The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God[2]

The first and foremost point I would like to highlight this round is that pro has exhibited failure to refute the fact that God can overcome any paradox. For this reason alone the resolution has not been affirmed and can be viewed as negated. I would also like to remind pro that the burden of proof is on him to prove the resolution, therefore he might not want to spend all his time refuting me. I will quote what I think is the general summery of pros contention. "What he is trying to insinuate is that God defied all logic and lifted his unliftable stone, which essentially proves that God failed to create a stone he truly cannot lift" In other words, since God was able to lift the stone that means he failed to create a stone he couldn't lift. While pro accuses me of committing a fallacy, I can't help but notice pros fallacious and inconsistent reasoning. The statement clearly implies that God created a stone he couldn't lift. It does not matter that he could lift it. It was still an unliftable stone. My my, that sounds contradictory doesn't it? How could I possibly say God created an unliftable stone and at the same time assert he can lift it! ? Well that's easy. Here is where my opponents flawed reasoning comes in. He makes his argument based on the fact that current logic refutes it. However it has already been established, and essentialy agreed upon by pro, that current logic is irrelevant because God can shift logic according to his will. Thus God could shift logic such so that he could create a stone so heavy he can't lift it and still be able to lift it. My opponent may argue all day long that the latter implies he failed to do the former, but absolute omnipotence, or maximal as my opponent calls it, would entail that God could achieve both outcomes. Essentially what my opponent argues is that in order for God to do x it is impossible for him to accomplish y. Or; if God is able to create an unliftable stone it is impossible for him to be able to lift it because than it wouldn't be unliftable. However by my opponents own affirmations, God should be able to accomplish both x and y even if our current logic code would posit it an impossibility. Therefore my opponent has not raised any sound objection to my case. From the essence of pros rebuttal I find it fitting to make a revised statement of premise three of my last round. If God can shift logic than God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it while still not committing any act contrary to omnipotent character. This is airtight and irrefutable. Pro has already stated that God can do anything even in regards to logic. If God can do anything than God can commit acts seemingly contrary to his nature while still not contradicting his character. Furthermore I would like to state I am not sure exactly what my opponents view on omnipotence is for he sometimes seems to imply that God cannot change logic, though I could just be misunderstanding him. This however is inconsistent with the definition he purposed which states that God "has absolutely no limitations, even in regards to logic. " My opponent also asks "Could God remove his own logic-defying powers and still be capable of defying logic? " The answer to that question is yes. God could remove his ability to defy logic while still retaining his ability to defy logic. That can be a coherent statement if God wishes it to be. All he has to do is change the logical code. Ironically we could name the fallacy my opponent is committing an appeal to logic. While logic usually is the essence of any debate, we have to realize that with a God that fits the purposed definition of omnipotence, logic would be entirely relative and therefore not objective. Perhaps a more fitting fallacy would be to call it an appeal to current logic. Current logic would not apply if God changed the logical code to something entirely different, such as that square circles existed. Therefore my opponent can only base his arguments off what current logic is when current logic would not exist if an omnipotent being did not want it to.