The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

== Definitions == My opponent claims that "omnipotent" must mean "all-powerful," despite Dictionary.com's definitions of "very great power." Additionally, going under the premise that we are assuming God to be all-powerful, that only means that he has all powers. However, 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. Therefore, it is not included in all powers, as it does not exist, so an all-powerful deity does not need to have such a power. For example, if a man is said to have collected all watches, does this mean that he has even collected watches that cannot exist? Does this mean that he has collected a watch that rings every hour, yet is silent every hour? No, because such an idea is preposterous. My opponent claims that the interpretation offered by Aquinas is false. However, if anybody were to ask Matthew in the past whether or not "All things are possible with God" was intended to include sinning, he would answer negatively. In such a case, the inability to contradict His own nature was obviously implied. As my opponent has already conceded that even definitions can imply things not mentioned, this is definitely acceptable. Additionally, if one were to ask Matthew if God could create a rock with a weight that is not a weight, but instead of a weight heavier than what even God could lift, Matthew would state that there is no weight heavier than what God could lift, and dismiss him as insane. To conclude this point, Aquinas' interpretation was clearly implied, and even with all power, all power cannot include powers that don't exist. == Arguments == 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. Secondly, my opponent claims that 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. My opponent claims that a rock with weight beyond incomprehension (an impossibility) cannot exist because God can't create it. 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. One question we need to clarify is, how heavy would a rock be so that God would be unable to lift it? 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. Therefore, such a rock cannot exist, period. God clearly stated that He has all power. However, all power does not include powers that don't exist, because there is no such power as the power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight. He clearly states that His power comes from heaven and earth; therefore, any power not found in heaven and in earth would not be found in God. All power is given unto Him in heaven and in earth; He has all powers that exist. The power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight does not exist, period. My opponent claims that God is not bound by logic. However, if this is the case, then it would explain why God would have powers that cannot exist. Now, having all power is not the same as having unbound power, so my opponent would have to prove "omnipotent" to mean having unbound power, rather than all power. My opponent also claims that resurrection is logically impossible. In that case, a syllogism would be required to show how the dead cannot become alive. Is this logic, or is this just observation? Why should we assume that when the living die, it is logically impossible for their body to be returned to a state that it was in before it died, that it has already been proven to be able to have. Therefore, it is not logically impossible to be resurrected, but rather biologically impossible, given our mortal understanding of biology. Obviously, God knows more about biology, and could easily manipulate nature to return a body to its previous state of life, and then grant the original life again. My opponent now has a pseudo-syllogism. However, it commits the equivocation fallacy in that the definition of "omnipotent" could be different in Step 3 and Step 5. However, she then says that God can therefore do the logically impossible. However, this is hardly a proof against God, even if the fallacy were to be ignored, for it must also be logically proven that the logically impossible cannot exist, but how can one prove that something not bound by logic would follow the logic used to determine existence? == More Stuff == We only think of walking on water as a logical impossibility. However, we don't know exactly how God granted the ability to walk on water. He could have concentrated salt into the water below Peter's feet, for all we know. Or God could have just used His supernatural ability to create a force repelling Peter's back, front, and sides from the water, forcing him to stay upright. == Conclusion Analysis, Part 1 == The syllogism first fails at 8, which assumes a rock that God cannot lift. However, God can lift any rock, so this step is irrelevant. The syllogism then makes a more complicated failure at 10, which should actually be broken up into multiple parts, as it cannot follow from the previous nine steps in a single step: 10. An all-powerful God can create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. (Assumption, also contradicts 4) 11. An all-powerful God can lift a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. (Further assumption) Dichotomy A: God is assumed to be unable to lift a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. 12a. God is not all-powerful. Dichotomy B: God is assumed to be able to lift a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. 12b. God cannot create a rock that He cannot lift. 13b. God is not all-powerful. This entire syllogism rests on the idea that an all-powerful God can great a rock with a weight that isn't a weight, step 10. However, even an all-powerful God cannot create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight, because there is no power to create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. Can any being have such a power, ever? Then why consider such a power to even exist, except to make the concept of omnipotence semantically twisted? Therefore, the syllogism fails to establish God to be unable to be omnipotent. == Conclusion Analysis, Part 2 == My opponent claims that God must behave logically, or else he would be able to lie. However, if God has the power to defy some logic, this does not necessarily mean that he defies all logic. He naturally has the power to choose not to defy some important aspects of logic. Additionally, my opponent promises to clarify this in the next round, but that would be a bit too late, as the next round is the last round. == Conclusion, Ultimately == My opponent's entire case relies on the idea that all power includes powers that cannot exist. However, I have already shown how any real usage of "all" would not include things that cannot exist. God stated Himself that His powers are those in heaven and in earth; the power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight is not in heaven or on earth, because it doesn't exist. In conclusion, God can be all-powerful without having the nonexistent power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. Lwerd, thanks for this debate.