The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

My opponent started this argument, which is, whether or not the Paradox of the Stone disproves the Christian version of God. Being that I on the Pro side, this means that I must show The Paradox of the Stones only disproves the Christian version of God. Therefore, it becomes my opponent's burden to uphold the Christian God, no matter what. Furthermore, while my opponent has claimed the burden of evidence lies with the Pro, he should also be remember the Con will need some evidence to validate his claims. Therefore, he cannot just say what he would like about the Christian God and expect it to always work, especially if what my opponent claims contradicts how the Bible and Christian Faith portray God. My opponent's first point was that God cannot create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. According to my opponent it just cannot happen, never ever, its impossible and not an aspect of Almightiness. He does not give any reasons, reasoning, evidence, or proof otherwise of why this event cannot happen. According to him, it just can't, it's impossible. According to Matthew 19:26 "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible," again in Mark 10:27 "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God," and finally in Luke 1:37 & in 18:27 "For nothing is impossible with God." With this in mind, I found this first point very ironic and somewhat funny. Since, the God is able to do anything and yet my opponent is there saying that he simply cannot do something. My opponent, once again, gives no Biblical text or any other analysis of why God couldn't create this stone. My opponent just says that he can't. Now, as I stated before, I was under the impression that it was my opponent's burden to uphold the Christian God, not completely distort how the Bible represents him. . My opponent's next point was that God must have a logical nature and therefore creating the logically impossible is impossible. I find this argument also incredibly funny, since it appears that my opponent is arguing against God which he is supposed to be upholding in this round. He specifically writes "creating the logically impossible violate God's logical nature, and therefore cannot be done." A major part of the Christian Religion is for God to be able to do the logically impossible, however in the bible we just call these events by a different name. We call them miracles. The bible and Christian faith are full of these occurrences. Here are a couple specifically: 1. The Burning Bush-"The LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt." (Exodus 3:2-3) Now, logically a bush that is set on fire should burn until there is little left and yet here is an account of where a bush is set ablaze and is left unharmed. According to logic this should be impossible and therefore according my opponent God shouldn't be able to do it. 2. God opens the Mouth of Balaam's Donkey-"And the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29 And Balaam said unto the donkey, Because thou hast mocked me" (Number 22:28-29) I do not think that I have ever heard of a time when a donkey turned around and asked a person why he or she was hitting that animal. In fact, logic and reason say that such an even should be impossible. These are only a couple of the many events that are logically impossible and my opponent has said God couldn't do. Therefore, it seems to me that he is doing a much better job at saying why God shouldn't exist. Furthermore, my opponent proved earlier in the debate that the Christian God couldn't lie. ""With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27) This is a quotation directly from Jesus, who was God and his Word made human. Since we have determined that, God can't lie and God says that all things are possible for him, this would include creating a stone that even God couldn't lift, my opponent's argument fails My opponent's third point is that God must follow logic, but what if logic only exists in this dimension. There's no guarantee that logic is useless elsewhere. I find this argument to be extremely contradictory to my opponent's last agreement it is God's very nature to be logical. In his last argument, my opponent didn't say that God's nature changes in different dimensions, my opponent made it out to seem as if God's nature is always logical, and this obviously contradicts this point. On top of that, my opponent argument is based entirely upon a what if scenario. He expects us to believe that there another dimension because there is no guarantee that there isn't one. Unfortunately for my opponent, there is no guarantee that there is another dimension, where logic plays no role. Since my opponent didn't give any, reasonable proof, evidence, or method to show that there is this other dimension, or at least a very good possibility of its existence, I see no reason at all for this argument to be taken seriously. My opponent's last point is about definitions, and says we can't assume that God can do the logically impossible. He says this is because there is no evidence to support God doing the logically impossible and so we shouldn't look to my def. No, instead we should use clues provided by the Bible to realize what omnipotent means. He gives the example of how the Bible says that God cannot lie. Once again, I find it every ironic that my opponent would take such a stance, when he is supposed to be supporting and upholding the Christian God. As I quoted before from the Bible, God and Jesus say for God anything is possible, and as my opponent says God cannot lie, this means that God can do anything, which would include creating a rock that he cannot lift. This is in addition to all of the logical impossibilities that God preformed in the Bible. Along with the ones listed above there are bringing the dead back to life, parting the Red Sea, and causing mana (a type of bread) to fall from the sky on a daily basis. All of these logical impossibilities are listed in the Bible and are attributed to God, however, my opponent says that he couldn't have done any of these because according to the Bible the definition of God's Omnipotence should be something else. Conclusion As I stated, it's the Pros burden to try and disprove the Christian God, however after my opponent's last post I feel I spent a great deal more time defending God. My opponent's only viable arguments against the Paradox of the Stone is that God can't perform what is logically impossible because of his nature and the fact there is no reason to assume that God's Omnipotence would allow him to perform the logically impossible, and that creating a Stone this heavy would violate God's Almightiness. The first argument is absolutely flawed according to the Bible and the Christian Faith, since God's speciality is the logically impossible miracles he performs and the fact he said that nothing is impossible for him. The second argument is the very reason for this debate, either God can (or can't) create a stone so heavy that he couldn't lift it. If God can't create this stone, then God can't do anything as the Christian Faith claims, and thus this version of God would be disproved. Or God can create such a stone in which case he can't lift it and so still can't do anything like He claims. In either case the Christian version of God is unable to be upheld and since my opponent's last post seemed to be only discrediting or misrepresenting the Christian God, I can only see a Pro vote. Thanks, Mongeese for debate. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. :)