The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

My opponent makes an excellent point that the meaning of omnipotent has have different definitions and that these differences may cause the Paradox of the Stone to fail. However, his argument that the concept of omnipotent is limited to "a deity that is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature" is incorrect. "When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty' " as quoted from Genesis 17:1 and again in Genesis 35:11 "And God said to him, "I am God Almighty.' " God does this in Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty." In each of these bible verses and in many others, God introduces himself as God the Almighty. Now, as my opponent has set forth the definition and meaning of almighty as "includes having more power than any other thing." This means that God himself is proclaiming that he has unrivaled or at least much more power than anything other thing. When this is the case, it seems to me that a truly Almighty God would have little trouble with a simple rock. However, even if you do not believe this concept, my opponent's concept is flawed as well. As evidenced in Genesis, the first book of the bible, the Christian God is a God of Creation. The Paradox of the Stone asks nothing that would go against the nature of God. In fact, it only asks that he do as he often does and create a stone. He is not being asked to sin or perform an action, which he has not done before. Therefore, my opponent's concept of what God is holds little if any value to this debate. Since, this paradox does nothing to force God against his nature and being that God introduces and proclaims himself as being almighty. With that in mind, my opponent has already agreed that something that is almighty has more power than anything else including a rock. Therefore, if the Christian God does not have all the power he claims to have, he is not the God portrayed by the Bible and Christian Faith and thusly this version of God cannot exist. My opponent also mentioned that if we assume that things that are logically impossible might be possible, then God is not disproved. However, by following this point of view logic and reasoning become pointless. By throwing out logic, we allow any random idea to make since. For example, if we dismiss logic then a person could easily say that because he or she gets up every morning to greet the sun, that his or her greeting causes the sun to rise and without that person getting up every morning the sun would never rise. This statement, seems to me at least, to be utterly ridiculous, however without logic a person could not tell the difference. Furthermore, since, debate is based on this same logic, by throwing the logic out we defeat the purpose of debate. That seems to me to be just as pointless as this idea would make logic. Lastly my opponent stated in his second to last paragraph that there is yet another way to show that we absolutely cannot assume "omnipotent" to mean the ability to do the logically impossible. However, my opponent fails to state what this way or method of reasoning is. He only proceeds to say what the impacts of making this assumption would be and how they are beneficial towards his side of the case. Therefore, I would like my opponent to at least state what this alternative way is. Otherwise, my opponent is just saying that there is another way, and expect everyone to blindly agree with him