The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Paradox Of The Stone Is Self-Refuting

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 43767
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The Paradox of the Stone poses the following question:

"Can God create a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it?"

First round is acceptance.



Firstly happy new year!

Answer: NO

Before diverging into my argument i would like to firstly point out the answer to this question may highly depend on what someones view of what god actually is. Which God? My God or yours? Mine might be able to, yours may not.

My argument is a simple one, and will start by asking another question. Can Man build a stone so heavy, he can't even lift it? The answer is of course no. With time and technological improvements man has proven he can lift a man to the moon, no stone is too heavy. Surely if man can lift any stone, so can any God? For me this might be a question of time then, how long would it take for god to lift the heaviest of stones? Seconds? Days?

Why compare man to God in this manner? Seeing as there is zero evidence of any supernatural God, one can only presume the God to which you refer is a natural being, an 'idea', or man made. So if man can create God, man can surely end God, create a stone, lift a stone.

Ok, so perhaps a better way of asking this paradox is, can god create something even he can't undo? Then i would say yes. Man can build an atomic bomb, and leak nuclear waste into Earths oceans, the results being un-revocable, he can therefore no longer lift the stone... So to speak. But seeing as this is not the question... I will end on this, The God you MAY be referring to created the universe, matter and physics, to this 'being' weight, and the force of gravity simply do not exist, so again, no there is no such stone.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, thanks for accepting, but I had said that the 1st round was for acceptance. This leaves me in the awkward situation of having to ask that you refrain from posting any rebuttals or arguments in the 2nd round, since that would be unfair to me.

Although interesting, I will have to point out that all your arguments are irrelevant and hardly attack my position. If only you had let me post my argument first like I requested, you may have been better informed.

Anyways, on to my arguments.

The Paradox of the Stone is a rhetorical question posed as an attempt to prove that the concept of an omnipotent (all-powerful) God is illogical. However, it is self-refuting because both the affirmative and negative responses to the riddle reveal that the concept of an omnipotent God is logical!

If one answers no, than this means that God can't perform the logic defying task. However, a no implies that the definition of omnipotence excludes the power to defy logic, so it is already expected that God can't create this stone. God's omnipotence remains a logically sound concept.

If one answers yes, than this means that God can defy logic because that is what the task entails (being able to create a stone so heavy that an omnipotent being can't lift it). Since the definition of omnipotence used includes the power to defy logic, than God remains omnipotent, through defiance of logic, even though he can't lift the stone he made!

The Paradox of the Stone is self-refuting.

Thanks for this debate! Please do not use your turn to argue, as this would be unfair.




I'll respect your request not to reply to your argument.

Would just like to apologise, i'm new to the website and i was not aware of how the debate was to be structured. Thanks for the topic, feel free to add me.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
you should really increase the character limit. It would allow much better arguments to be made.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro's "yes" response fell a bit short, but hemade more cogent arguments more relevant to the topic, while Con talked more about "what is god" than the resolution. Thus, I vote Pro.