debate. Since we’ve reached the fourth round, my opponent cannot make any new arguments, even in regards to this, as a response to mine. Even if he refutes my other arguments, if this argument does not stand, I win this debate, because my opponent has the BoP to show that an omnipotent god does not/cannot exist. Firstly, let’s get a working definition of limit to showcase my point: Limit: The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or may not proceed [6]. It’s entirely possible that god could limit himself, yet at the same time retain the ability to do anything. The limit’s existence and parameters are something that god has control over, so he’s really only supressing himself, rather than being truly limited (i.e. he retains omnipotence). However, he is limited in the sense that he doesn’t allow himself to do something. Do you see the difference? The trait of omnipotence is unaffected, yet god can choose to limit himself. 1: “If an entity can limit itself, even if it is not currently limited, then it is still fundamentally limited.” This is not correct, because the entity has the ability to limit itself, which is a part of omnipotence. An entity that cannot limit itself, that cannot submit itself to its own rules, is not omnipotent. My Usain Bolt analogy “Could Usain Bolt run on one leg? If yes, then Usain Bolt's power is limited, because his power is potentially limitable, and thus not infinite. If no, then Usain Bolt's power is limited, because he can't limit his power.”The answer is yes, and entails different ramifications to what my opponent suggests. His power isn’t limitable, rather, he allows himself to be limited to his own rules, whilst retaining omnipotence. God could, at any time, unlimit himself; he is not truly limited, only in the instance does he limit himself. “Could Usain Bolt lower his second leg and run on it after pulling it up?” Yes, this is how he’d normally run! Your leg goes up, and then it goes down, all whilst leaning forward.2: I’m not arguing that god removes his omnipotence. I’m arguing that god limits himself, whilst his omnipotent ability still stays. My holding a stick analogy 3C3A: "Choosing" to limit oneself is irrelevant to the fact that one is limited. We’re to presume that the entity is omnipotent, since my opponent has to disprove the existence of said god. Thus, choosing to limit oneself can be relevant to the fact that one is omnipotent. “If power is limitable, then power is not limitless.” My opponent conflates the power with the entity. The entity itself can limit itself, yet the power is not limited. The entity still retains the ability to do anything, but is choosing to limit itself in that moment. “And if the limit is removed, then the limit wasn't powerful enough, proving lack of omnipotence.” My opponent assumes that the limit was intended along with permanence. In other words, my opponent is assuming to know what god’s intentions were, when he hasn’t provided any evidence or argument here. For example, it could well be that the limit was intended only for humans. The point is that we don’t know. 3C3B: 1: This deals with two omnipotent beings existing, which is not what the resolution calls for. This is not relevant to this debate. God can be omnipotent, yet limiting himself at the same time – the trait does not change. Just like Usain Bolt isn’t always the fastest running human in the world, he is still labelled the fastest because he can be. The appeal to Occam’s Razor loses the debate for my opponent 1: This is where my opponent strays from his BoP. Just because an explanation is simpler, that doesn’t mean that the alternatives do not exist. Might I remind everyone that Pro must prove that god does not exist. In saying that ‘it’s likely that he does not exist’, based on Occam’s Razor, my opponent essentially concedes the debate. 2: Only the Omnipotence Paradox is relevant to my opponent’s BoP. My opponent is conceding the debate by arguing Occam’s Razor, by inadvertently admitting that ‘god does not likely exist’, which fails to meet the BoP ‘god does not exist’. 3C1B: 1: My opponent misses the point. Outside of his omnipotence paradox argument, to say that god cannot exist, he would have to know everything about god, in order to prove that he cannot exist. If you don’t know everything about god, then there could be an aspect of god which could refute your argument to disprove him. All I am saying is that in the absence of knowing god, and the omnipotence paradox failing, my opponent’s BoP is not met. 2: My point was that how do you know when you’re being 100% logical? My opponent doesn’t address this point. It’s fair to assume that you could logically prove that god doesn’t exist, despite limitedness, yet you have to reach that point first to say that it can be done (i.e. god does not exist). Are you smart enough to see? My opponent begs the question. 3C2B: 1: I’ve got to show possibility, my opponent has to prove that god does not exist – this is the bottom line. Modal Ontological argument We’ve both agreed that this argument isn’t relevant to this debate, thus it is dropped. Kalam Cosmological Argument 3C5: 1: I didn’t drop it. I’m arguing that god was the first cause of creation. 3C5A: 1: Since my opponent uses my 2C2 “we don’t know everything” argument, I’ll take it as conceded (seeing as it’s his only defence to my point). Whilst we don’t know everything, there is a strong chance, based on the Kalam Cosmoligcal Argument, that a god created the universe. I don’t have to prove it either, in regards to Pro’s BoP, I only have to show possibility. 2: Via the logical consistency of axiomatised infinite set theory [3]. To put it in simple terms (Hilbert’s Hotel example, because the mathematics itself requires a very advanced understanding of maths): “Imagine a hotel, which can be fully occupied and yet, through transposition of lodgers, accommodate endless infinities of surplus guests. Now, what would happen if inverse arithmetical operations like subtraction were applied to the hotel? By envisaging differing groups of guests leaving the hotel, Craig argues that one could subtract identical quantities from identical quantities and have non-identical quantities as remainders, which is absurd.Arguing that the mathematical conventions specified to guarantee the logical consistency of transfinite arithmetic have no ontological force, Craig concludes that finitism is most plausibly true. Thus, the series of past events must be finite and the universe began to exist.” [4][5]. 3: The ‘personal/impersonal’ argument, which my opponent has dropped, refutes his argument here. 3C5C: 1: Pro concedes that the universe could have been created. 2: See the above point. 3C5D: 1: My opponent merely states the example and its conclusion, rather than explains it. Hence, this bare assertion does not need to be addressed. 3C5D: 1: Appealing to authority occurs when someone discredits work based on it not coming from an authoritative figure [1]. This is precisely what my opponent has done, in arguing that because I haven’t quote an actual physicist, the argument isn’t valid. 2: My opponent not understanding my argument is not my problem, provided that my argument is clear and understandable. Since my opponent is incapable of responding to it, it is conceded. My opponent concedes that the cause of the universe had to be a personal one, which now gives likelihood that it was a god. 3: Saying that a philosopher cannot make a logical argument is now Ad Hominem [2]. My opponent should be addressing the points of the argument, not the person making the argument. 4: Fallacies explained above. Intelligent Design argument 3C6A: 1: My opponent makes reference to another of his argument – addressed elsewhere. 3C6B: 1: My opponent concedes possibility, hence this point stands. 2: Since my opponent conceded that the universe could have been created, then it’s possible that the universe was created. Pro does not address the example I gave, either. It doesn’t necessarily make any sense to ask ‘who wrote your exam writer?’ Likewise, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to ask ‘who designed the designer?’ My counter-point has been conceded. 3C6C: 1: My opponent concedes possibility, hence this point stands. 2: BoP quarrels addressed elsewhere. References: [1] http://www.nizkor.org... [2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [3] Craig, edited by William Lane; Moreland, J.P. (2011). The Blackwell companion to natural theology([Pbk. ed.] ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 106–107 [4] Oppy, Graham (1995). "Inverse Operations With Transfinite Numbers And The Kalam Cosmological Argument". International Philosophical Quarterly 35(2): 219–221 [5] Reichenbach, Bruce (2010). "Cosmological Argument". In Zalta, Edward N. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...