Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? the answer is yes...

Answers and rebuttals were proposed over the years, and here Pro is showing what it looks like 2 answers to me. I have to remind everyone that the burden of proof is on Pro because she is instigating and affirming the resolution. I only have to disprove her arguments to win. Rebuttals:It looks like Pro is giving to answer to the paradox. I will rebut both. Answer 1: "my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times, but he can't do both at the same time. and, that he can't do both at the same time doesn't disprove God as omnipotent. "The first one is a direct answer to the question. it tries to give an scenario where the answer is given but omnipotence is possible. Sadly, without a definition of omnipotence, this is difficult to address. If omnipotence is "being able to do anything", then this doesn't solve the problem because:"but he can't do both at the same time"would be against the definition. I will wait for Pro's definition on what he wants to defend. Answer 2:This is a rebuttal for the paradox. Here, Pro claims that the question is an absurd because:"no matter how we approach it, the unlimited is then limited. calling the unlimited, limited, for the above stated reasons, is an absurd notion itself. ""if the unlimited is truly unlimited, then it cannot limit itself. that would be illogical. ""but in the real world, the unlimited can be said to exist, if it follows the laws of logic. "This is a variation of "Omnipotence means being capable of doing anything logically possible" argument. There are a lot of problems with this answer. I'm going to give the best rebuttals to this rebuttal. Rebuttal 1:"Creating a heavy rock" is logically possible. If we ask the question "Would you be able to create a rock so heavy you can't lift? " to a non omnipotent being, we would not find any logical impossibility. Why? because the question is not illogical. Yes, I would be able to create a rock I'm not able to lift. Pro is misunderstanding the problem. The paradox is challenging logic, not because of the question being illogical, but because omnipotence is illogical. The paradox was created to challenge the possibility of omnipotence. We ask this question related to a being we want to know if it's omnipotent. I will give an example where this is clear. Married bachelor. Bachelor is defined as "an unmarried man. " [1]Asking "Is the bachelor married? " would not make sense, but the paradox is not like this. The paradox question is like this:1. We want to know if person A is a bachelor.2. Is person A married?3. If the answer is yes, then he is not a bachelor. If the answer is no, then he is a bachelor. Here, there is no paradox. So the paradox is not in the question, but in the characteristic of god called "omnipotence". The reason Pro is creating a paradox on his own to make the question invalid is because he is IMPLYING god is omnipotent. Rebuttal 2:God is obeying laws external to him/her/itIs god obeying the laws of logic? What is the explanation of those laws if it's not god? This are simple question that challenge the definition of omnipotence. A possible solution would be god being able to do the impossible. But that would be outside of the paradox intention and Pro's position. Pro's position is that god is still logical but the paradox isn't. This is false. This is not logically possible. Credits to "Chaospet" for the comic. [2]Final Notes:The paradox doesn't try to disprove god's existence. It just challenges the definition of omnipotence or the fact that omnipotence as it is commonly defined is not logically possible. Thank for the debate. Vote Con. Sources:1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...2. . http://chaospet.com...