The Omnipotence Paradox is Self-Refuting

Introduction You will remember in my second round that I said my refutation cannot be defeated by virtue of its existing outside of all principles of logic. It seemed that CON had at least a working grasp of this point as he seemed to summarize the corpus of my argument in a relatively succinct and correct manner. How he was led so quickly astray in his immediate responses thereafter is somewhat of a mystery to me. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that it was because of some wanting clarity in my bygone round. What's the Problem? In this section my opponent gives us this confused response: In my opponent's logic, God tries to create an unliftable stone, but even when he thinks he has succeeded, he defies all logic and lifts the stone anyway. In other words, God fails to create a stone he truly cannot lift. But this quandary is so far off base from what I asserted that I am baffled he could make it. A God who can, by definition, do anything that can be phrased as an action, can truly create a stone that he cannot lift. The stone will REMAIN a stone that he truly cannot lift, however, the phrase God can lift a stone that he truly cannot lift-- though totally illogical and self-contradictory-- remains perfectly within his power to do so by virtue of his existing outside of logical principles. In other words, my opponent does not understand the true profundity of this argument as he continues to grab and cling to principles of logic that have no bearing on God's actions. Since the omnipotence paradox assumes maximal omnipotence in order to phrase its dilemma, it fails even if all its premises are true. What does the omnipotence paradox set out to do? You'll remember in my round 1 that I stated the omnipotence paradox seeks to show God cannot exist because omnipotence is logically impossible. But since the paradox itself assumes a God that can do logically impossible things, it is not enough to show that omnipotence is beyond God's power to do - even if it is logically impossible! So even if we grant all the premises inherent in the omnipotence paradox it fails by virtue of defining God as a being with maximal omnipotence. In essence, if God can do the logically impossible, how in the world is showing that omnipotence is logically impossible of any force? Here is another portion of my opponent's last round: - can God create a stone so big even he cannot lift it? If the premise of this argument is that God can defy logic, then to be unliftable by God the stone need be unable to be lifted even if logic is defied. The answer to this problem, according to my opponent's logic, is necessarily no, because in step 3 we read that God is able to lift the stone by defying logic. He has anticipated an answer of mine that is simply not true. My answer to the problem would necessarily be "yes." The moment logic is defied, there is nothing at all that is contradictory! Therefore there is nothing at all wrong with the phrase God can lift a rock that is absolutely, positively impossible for him to lift. In fact, there is nothing contradictory with the stone remaining too heavy for God to lift even while he lifts it. But I thought logic was irrelevant!? This section is as egregiously confused as the previous, and I hope my added clarity will prevent any future mishaps. My opponent near the end this portion gives us this tidbit: It does not follow that an illogical God makes all illogical arguments concerning him logical. Let's think together. What DOES follow from a God that is not bound by any logic whatsoever? It seems only fair to say that all arguments against God that rely upon any form of logic are without merit. Let's phrase this syllogistically: P1. God is not bound by any principles of logic per maximal omnipotence. P2. Arguments that seek to disprove God via principles of logic fail (see P1). P3. The omnipotence paradox seek to disprove an omnipotent God via principles of logic. C: The omnipotence paradox fails (per P2 and P3). Questions for my Opponent The following questions may aid in the elimination of future misunderstandings. 1. Do you understand what maximal omnipotence is? 2. If God has maximal omnipotence, why is it that he cannot create a stone that he truly cannot lift? 3. Why is it that a stone cannot remain a stone that God truly cannot lift while God simultaneously may lift it at his leisure? Is it because this may violate certain logical principles? 4. How does the absurdity of "God can do what God can't" matter at all if maximal omnipotence is assumed? 5. If all the premises of the Omnipotence Paradox are true, what does it prove and is this enough? 6. If logic is defied, does an answer to any given quandary still need to be "yes" or "no?" Conclusion I am hoping we will have made more progress in these latter rounds. InquireTruth