Pick Your Own Debate #2

I choose the third topic, namely: "The paradox of the stone disproves the existence of God. " As per my opponent's allocation of positions, I will take the negative on this motion, arguing that the so-called "paradox" does not disprove the existence of God. I accept my opponent's definitions of God and omnipotence in his first round. I however have one caveat to add my to acceptance of his definition of unlimited, which I will outline in my first point below. I have two points to make that support my case, which are as follows: === EXTRAPOLATION OF WHAT GOD'S OMNIPOTENCE ENTAILS === As my opponent's definition puts it, God is the "originator" of the universe - this means that he is outside of the universe, and created the laws that govern this universe. This must surely mean that, whatever is possible within one kind of reality, he is able to change the laws of reality itself. I also contend that definitions regarding what can happen within this universe must be restrained to within the current reality of this universe. After all, what may be possible in this universe may be impossible within another, and vice versa. Something that is limitless in this universe may be distinctly limited in another, and vice versa. So when we talk about someone or something having "unlimited" power, that must surely apply only to what that person/thing is able to do within the current reality of this universe. === APPLICATION OF THIS TO THE STONE QUESTION === The application of the previous section to the so-called paradox of the stone may now be apparent. An omnipotent God is one who is able both to choose which universe exists (and which rules of reality are true within that universe), and able to do whatever is possible within that universe. This supposition is perfectly consistent with the scenario outlined with the stone. Indeed, it is required by the fact of his omnipotence that he is able to use the laws of gravity such that he can create a stone that not even he can lift, for if he cannot do so then he is not omnipotent. But when he is then unable to lift that stone, that does not mean that he is not omnipotent - it simply means he is restrained by the laws of the universe that he himself created. His omnipotence means that he is able to change the laws of the universe such that he could lift the stone, if so he desired. He would only no longer be omnipotent, if he were unable to do so. This is, indeed, what makes us not omnipotent and separates God from us - we are bound by the rules of the reality in which we find ourselves, whilst God is in a position to manipulate and change those rules whichever way he so wishes. THIS is true omnipotence, and it is not undermined by the question of the stone. === CONCLUSION === Omnipotence entails that one is not only able to do whatever is possible in the universe, but also that one is able to change the rules by which the universe functions. God, understood as an omnipotent being, is able to do just that. Therefore, when in the situation that the question of the stone gives us, his omnipotence demands that he be able to create a stone in this universe that not even he can lift. However, his omnipotence also demands that he able to change the laws of this universe such that he would be able, if he so wanted, to lift it. Nowhere in this scenario is God's omnipotence challenged, meaning that it does not disprove the existence of God. I may as yet have reason to expand my arguments, or introduce new ones, as the debate continues, but for the reasons already mentioned I urge people to negate the motion. I await my opponent's response.