An Omnipotent, Omniscient Being Does Not Exist

Round 4 argument: . https://www.dropbox.com... --- Summary: --- General: --- BOP: I must either prove that an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot exist or that one does not exist. If I do either, I win the debate. --- Pro's Arguments: --- The Paradox of Omnipotence: If I win the Paradox of Omnipotence, then I have fulfilled my BOP and won the debate. The Paradox of Omnipotence questions whether omnipotence is truly possible, by asking whether or not an omnipotent entity can both limit its power AND remain omnipotent. If it power is limited, then it is not omnipotent; and if cannot limit its power, then it is not omnipotent. Con states, "It’s entirely possible that god could limit himself, yet at the same time retain the ability to do anything. " However, this fails for two reasons. Firstly, my opponent dropped my question, Could an omnipotent entity permanently and retroactively remove its omnipotence? If yes, then it's not omnipotent, because it has limited ability and has always had limited abilities. If no, then it's not omnipotent, because it can't remove its omnipotence. Secondly, if the god limits itself, but is not limited in power, then it is not limited. It's like if you decided to run a race on only one leg; you aren't actually limited by running only on one leg, and such never truly limited yourself at all. A more comparable example to the one I pose is that of cutting off your own leg. You can't control it after you've done it; you ARE limited. Con states, "[T]wo omnipotent beings existing . .. is not relevant to this debate. " This is quite relevant, because it is about the nature of omnipotence. This example proves that an omnipotent entity cannot exist in any world, rather than requiring that two omnipotent entities exist in this world. And if two omnipotent entities are required, why not ask the omnipotent entity to create one -- or perhaps an entity even more powerful than itself? I have proven that even for a logically unlimited omnipotent entity, even if the results of the paradox are simultaneous, all lead back to mere potence, making ANY omnipotent entity impossible. I have proven that omnipotence is impossible. --- Occam's Razor: If I win Occam's Razor and refute Con's point, then I win the debate. Through Occam's Razor, when comparing competing hypotheses that fit equally well with the available proof, we choose the less complex one. Take the example of a fence post falling over. When choosing between (A) its screws were loose and fell out, and (B) aliens traveled millions of miles across the galaxy to unscrew the fence posts's screws, we are going to choose A because it is simpler. Occam's Razor is similar to the fact nothing can be assumed to be true without proof, and as such we choose the explanation with fewer unsupported assumptions. So when comparing (A) the universe exists and (B) the universe and an omnipotent, omniscient god exist, we are going to choose A unless there is proof of an omnipotent, omniscient god. (A makes 1 assumption, B makes 2. ) Con claims that this is insufficient to affirm. However, the absence of evidence for an omnipotent, omniscient god is sufficient to deny that an omnipotent, omniscient exists, because an omnipotent, omniscient god is an unnecessary assumption and as such can be denied in the lack of evidence. To quote Christopher Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. " --- Con's Arguments: --- Limited Knowledge: Con questions whether the Omnipotence Paradox can be 100% logical, due to the limited nature of knowledge. However, the Omnipotence Paradox does not rely on outside knowledge, because it attempts only to disprove that an omnipotent god exists, which is a given statement (accepted as true) in this debate. Because its only premise is inherent to this debate, it is inherently applicable. --- Possible Worlds: Con attempted to prove in Round 2 that Con only needed to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god is possible in some world. As I have proven, and as Con has accepted, Con needs to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god is possible in this (the actual) world. --- Modal Ontological Argument: Con has dropped this point. --- Kalam Cosmological Argument: Con attempted to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god has created the universe. Con dropped my point that, using Con's logic, an omnipotent, omniscient god would require a creator. Under Con's logic, all non-eternal entities have a creator, and because Con has not proven that this omnipotent, omniscient entity is eternal, it appears to also require a creator. Similarly, the god's creator would require a creator. And because Con has proven infinite creator chains impossible, this is impossible. Con states that I concede Con's Limited Knowledge argument by using it against Con. This is not true; I am showing an internal inconsistency, rather than accepting its truth. Further, Con fails to defend against the fact that this argument is an argument from ignorance, because we don't know to a scientific degree of certainty what could have caused the universe, only arguing that maaaybe the universe could have been caused by an omnipotent, omniscient entity. Con does NOT address my point that possibility of creation does not imply possibility of existence. Con is purposefully confusing these two possibilities, when they are very separate. For example, simply because it is POSSIBLE that a car crash could have been caused by unicorns does NOT mean that unicorns exist, because these two possibilities are totally unrelated. Simply because the universe could have been created by an omnipotent, omniscient entity does not mean that it was or that omnipotent, omniscient entities exist. Con doesn't deem to attack the Zero-Energy Universe theory, which, based off current knowledge, would make a creator unnecessary. Con states, "Appealing to authority occurs when someone discredits work based on it not coming from an authoritative figure [1]. " To quote Con's source, "This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. " Con is appealing to a philosopher to make claims about how the universe could have began to exist, when a philosopher does not have the necessary experience on the subject. Con doesn't deem to explain what the difference is between personal and impersonal causes (claiming it to be just so clear that it doesn't require explanation, which I have repeatedly requested), and then fallaciously appeals to authority to back it up. Con states, "Saying that a philosopher cannot make a logical argument is now Ad Hominem [2]. " To quote Con's source, "You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. " Pointing out that William Craig is NOT a physicist isn't Ad Hominem; I'm not attacking him personally. And most importantly, Con has not answered the fact that, even if it is valid, the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't actually prove that an omnipotent, omniscient god exists. It merely proves that a powerful god exists, not an omnipotent one, and it doesn't prove anything about the intelligence of the creator whatsoever! Con has not answered my largest objections to this argument and has fallaciously argued for it. This argument has no impact on the debate. --- Intelligent Design: As I have pointed out, possibility of an entity causing something is unrelated to the probability of that entity actually causing said event OR the possibility of that entity's existence. Con and I agree that "it’s possible that the universe was created. " Again, this doesn't impact an omnipotent, omniscient god. Further, Con fails to defend against the fact that this argument is an argument from ignorance, because we don't know to a scientific degree of certainty what could have caused the universe, only arguing that maaaybe the universe could have been caused by an omnipotent, omniscient entity. Con dropped my point that, using Con's logic, an omnipotent, omniscient god would require a creator. Under Con's logic, all complex entities have a creator, and because an entity intelligent enough to "be able to know what to do", it appears to also require a creator. Similarly, the god's creator would require a creator. And because Con has proven infinite creator chains impossible, this is impossible. Con has not answered my largest objections to this argument. This argument has no impact on the debate. --- Final Summary: I have dropped the Problem of Evil as irrelevant. I have proven that the Omnipotence Paradox disproves true omnipotence. I have proven that, if Con has no supporting arguments, we assume through Occam's Razor that an omnipotent, omniscient god does not exist. I have proven that Con's Limited Knowledge argument doesn't affect my arguments while it does affect Con's. I have refuted Con's Possible Worlds point, and Con has accepted this. Con has dropped Con's Modal Ontological Argument point as irrelevant. I have refuted Con's Kalam Cosmological Argument point, which had many dropped points and two logical fallacies. I have refuted Con's Intelligent Design point, which had many dropped points. I have fulfilled my BOP and proven that an omnipotent, omniscient does not exist. I have refuted or turned ALL of Con's arguments.