The Concept of Omnipotence Causes Logical Contradictions

1. Rebuttal"True, god has been around forever, but why? What caused him to exist forever? He just has? Just like that? If that is the case, why is it less likely that a singularity suddenly exist.. just because?"If we take God (if He exists) to be the greatest conceivable being, then it follows that God must have maximal greatness in all aspects. So, as my opponent asks, why has God been around forever? It seems to me that if God is the greatest conceivable being, He cannot be limited by space and time (both of which He created, if He exists). Thus, He is a transcendent being; He exists outside of space and time. My opponent then asks, "what caused Him to exist forever?" As I stated in the opening round, there is no reason to think that entities which do not have beginnings require a cause. As God (if He exists) has no beginning, no cause is necessary. My opponent then asks, "why is it less likely that a singularity suddenly exist"? Unlike God, a singularity is a point within time and space. Thus, as a singularity is constrained by finite space and finite time, this singularity (like the space and time it is constrained by) must have had a beginning. I hope I have adequately answered your questions. Please note if anything was unclear and I'll gladly attempt to explain it again."I posited that since an omnipotent being is supremely powerful, it can do illogical things such as will itself to exist before it even exists, therein guaranteeing its own existence. I stated that since this was the case, an infinite number of gods could exist, because omnipotence guarantees existence through being able to ensure your own existence before you even exist. I know that when you take this logic too far, it starts becoming incredibly hard to fathom, but that's the point. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes the idea of omnipotence full of contradictions and hard to grasp."I'll have to strongly disagree with this point. I think the assertion that an omnipotent being could perform incoherent acts (such as willing itself into existence) isn't merely "hard to grasp", it's blatantly false. I really don't have a difficult time understanding what is entailed by an entity willing itself into existence. What I have a difficult time understanding is how anyone can assert that an omnipotent being ought to be able to perform such absurd acts. My opponent thinks this is possible, but so far I have seen no justification provided in attempt to warrant this assertion. So, it seems to me that it is a mere opinion. Moreover, the answer to the question of whether or not the concept of omnipotence involves the ability to do what is logically impossible is relatively uncontroversial in academia, as can be seen from the quotes of these prominent atheist philosophers:http://treesearch.org..."So in response to this idea, my opponent has essentially said that there are things omnipotent beings cannot do."No, not quite (I don't want to be misquoted). There are no "things" that an omnipotent being cannot do. Incoherences, such as creating a square circle, a married bachelor, or willing oneself into existence, are not "things" by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, they are "nothings". So, I don't say that there are "things" omnipotent beings cannot do."Omnipotence by definition guarantees power over everything, meaning there is nothing you cannot do."Again, as my opponent's given definition says, there is no "thing" an omnipotent being cannot do. But of course, logical incoherences are not "things", so the inability to actualize logical incoherences is no issue to the concept of omnipotence, even on my opponent's own definition."However, if I had supreme power, I would have control over logic and reality as we know it, meaning I could contort these things to make square circles possible."This statement is trivially false. Incoherences, such as square circles, by definition are not possible. We're not speaking about contingent entities (like unicorns or human beings) which could exist or could not exist, we're speaking of incoherences (square circles, married bachelors, etc.) These are logical contradictions and so are incoherent in the logical sense that there is no possible world in which square circles exist. So, my opponent's assertion that if he had "supreme power" he would be able to "contort these things to make square circles possible" is nonsensical, not to mention unwarranted."As I finish up here, I would like to note that my opponent has not criticized the logical progression of ideas I presented in round 2, rather he criticized the idea it was founded upon. This means that if I convince you of my founding idea (that omnipotence has literally no bounds, not even of logic), by default the progression of ideas I have presented, and their conclusion of contradictions of logic, are correct, at least in terms of the debate."Nice try, but unfortunately that's not going to pass. My opponent argues that if his founding idea (that omnipotence has no bounds) is true, then his conclusions from that founding idea are also true. Even if that were the case, we've seen time and time again in this debate that the founding idea, namely the idea that an omnipotent being ought to be capable of creating square circles, married bachelors and the like, is absolute nonsense. So, as I have shown the basis of my opponent's "progression of ideas" to be false, it follows that whatever "ideas" come from this progression also ought to be considered false. 2. SummaryRecall that my opponent is responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. To do so, he must provide justification for thinking his assertion that "the concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions" is true. Until he is able to provide such justification, we can reasonably conclude that the debate resolution affirmed by my opponent is not true.My opponent hasn't really presented any arguments in this debate for thinking that the concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions. Rather, he has presented assertions without any sort of justification. For example, his entire case has revolved around the idea that an omnipotent entity ought to be capable of actualizing incoherences. In other words, an omnipotent entity (on his view) ought to be able to create square circles and married bachelors, will itself into and out of existence, etc. As I have shown, this assertion is false. There is no reason to think that an omnipotent entity should be capable of creating square circles, because square circles are not "things". Rather, it is an incoherence. I can support this reasoning with quotes from prominent atheist philosophers on the very question that is being discussed in this debate (see source below).3. Sourcehttp://treesearch.org...