The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

== Introduction == Hello everyone and welcome to yet another debate set to revolve around definitions and semantics :D I'd like to be clear on my intentions regarding this debate, so as to avoid confrontation with vehement theists and people who may think that this argument is not one my strongest, etc. I noticed that Mongeese instigated this challenge, and in addition to shifting the burden of poof off of the instigator, created an argument revolving around the definition of a word [omnipotence] though he failed to define that word in the way he intended to use it in the first round, just as he has done in this debate. Now according to his own standards, if a definition is not presented by the instigator in the first round, then undoubtedly it's up for discussion and/or interpretation. That is the position that will most likely be relevant to this debate. Also, I'd like to clarify that I haven't read any points put forth by Mongeese's other opponent in a similar debate, so I can assure you that all arguments in this debate are mine and mine alone. So without further adieu... == The Paradox == The Paradox of the Stone is quite simple. Con has suggested that I explain in my own words how the paradox disproves the existence of God, though this is unnecessary because the paradox speaks for itself: Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it? If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with. I'm not sure it could be more straight-forward than that, so I'll leave it at that for now... == Relevance == Of course, this paradox is only applicable to the resolution if you accept that the Christian God MUST be omnipotent as is traditionally upheld, and - according to Con's other debate on the matter - he agrees. In addition, we should obviously accept that a Christian Bible is accurate and true in determining the attributes and qualities associated with the Christian God. This to me seems pretty obvious, but with this opponent, you never know ;D == Definitions == So if God must be omnipotent, what does the word actually mean? This, of course, is going to be the focal point of the debate I'm sure. Dictionary.com presents exactly 2 definitions: 1) Almighty or infinite in power, as God. 2) Having very great or unlimited authority or power Just to be clear, I decided to look up the word "infinite" too which is listed as unbound or unlimited. So in other words, the word omnipotent means unbound, unlimited and infinite power. Unbound, of course, means free or not attached according to the same dictionary. Additionally, I took the liberty of looking up some other words which I presume will be relevant to the debate, such as "all"which is defined as any and every. == Argument == The paradox in itself is the argument, or at the very least a good starting point for the debate. If as the instigator Con believes that it is not sufficient in disproving God's omnipotence, he must explain why this is so and make his case. Now undoubtedly he will try to manipulate the definition of omnipotent; however, we have absolutely no reason to accept his definition over the ones that I have presented and that are found explicitly and independently at Dictionary.com. If and when he tries to argue that his definition should prevail, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. For now, I'll explain why my definition is sufficient. While the word "omnipotent" is not actually found anywhere in the Bible, the Bible does suggest that God is in fact all-powerful. Indeed the Bible says, "All things are possible with God" in Matthew 19:26. Now since "all" is defined as any and every, then it could be assumed that the verse actually says that any and everything is possible with God. Of course anything and everything is not limited to "within the laws of logic." If that were the case, then the proper Bible verse would read, "All things that are logically possible are possible with God." However that is not the case at all. In fact, the verse exists specifically to point out that God is above man, and though man cannot do certain things, God CAN do those things (and any or everything) specifically because he is God and above man. Indeed Luke 18:27 says, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." I believe it is obvious that men are not omnipotent; we are bound by the laws of nature and logic. However, the Bible specifically says that all things that are impossible for man ARE, in fact, possible for God. Again, this is supported very plainly in the ideas that man, for instance, cannot be resurrected from the dead or walk on water - as that is logically impossible - but God (Jesus) can. So, if God can do all things, everything, anything and simultaneously be infinitely UNbound by the laws of logic, then ideally he (or she/it) would be able to both create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it, and also be able to life it at the same time. Of course, as the paradox explains, one or the other would have to be true: he can either create a rock so heavy that he couldn't life it, OR he actually could lift it. If he could do either or both of those things, then he's not omnipotent and the Christian God is disproved. So Con has to take one of two positions in this debate. He can either say that the laws of logic DO apply to God, in which case God wouldn't be God (and above ALL things) - therefore disproved. Or, he can say that the laws of logic do not apply to God - which according to his third round in the other debate, is not exactly the position that he wants to take (and rightfully so). And with that said, I'll send this debate back over to Con.