The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

I did not define "omnipotent" because "omnipotent" did not appear in the resolution, and therefore did not need to be defined. I agree that the definition of "omnipotent" is up for debate, as intended; otherwise, "omnipotent" would have been defined straight away, and there really wouldn't be any debate. A. The Paradox I would like to point out that this paradox is completely reliant upon my opponent's definition of "omnipotent," which shall be explained later. B. Relevance I agree that God is considered omnipotent. C. Definitions Here is where my opponent's argument slips. Now, we can clearly see that being "Almighty in power" or "having very great power" are both compatible with Dictionary. com's definition of "omnipotent. " Therefore, we cannot assume that God is meant to have unbound, unlimited, and infinite power. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that God does have slightly limited power. For example: "[I]t is impossible for God to lie. " (Hebrews 6:18) "'For I am the Lord, I do not change. '" (Malachi 3:6) Therefore, from context clues, we know that my opponent's proposed interpretation of "omnipotent" is incorrect. Instead, it would be much more appropriate to use a definition compatible with what the Bible says about God: "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie)" [1]. This is the most compatible definition of omnipotence available, and is therefore almost guaranteed to be the correct one. Why would God ever be described as omnipotent, yet unable to lie, unless this definition was intended? My opponent claims that because "all things are possible with God," God must be able to do things that are logically impossible. However, there is no such thing as a rock that God cannot lift. Therefore, such a rock is not a thing, and is therefore not part of "all things. " Additionally, I don't see why "that are logically possible" cannot be implied, as my opponent has claimed before that even definitions are allowed to imply things that are obvious. The same applies for the verse, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. " There is no such thing as a rock that God cannot lift, because there is no limit to the weight of a rock that God can lift. God can lift all rocks. You can't expect God to create a rock of a weight that isn't even a weight. My opponent claims that resurrection or walking on water are logical impossibilities; however, they are merely biological and physical impossibilities that are not supported by common ideas on the subjects of biology and physics. However, many things previously thought to be physically impossible (flying) are possible now. People will probably develop ways to walk on water. Now, there is also the possibility that logic does not apply to God, and God can create a rock which He cannot lift, yet lift it anyway. This possibility is compatible with even my opponent's definition of "omnipotent. " In conclusion, omnipotence need not include the ability to create a rock with a weight that can't even be a weight, as there is no such thing, and to expect any being to be able to do so is a strawman play at human semantics that cannot possibly apply to any real discussion. With that, I'll leave the debate to my opponent. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...