The Instigator
MisterWinkler
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
infam0us
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

The Paradox of the Stone

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,952 times Debate No: 11040
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

MisterWinkler

Con

The Paradox of the Stone [Can God make a stone so big even he can't lift it?] seems to disprove the possible existence of God at first glance, but after serious thought and research, it does not. I will, obviously, be arguing against the Paradox of the Stone, while my opponent will be attempting to use it to disprove God.
infam0us

Pro

Con is referring to the typical God of Christianity, correct? By definition in that religion, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and perfect. If you are referring to him as such, please say so in the next round. If not, then you should have worded your opening round better because this argument is currently about the God I defined.

This paradox poses an interesting question. God is omnipotent so he can do seemingly anything, even create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. I would like to clear up the weakness for a semantics argument in the original paradox and instead rephrase it to "create a stone impossible for him to lift." The biggest problem in this debate will be how you view omnipotence. The definition of it is "having unlimited power," [1]. Some view omnipotence above all, even placing it above the realms of logic. This would mean God could draw a square circle, make 2+2=5, etc. However, that would be paraconsistent logic and technically against his own law. Others view it within the realm of logic and reason, basically proposing that logic dictates the omnipotence of God. However, God cannot be under the control of logic because he predates the existence of it. As you can see, both views of omnipotence have a flaw.

If God can create a stone which is impossible for him to lift, then he is not omnipotent. If he cannot create that stone in the first place, then he is also not omnipotent. However, I'd first like to work my way around the figurative paradox and instead present its literal meaning. The paradox of the stone is literally saying, "God can remove his own omnipotence." This literal interpretation makes sense because it accomplishes what the original paradox does without being much different and is far less confusing. I will now present the paradox with the literal twist. If God is omnipotent, than he can remove his omnipotence (can lift the stone). If God cannot remove his omnipotence (can't life the stone), then he wasn't omnipotent to begin with.

God is perfect and the laws (in this debate, logic) which he supposedly created must be as well because we are incapable of violating them; not because we aren't omnipotent but because his laws are perfect. Note that I am not implying everything God creates is perfect. However, we live under the law of logic and have yet to be able to violate it so we must assume it is perfect. If God can defy his own law of logic and lift the stone which he cannot technically lift, then his law is not perfect. This goes deeper into the creation of logic. For example, since God created logic, does it apply to him? Well, everything applies to God because he is the creator of all. I will now go into my contentions.

C1: If God is able to lift the stone, then it isn't impossible to lift.

This works for the other violations of logic I provided earlier. If you draw a square circle, it isn't a circle. If 2+2=5, it's not 2+2. Of course, we are unable to do either because we aren't omnipotent. God is, however, meaning that he can. If God can lift the stone which he created to be impossible to lift, then the stone is not impossible to lift. Therefore, the same restrictions apply to him as us. We are not omnipotent because of our restrictions and he cannot be either. This would further assert that God could not create the stone to begin with and is therefore not omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then he does not exist by definition.

C2: God and logic.

As to our knowledge, we can't violate logic. Likewise, we know of no other being that can either. To clarify, this paradox is essentially the same thing as asking, "What happens when an unstoppable force (God) meets an immovable object (logic)?" God had to of created logic, otherwise it predates him and that would make God a figure of logic, not a deity which he is now by definition. Either way, God and logic contradict each other. Logic makes all things either possible or impossible. God made all things which should include logic. God's creations must be logical since he created us and we are logical. Therefore, God created logic before humans. If God creates this stone, it falls under his own law of logic. If God creates it to be impossible for him to lift, then he cannot lift it. This is regardless of his omnipotence because he bounded himself when creating logic. Therefore, God is not omnipotent and by definition does not exist.

I conclude that the paradox of the stone disproves God.
Debate Round No. 1
MisterWinkler

Con

MisterWinkler forfeited this round.
infam0us

Pro

Extend my arguments because con forfeited.
Debate Round No. 2
MisterWinkler

Con

MisterWinkler forfeited this round.
infam0us

Pro

Con has made no arguments. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
Easy..
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
gee, i'll be ticked if con doesn't respond.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
i'll admit, i'm not the most well read in this subject but i feel competent enough to face my opponent. i think it's easier to show this disproves god rather than doesn't.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I don't know, PRO's arguments seemed to be dancing circles around my head. There are numerous loopholes that CON can expose, should he be competent enough.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Pro,
Very nice. I had to read it several times, but well done at this point. Good clarifications.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
oh wow, i'm dumb. i should have said, "thanks for creating this debate, CON." lol. and ew, triple comment ftl.
Posted by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
alright, that took about an hour to come up with. thanks for creating this debate pro. now bring it on! ;)
Posted by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
Whoa whoa whoa timeout. Jesus claimed we are all Gods??!! I must admit I was never told that in Sunday school class. Care to quote Jesus on that?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy. He did not claim to be the "one true God" like the Christian Jesus. In fact, the real Jesus is actually misunderstood to have claimed to be the only God, when really he claimed that we are all Gods.

According to a Buddhist website:

"It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."... In Buddhism there is not, as in most other religions, an Almighty God to be obeyed and feared. The Buddha does not believe in a cosmic potentate, omniscient and omnipresent. In Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. A Buddhist is, therefore, not subservient to any higher supernatural power which controls his destinies and which arbitrarily rewards and punishes. Since Buddhists do not believe in revelations of a divine being Buddhism does not claim the monopoly of truth and does not condemn any other religion. But Buddhism recognizes the infinite latent possibilities of man and teaches that man can gain deliverance from suffering by his own efforts independent of divine help or mediating priests."
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 7 years ago
Sky_ace25
MisterWinklerinfam0usTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by DylanFromSC 7 years ago
DylanFromSC
MisterWinklerinfam0usTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
MisterWinklerinfam0usTied
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:07