The paradox of the stone is a valid refutation of God.

Thank you, vmpire321, for posting your final argument. 1. Omnipotence While the Christian God is fairly representative, he is not proven, nor are all of his attributes, especially the unlimited omnipotence that my opponent claims, present in the central deities of all major religions. Therefore, my opponent cannot assume that God must have every attribute mentioned in the Bible. My opponent points out that the Christian God wishes for worship. This is true, but he wishes not for forced worship, but voluntary worship, and thus takes steps to bring that about instead of forcing them out of people. He wishes not to use his omnipotence for such a task, and there is no requirement of omnipotence against that. She again points to a quote from Jesus, but as I already explained last round, sentence have implied parts. "All things" was not necessarily meant to include such inconceivabilities as a rock that God cannot lift, due to the inherent contradiction. My opponent did not respond to this argument in any capacity, thus dropping it and conceding one of her most vital points. She then instead quotes a definition of omnipotence from Wikipedia, but conveniently fails to mention that it is actually one of five offered definitions [1], and even Wikipedia acknowledges that there are more accepted definitions. She makes one final attempt to claim that "omnipotence means unlimited power," but again, there are other definitions, and even that definition is open to ambiguity (does having the power to destroy absolutely anything, including oneself, qualify as unlimited?). To conclude this point, my opponent has not proven in any capacity that omnipotence requires the ability to break logic, given that God is not proven to be omnipotent, and the definition of omnipotence is too variable to assume the need to defy logic. 2. Application of Logic to God My opponent seems to be confused by my agnostic approach. If it is indeed possible for a deity to defy logic, then the omnipotence paradox fails outright, applying logic where it cannot be applied. If it is not possible, then to assume that a deity must be able to defy logic to claim the status of omnipotence would be ridiculous and irrational, and would eliminate any possible use of the term where many applications are available. I have absolutely no idea what she means by "the argument itself," as numerous arguments regarding logic have been made in this debate, and none of them at all fit her description. 3. Relevance of Omnipotence My opponent attempts to explain away her lack of scientific evidence by pointing out that my verses rely on just as much faith as those that she cited. However, she forgets that she is arguing that a particular paradox proves that a being of a rather vague description (that does not necessitate omnipotence) absolutely cannot exist, and therefore she must have the burden of proof. I only provided verses as a counter. Had my opponent produced any evidence validating the Bible as an authoritative source in this debate, then my verses would have to be accepted along with her own to clarify the Bible's true intent. She claims that our verses to not contradict, but her verses claim that God can do anything while my verses list some limitations, clearly showing that the issue is much more complicated than she would like, with far too many factors for the omnipotence paradox to properly apply. However, in the absence of such evidence, all discussion relying at any point on biblical evidence can be discarded completely. In conclusion, there isn't really much of a debate left. My opponent has not proven that God must be omnipotent, has not proven that such omnipotence must include the ability to defy logic, and has not proven that it is impossible to defy logic. Therefore, the omnipotence paradox is not at all validated, and the resolution cannot in any way be affirmed, and instead defaults to negation. Vote Con. Thank you, vmpire321, for this debate. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...