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

Introduction:Thanks Pro for your arguments.I apologize for being hard to follow. I will try to improve my arguments and explain them better.Here are my rebuttals.Rebuttals:It looks like, after all, Pro was giving only one response to the paradox.He is using a variant of the logical omnipotence where omnipotence is defined as "being able to do the logically possible". His exact definition is "unlimited potential that accords with the laws of logic" which is pretty much the same. The "unlimited" potential is actually not necessary because it is not actually unlimited. It is limited by the "laws of logic".Pro claims that the question for the paradox is absurd because an omnipotent being should not be able to create something that the being cannot do because that is illogical. And an omnipotent being can only do logical things.Then he states that calling an unlimited being limited is an absurd notion itself.Pro then proposes a solution. God CAN do both things, but not a the same time, because it is not logical that he would be able to do both at the same time, like it is not logical that a square circle exists.But this IS NOT LOGICAL and doesn't solve the problem at all, because God is NEVER able to create such a rock.Why? Because from Pro's point of view, God is able to lift it ALWAYS, if he wants.The paradox is in the nature of both things. It is not illogical to ask a being to create a rock that he can't lift. It is a question that you and me can answer easily.The reason it gets difficult when talking about an omnipotent being is because the absurdity is on the "omnipotent" part. "con gave an example that a non omnipotent being can find rocks he can't lift. some how he is trying to say that omnipotence is illogical, but doesn't explain how."A non omnipotent being can find rocks he can't lift, like you and me. You and me can find rocks that we are not able to lift.Here I proved that the question is totally logical with a logical answer. Yes, I can find a rock too heavy I'm not able to lift.Then you add omnipotent to the mix and everything gets contradictory, hence the paradox. But why? The reason is "omnipotence is about infinities". It is going to get really bad when you talk about infinities. It is going to get contradictory.Omnipotence is illogical. Pro already said. It is impossible to create such rock and at the same time that rock no being able to be lifted by an omnipotent being. You are just describing the paradox.The reason I constantly mention that the question is not what is illogical about the paradox is because the question needs to be logical for a omnipotent being to be able to answer it. It is logical so the omnipotent being should be able to answer, but it can't, so omnipotence is illogical.I did explained in my last round. I hope it's easier to understand it now."yes, that bachelor example is not like the omnipotent issue. but, God is omnipotent, within the laws of logic. when i show things that are illogical, a rock that can't be lift, and a unstoppable force of God, i am merely pointing out that logically both cannot exist at the same time."No. Both question are similar enough. Can person A be married?Can a person (or being) create a rock so heavy he cannot lift/Both questions are easy to answer and are logical. They don't defy logic.What I really want Pro to understand is that she should not reference god's characteristics in the question. I showed what happens when you reference characteristics in the question:Can person A (a bachelor) be married?Implying he is a bachelor before making the question is wrong.God can't be omnipotent and omnipotent is not logically possible."that cartoon actually says it well. God can create the rock, then he can decide to lift it. there might be effective constraints on what God will do, but there's not on what he can do."The comic actually makes it really easy to understand.In the comic, the (only) rock that is there, is not "a rock that he is not able to lift" because he ends lifting it. So this can't be an answer to the paradox. God didn't create such a rock. He created a simple rock that he is able to lift at the end.If Pro continues arguing that the rock is in fact a rock that he is not able to lift, the it would not be logical, which would be against the definition of Pro."yes God is obeying the laws of logic. that's the way i described it, and began to define it. you even later seemed to acknowledge that that defintiion seemed optimal, as you made the definition yourself."This is a problem. The laws of logic are outside god. Then what's the explanation of those logics? Who "created" them?Thanks for the debate. Vote CON,Sources:1 http://dictionary.reference.com...