The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God[2]

My opponent is flying to America tonight so if he does happen to forfeit I ask the voters to not judge the debate based on the forfeit but all the arguments that have been presented. Also, just to put out a disclaimer, my personal belief in God does not at all match the concept agreed upon in this debate. Despite pro's claims that I have not been directly responding to his points I don't find his arguments particularly adequate in response to my contentions. I would also note my opponents furthered inconsistencies in this round. Now, I would like to remind the viewers that it has always been agreed upon that God can do anything. Therefore if my opponent says God can't do something his objections are irrelevant. It is a little difficult to infer exactly what my opponent is arguing but he throws around allot of talk about how God cannot change definitions. However that is saying God cannot do something. As we've already agreed, God can perform any act thus he can perform the act of changing definitions. Logic also directly ties into definitions thus pro can't treat them as two entirely different things when really they are of the same category. Also even if pro does make a perfectly valid argument that definitions can't be changed, all God would need to do is shift logic so that definitions can indeed be changed. Or God could shift logic so that definitions would not need to even be changed. Thus either way, pros objections are refuted. If God can shift logic it follows that he can shift it in such a way so that the changing of definitions becomes irrelevant. Pro claims that no stones could be defined as unliftable since God would have the power to lift any stone, but as I have said from the beginning God could just change logic so that the coherency of an unliftable stone remained. Moreover my opponent assumes that the definition of unliftable or whatever would have to be changed for God to defy logic. He acts like this is self-evident and has not actually defended his assertion. Why assume that God could not act in such a way so as that the concepts retained their exact definitions? I would also like to ask pro, what is the definition of unliftable? And why exactly are God's logic defying abilities so irrelevant? If God can shift logic surely he can in some way make it so that the definition objection is completely irrelevant. It has been established that any time we ask the question, can God do __________, the answer is always yes. Thus if we ask the question, can God create a stone so heavy he can't lift it while still not committing any act contrary to his omnipotent character, the answer always has to be yes. I already stated this last round and my opponent has failed to respond to it. I will present the basic argument in a syllogism. I ask my opponent to this time respond. P.1 God either can or cannot create a stone so heavy he can't lift it while still not committing any act contrary to his omnipotent character. P.2 If God can't than that that is inconsistent with the definition of omnipotence. C1: Therefore God can. C2: Therefore the paradox of the stone has been refuted. I request that pro answer premise 1. It indicates the true dichotomy that God either can or cannot perform an act. Thus pro must either answer yes he can or no he can't. Either answer that pro gives would affirm my case. If he answers yes than he is conceding that the paradox of the stone fails, for it states that if God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it than God is not omnipotent. But answering yes would say such an action does not alleviate his omnipotence. If he answers no than he is going against the already agreed upon concept of omnipotence that God can do anything. "I simply ask him further if God could still exercise his logic-defying abilities if he had never existed" I don't find how this is relevant. A being cannot do something if he does not exist. We are assuming this type of God does exist. Therefore hypothetically God could perform any action. And no I am not in any way insinuating that God couldn't do something. Pro statement is assuming the non-existence of God, thus essentially a non-omnipotent state. An omnipotent God could do anything if he exists. If he doesn't exist than of course he could not do anything, because obviously non-existent things can't act, and things that don't exist cannot even possess the state of omnipotence. Re-cap Pro bases his argument off the premise that God can't change definitions. This however obviously asserts that God cannot do something when it has been agreed that God can do everything. Moreover pro very casually tosses aside the God changing logic argument. There is not a single objection my opponent can raise in which God could not just shift logic in such a way so as those objections are irrelevant.