The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

== Definitions == Once again, Con is trying to manipulate definitions -- he notes that Dictionary.com's definition of omnipotent is regarded as very great power, when in fact I have pointed out in R1 that Dictionary.com's definition reads having very great or UNLIMITED (a.k.a. ALL) authority or power [1]. This is not debatable -- a quick look at the source will reveal which one of us is being truthful and which one of us is omitting relevant information to further their position. My definition is correct, stands, and is solely instrumental in negating the resolution even without considering my other arguments. Con writes, "There is no such thing as the power to create a rock with a weight greater than an infinite weight. There is no such power..." which of course as I pointed out is completely circular reasoning. No HUMAN has the power to do so, but given the definition and description of God, he should be able to do all things - to have all powers - as the Bible describes him as being able to do any and everything at his discretion including things that men cannot do. Con's watch example is flawed. If a man is said to have collected all watches, then surely he hasn't collected watches that cannot exist. However if it is said that a Godly watch maker can create any watch (even if it means transcending mortal laws of logic) then it is assumed that the watch maker can indeed make any watch because this watch maker controls reality (in fact, CREATED reality so can therefore manipulate it to His liking) because this watch maker can do any and every thing; nothing is impossible for this watch maker. This paradox proves how the task would be impossible via the laws of logic, and I have explained (and will reiterate later on in the debate) why logic is applicable to God. == Interpretations == Con writes, "The inability to contradict His own nature was obviously implied." Not once he does he address the fact that I pointed out where God in the Bible specifically contradicts his own nature. And, even if you're a theist who disagrees with me, you cannot award this point to Con considering he himself hasn't even presented an argument and while judging you have to take what the debaters have offered -- not your own opinion. That said, Con's rebuttal in no way negated my point about St. Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of the definition being just that - an interprettion - whereas the definition of the word itself is clear and the interpretation is merely an alteration manipulated to suit a false position. Also, Con says that I have "conceded that even definitions can imply things not mentioned, so this is definitely acceptable" whereas I have never conceded such a thing and in fact stated the opposite. Con writes, "If one were to ask Matthew if God could create a rock with a weight that is not a weight... Matthew wold dismiss him as insane." However, once more we see manipulation of what this argument entails. No one is asking God to create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. That is a ridiculous and asinine argument that I have never mentioned. Once more, the paradox calls for God to create a rock with a weight that is too heavy for Him to list... not create a rock with no weight. Please do not let Con manipulate the terms, definitions and conditions of this debate so as to appear to make a valid point when he does not. In conclusion, I reject the idea that all power cannot include powers that don't exist, for by his own standards God is said to be able to CREATE and carry out ANY and every power. So, even if such a thing did not exist, God could create it and accomplish it anyway. That is obviously illogical which is what this paradox proves, thereby disproving God's omnipotence thus God himself. == Arguments == Con writes, "My opponent claims that if there is something that God cannot do, then He is not omnipotent. However, if this "thing" does not exist, period, then all power does not include such a power." Obviously if you read the preceding paragraphs, you'll see how I completely dismantled this notion. Con continues, "Because God shows mercy in one situation, but not in another, He contradicts His own nature. However, God is not the one changing, but the situation. Obviously, God has some standards as to whether or not people should receive mercy or be punished, depending on the action." LoL that entire statement contradicts itself. First of all, if God shows mercy in one situation but not in another, then right there you are admitting that he can be unmerciful. Now since God's nature is merciful, then regardless of His reasoning it is still possible for him to act unmercifully upon His will. Therefore, while He will do whatever He wants, He can still be unmerciful (i.e. contrary to his all-good, merciful nature) thereby my point stands. Con's third point states, "My opponent claims that a rock with weight beyond incomprehension (an impossibility) cannot exist because God can't create it." Once again, this is a manipulation of everything I've said. What I said was that it is impossible for God to create a rock He cannot lift... the paradox speaks for itself in addressing the logical impossibility. Nowhere did I ever say anything about "comprehension." So when Con continues, "However, a rock with weight beyond incomprehension cannot exist because no weight is beyond incomprehension. Therefore, God can't create it, because it can't exist" we see how his point is not only irrelevant but completely non-sensical. I think he meant to use the word 'comprehension' instead of 'incomprehension' which just makes his entirely flawed statement even harder to grasp. For instance, he states that a rock with a weight beyond comprehension is an impossibility... but it's only an impossibility if God can't or won't create it! There are plenty of measurements beyond human comprehension (such as infinity). But again, the whole paradox itself is about whether or not God can *create this rock to begin with* so to say that it's impossible is just proving the paradox right. Since Con seems adamant to repeat the same circular argument over and over again, let's analyze it further. "One question we need to clarify is, how heavy would a rock be so that God would be unable to lift it?" Again - that's exactly the pickle that paradox itself establishes!!! Con is not offering any argument whatsoever except verifying the impossibility of God's omnipotence. He continues, "Well, given that God can lift anything, regardless of its weight, the rock would have to have a weight that isn't a weight. This is, of course, just plain impossible." Okay, any rock that God creates will have a weight. This is true. However the point isn't that the rock God creates will have no weight (this is some made up thing that Con came up with which is just not relevant) but rather it's an impossibility for God to be able to both lift anything and not be able to life anything at the same time! This draws very heavily upon the law of non-contradiction... however, in recalling that Con does not understand the nature of self-evident logic principles, perhaps that is where the problem lies. == Conclusion == The law of the excluded middle states how something has to be either A or not A. In other words, God can either lift the rock or not lift the rock. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time; in other words if God can lift the rock, then He cannot NOT lift the rock. This is what the paradox itself explains. Once you acknowledge this, you see how God's omnipotence is impossible. Also, unfortunately for my opponent, I already DID explain in the last round how God MUST adhere to the laws of logic so therefore my argument in that regard stands. God's nature calls for logic, but the paradox explains this logical impossibility. Vote PRO. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...