The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

== Definitions == My definition of omnipotent is correct whether it applies to God or not. The word literally means all-powerful. So now the question becomes whether or not God is omnipotent in the sense that he is ALL-powerful. According to Con, we should not accept that God is ALL powerful (that his power is unlimited, unbound and infinite) as the definition asserts. He provides quotes from the Bible which list things that God cannot do, such as telling a lie or changing. However, since I have pointed out that the Bible specifically states that with God ALL things are possible, then we have absolutely no reason accept Con's terms over my own. All he has succeeded at doing is presenting contradicting arguments in the Bible. You'll notice that Con's terminology regarding omnipotence - that a deity is able to do only things that is in accord with its own NATURE - is not what is presented the Bible. Instead, it is merely an interpretation offered by St. Thomas Aquinas. As with most Christian arguments, we can see that the definition and terms have merely been manipulated so as to appear to uphold Christian doctrine. Con believes that his definition is more "appropriate," but that's only because it is the only way in which his argument could work. However what's *appropriate* is using the proper definition of the word; not manipulating the word into an alternative interpretation. The definition of omnipotent is clear not only in the dictionary but in the nature of the word itself; the prefix omni means all and potent is 'powerful.' If you accept that God is not ALL-powerful (and instead limited to His nature) than you accept that He is *not* OMNIpotent. However, in the last round Con agreed that God IS omnipotent. His "interpretation" is just that - an interpretation - but not the reality of the definition. Debate over. == Arguments == All I have to do is give a reason not to accept Con's interpretation. If I can prove that God can indeed act against His nature, then I have proven that Con's definition is not even applicable since God can in fact violate His own nature. Now first of all, if there is something that God cannot do, HE IS NOT OMNIPOTENT! Second, the Bible illustrates my point: Deuteronomy 4:31 states, "For the Lord your God is a merciful God; he will not... destroy you." Though Leviticus paints a different picture of God: "I will appoint over you sudden terror, consumption, and fever that wastes the eyes... I will bring more plagues upon you... I will let loose the wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children... You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. And I will... cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols" -- Leviticus 26:14-30 Well whattaya know. It seems like the same, unchanging God can act unmercifully which is a direct contradiction to his omnibenevolent nature. And that's not even taking into account the plethora of other Bible verses which depict non-good things implemented by an "all-good" God. So it would appear as if God can in fact act contrary to his nature, thus making Con's argument useless even further. But why stop there? Con posits that God cannot lift a rock that is too heavy for him because there is "no such thing" as a rock that God cannot lift. However, this an entirely circular argument. No such rock exists simply because God hasn't (or can't) create it. This is the entire argument that the paradox itself presents! The point here isn't whether or not a rock exists that God cannot lift, but whether or not God can CREATE such a rock that He can not lift. "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth" says Mt 28:18. So why cannot an all-powerful God create such a rock? The answer that it is a contradiction is not applicable (1) because an UNBOUND God is not bound by the laws of logic; (2) if logic applies to God, then logic must apply to God across the board. In other words, logic tells us that it is impossible to be resurrected from the dead. However, God defies that logic. Thus God defies logic. And finally, if the Bible is truthful even with all of its contradictions (which we have agreed to assume for the sake of debate), then why is this contradiction any different? Maybe a pseudo-syllogism will help my case... 1. The definition of omnipotent is infinite power 2. Infinite power means unbound power 3. By definition, an omnipotent being is one with unbound power 4. One whose power is unbound is not bound by the laws of logic 5. The Bible declares God omnipotent (Revelation 19:6) "...the Lord God omnipotent reigneth" Thus Con's argument that God cannot create a rock He cannot lift because it is illogical is not sufficient enough to support his position. And once again, the Bible specifically states that the things which are impossible (i.e. against logic) ARE POSSIBLE with God (i.e. He can go against logic). == More Stuff == A human being walking on water in its purest form (i.e. without a device) is an impossibility. To say that it is "merely a biological and physical impossibility" is exactly what makes it a logical impossibility in the first place. For Con to even make such a statement is indicative of his blatantly limited knowledge on the subject of logic. Regarding us being able to "fly," nobody said that it was logically impossible for an engine (and other devices combined) to make something fly -- or move on water, such as a boat -- so this is actually entirely irrelevant. == Conclusion, Part 1 == The statement, "You can't expect God to create a rock of a weight that isn't even a weight" does not make any sense at all. Let's acknowledge that God can lift something of any weight (Con agrees). If God created a rock, it would have weight. Let's use another pseudo-syllogism to illustrate this... 1. God is omnipotent 2. An omnipotent God by definition is an all-powerful God 3. An all-powerful God can create a rock 4. Rocks have weight 5. The rock that God creates will have a specific weight 6. An all-powerful God can lift any rock of any weight 7. If God can lift any rock, there is no rock he cannot lift 8. If there is a rock that God cannot lift, God is not omnipotent 9. If God can lift any (every) rock, he cannot create a cock He cannot lift 10. If God cannot create a rock he cannot lift, He is not omnipotent Again - bear with me, as that's merely a pseudo-syllogism (hardly perfect!) just meant to clarify and organize the argument lol. The point is that this paradox illustrates how God cannot be omnipotent using logic. == Conclusion, Part 2 == Con writes, "Now, there is also the possibility that logic does not apply to God, and God can create a rock which He cannot lift, yet lift it anyway." I don't have enough character space to completely dismantle this here; however, if Con maintains this position then I will dismantle it in the next round (why a logical nature has to apply to God). In short: since God has a nature to adhere to (benevolence) then he can not do all things. God's all goodness shows that he can not do evil - we can see this from mongeese's "God does not lie" example - thus showing that he behaves logically or else he would not be all good and would be able to lie. The point of the stone paradox is to show that his omnipotence is illogical. All goodness already does the trick of showing that god behaves logically or his nature could not be defined as "all good" in the bible. The bible would essentially say "God's morality can not be defined" but it does define it - and it says it is all good. So, we know that logic must apply to God, but the paradox explains how God cannot defy logic even though He should be able to since He's God. In other words, the paradox illustrates how the concept of God's omnipotence is illogical, and if the Christian God HAS to be omnipotent, then this paradox illustrates how that God can be disproved.