The Instigator
TheNextDaVinci
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Darkerknight
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Can an all powerful, unlimited God (Christian ) create a stone he can't lift?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheNextDaVinci
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 375 times Debate No: 87605
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

TheNextDaVinci

Con

If God can't create a stone he can't lift, then he is limited to not being able to create that stone, but if he can, then he is limited to lifting the stone.
Darkerknight

Pro

This is an argument that should not be allowed on this site. These types of arguments are known as paradoxes. There is no pro, nor con side. There is no right answer. Thoughts such as "When did time begin?" and "Where does space end?" are incomprehensible and therefore unanswerable.
Debate Round No. 1
TheNextDaVinci

Con

My opponent has not made any argument against mine, and has only expressed hate for the topic rather than debate it.

In doing this he has clearly stated that he does not have an answer towards my argument, and is almost agreeing that God is limited.

I rest my case, until he puts forward evidence that suggests other wise.
Debate Round No. 2
TheNextDaVinci

Con

With my opponent making no attempt to provide evidence against me, and there forth, agreeing with me in the process, i conclude my argument, and put it to rest.
Darkerknight

Pro

Darkerknight forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by V5RED 11 months ago
V5RED
Pro, it is not a paradox. The answer to the question, as worded, is no. The solution to the "paradox" is to realize that the problem lies in how the question is posed. What the god can do is create a stone of any size and lift a stone of any size. There is no such thing as a stone "so heavy" that an omnipotent being cannot lift it, that would be a logical contradiction. The idea of "so heavy" implies a limit to the being's strength which is unlimited. Omnipotence is the ability to perform any task. The tasks in the "paradox" are creating and lifting stones.
Posted by ssadi 11 months ago
ssadi
I am having a debate with the same resolution with @TheNextDaVinci here

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 11 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
The LOGIC behind the question is clear .... the poster HAS NO LOGIC, or he would not pose such a ridiculous question. He instigates without thought, apparently he asks questions the same way.

The flaw is that the person who posed the question is unsaved .... therefore ignorant of the facts of God. He is to be pitied, not encouraged. He stated he's feeling religious, and immediately shows complete absence of intelligence worthy of your attention. To even suggest that God exist to entertain the ignorant, is to blaspheme Gods Throne. The poster was to busy thinking up a preposterous question that He never stopped to consider WHY God WOULD do it! Does God exist to entertain the stupid or ignorant? If I say ..... if I had wheels would I be a wagon? What truth lies in such questions. These types of questions are for jesters, and clowns. No I leave the ignorant to themselves, and I suggest everyone else do the same. There a people debating with genuine questions that need answers, bypass the ignorant and the stupid, and seek those whose search for Gods existence in TRUTH!
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Pro seriously? Dont dodge the question! Just because it is known as a paradox to many, try to find the solution, thats the point of this site! Give your opinion\fact\idea and support it the best you can!
Posted by Darkerknight 11 months ago
Darkerknight
You don't have to be here if you did not get what you wanted. You are a grown man trashing someone just because they did not meet your standards. That is inconsiderate.
Posted by TheNextDaVinci 11 months ago
TheNextDaVinci
a very good solution is that people dont waste my time, because they want attention, or just like to piss people off, your an idiot, who doesn't respect this site or other people on it.
Posted by Darkerknight 11 months ago
Darkerknight
A very good solution is leaving the debate and finding a new one to occupy your time :)
Posted by TheNextDaVinci 11 months ago
TheNextDaVinci
Ya so allow him to do so, i know answers, good ones too, i love to hear others, NOT PEOPLE WASTING MY TIME BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH THE QUESTION AND ACCEPTING IT SO I CAN'T HAVE A DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Darkerknight 11 months ago
Darkerknight
Note that the question itself is stupid, so it's pretty unfair to bash one person. Also, what I am trying to say is that the question contradicts itself, and getting the instigator stumped is a pretty darn good tactic. The only way he can answer is to prove that either is possible.
Posted by TheNextDaVinci 11 months ago
TheNextDaVinci
yes of course! but this idiot accepted the debate, and just said it is a silly question. I WONDER IF HE REALIZES THAT HE CAN EXPRESS HIS VIEWS IN THE COMMENT SECTION NOT AS IN A DEBATE, WHEN YOUR NOT DEBATING!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Speaker 11 months ago
Mr.Speaker
TheNextDaVinciDarkerknightTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited; Con wins by default. Additionally, Con defended his/her position. Kudos to Con!
Vote Placed by SocialDemocrat 11 months ago
SocialDemocrat
TheNextDaVinciDarkerknightTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited and conceded that it was an impossible question in the first round.