The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
78 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
90 Points

The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 12/28/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,059 times Debate No: 10580
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (70)
Votes (35)

 

mongeese

Con

Full resolution: Because of the scenario introduced by the paradox of the stone, the God discussed in the Christian Bible (Yahweh) absolutely cannot exist in reality.

The paradox of the stone is outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org...

In the first round, my opponent will just accept this debate and establish the paradox of the stone, and explain in her own words how the omnipotence paradox disproves the Christian God.

In Rounds 2-4, we will debate over the legitimacy of the paradox of the stone.

theLwerd, good luck.

This debate could not be sent to theLwerd right now, so it goes here until she accepts the first one.
Danielle

Pro

== Introduction ==

Hello everyone and welcome to yet another debate set to revolve around definitions and semantics :D I'd like to be clear on my intentions regarding this debate, so as to avoid confrontation with vehement theists and people who may think that this argument is not one my strongest, etc. I noticed that Mongeese instigated this challenge, and in addition to shifting the burden of poof off of the instigator, created an argument revolving around the definition of a word [omnipotence] though he failed to define that word in the way he intended to use it in the first round, just as he has done in this debate. Now according to his own standards, if a definition is not presented by the instigator in the first round, then undoubtedly it's up for discussion and/or interpretation. That is the position that will most likely be relevant to this debate. Also, I'd like to clarify that I haven't read any points put forth by Mongeese's other opponent in a similar debate, so I can assure you that all arguments in this debate are mine and mine alone. So without further adieu...

== The Paradox ==

The Paradox of the Stone is quite simple. Con has suggested that I explain in my own words how the paradox disproves the existence of God, though this is unnecessary because the paradox speaks for itself: Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it? If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with. I'm not sure it could be more straight-forward than that, so I'll leave it at that for now...

== Relevance ==

Of course, this paradox is only applicable to the resolution if you accept that the Christian God MUST be omnipotent as is traditionally upheld, and - according to Con's other debate on the matter - he agrees. In addition, we should obviously accept that a Christian Bible is accurate and true in determining the attributes and qualities associated with the Christian God. This to me seems pretty obvious, but with this opponent, you never know ;D

== Definitions ==

So if God must be omnipotent, what does the word actually mean? This, of course, is going to be the focal point of the debate I'm sure. Dictionary.com presents exactly 2 definitions:

1) Almighty or infinite in power, as God.
2) Having very great or unlimited authority or power

Just to be clear, I decided to look up the word "infinite" too which is listed as unbound or unlimited. So in other words, the word omnipotent means unbound, unlimited and infinite power. Unbound, of course, means free or not attached according to the same dictionary. Additionally, I took the liberty of looking up some other words which I presume will be relevant to the debate, such as "all"which is defined as any and every.

== Argument ==

The paradox in itself is the argument, or at the very least a good starting point for the debate. If as the instigator Con believes that it is not sufficient in disproving God's omnipotence, he must explain why this is so and make his case. Now undoubtedly he will try to manipulate the definition of omnipotent; however, we have absolutely no reason to accept his definition over the ones that I have presented and that are found explicitly and independently at Dictionary.com. If and when he tries to argue that his definition should prevail, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

For now, I'll explain why my definition is sufficient. While the word "omnipotent" is not actually found anywhere in the Bible, the Bible does suggest that God is in fact all-powerful. Indeed the Bible says, "All things are possible with God" in Matthew 19:26. Now since "all" is defined as any and every, then it could be assumed that the verse actually says that any and everything is possible with God. Of course anything and everything is not limited to "within the laws of logic." If that were the case, then the proper Bible verse would read, "All things that are logically possible are possible with God." However that is not the case at all. In fact, the verse exists specifically to point out that God is above man, and though man cannot do certain things, God CAN do those things (and any or everything) specifically because he is God and above man. Indeed Luke 18:27 says, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

I believe it is obvious that men are not omnipotent; we are bound by the laws of nature and logic. However, the Bible specifically says that all things that are impossible for man ARE, in fact, possible for God. Again, this is supported very plainly in the ideas that man, for instance, cannot be resurrected from the dead or walk on water - as that is logically impossible - but God (Jesus) can. So, if God can do all things, everything, anything and simultaneously be infinitely UNbound by the laws of logic, then ideally he (or she/it) would be able to both create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it, and also be able to life it at the same time. Of course, as the paradox explains, one or the other would have to be true: he can either create a rock so heavy that he couldn't life it, OR he actually could lift it. If he could do either or both of those things, then he's not omnipotent and the Christian God is disproved.

So Con has to take one of two positions in this debate. He can either say that the laws of logic DO apply to God, in which case God wouldn't be God (and above ALL things) - therefore disproved. Or, he can say that the laws of logic do not apply to God - which according to his third round in the other debate, is not exactly the position that he wants to take (and rightfully so). And with that said, I'll send this debate back over to Con.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

Thank you, theLwerd, for accepting this debate.

I did not define "omnipotent" because "omnipotent" did not appear in the resolution, and therefore did not need to be defined. I agree that the definition of "omnipotent" is up for debate, as intended; otherwise, "omnipotent" would have been defined straight away, and there really wouldn't be any debate.

A. The Paradox

I would like to point out that this paradox is completely reliant upon my opponent's definition of "omnipotent," which shall be explained later.

B. Relevance

I agree that God is considered omnipotent.

C. Definitions

Here is where my opponent's argument slips. Now, we can clearly see that being "Almighty in power" or "having very great power" are both compatible with Dictionary.com's definition of "omnipotent." Therefore, we cannot assume that God is meant to have unbound, unlimited, and infinite power. In fact, the Bible explicitly states that God does have slightly limited power. For example:
"[I]t is impossible for God to lie." (Hebrews 6:18)
"'For I am the Lord, I do not change.'" (Malachi 3:6)
Therefore, from context clues, we know that my opponent's proposed interpretation of "omnipotent" is incorrect. Instead, it would be much more appropriate to use a definition compatible with what the Bible says about God: "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie)" [1].
This is the most compatible definition of omnipotence available, and is therefore almost guaranteed to be the correct one. Why would God ever be described as omnipotent, yet unable to lie, unless this definition was intended?

My opponent claims that because "all things are possible with God," God must be able to do things that are logically impossible. However, there is no such thing as a rock that God cannot lift. Therefore, such a rock is not a thing, and is therefore not part of "all things." Additionally, I don't see why "that are logically possible" cannot be implied, as my opponent has claimed before that even definitions are allowed to imply things that are obvious. The same applies for the verse, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." There is no such thing as a rock that God cannot lift, because there is no limit to the weight of a rock that God can lift. God can lift all rocks. You can't expect God to create a rock of a weight that isn't even a weight.

My opponent claims that resurrection or walking on water are logical impossibilities; however, they are merely biological and physical impossibilities that are not supported by common ideas on the subjects of biology and physics. However, many things previously thought to be physically impossible (flying) are possible now. People will probably develop ways to walk on water.

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. This possibility is compatible with even my opponent's definition of "omnipotent."

In conclusion, omnipotence need not include the ability to create a rock with a weight that can't even be a weight, as there is no such thing, and to expect any being to be able to do so is a strawman play at human semantics that cannot possibly apply to any real discussion.

With that, I'll leave the debate to my opponent.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Danielle

Pro

== 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.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

== Definitions ==

My opponent claims that "omnipotent" must mean "all-powerful," despite Dictionary.com's definitions of "very great power." Additionally, going under the premise that we are assuming God to be all-powerful, that only means that he has all powers. However, there is no such thing as the power to create a rock with a weight greater than an infinite weight. There is no such power. Therefore, it is not included in all powers, as it does not exist, so an all-powerful deity does not need to have such a power.

For example, if a man is said to have collected all watches, does this mean that he has even collected watches that cannot exist? Does this mean that he has collected a watch that rings every hour, yet is silent every hour? No, because such an idea is preposterous.

My opponent claims that the interpretation offered by Aquinas is false. However, if anybody were to ask Matthew in the past whether or not "All things are possible with God" was intended to include sinning, he would answer negatively. In such a case, the inability to contradict His own nature was obviously implied. As my opponent has already conceded that even definitions can imply things not mentioned, this is definitely acceptable. Additionally, if one were to ask Matthew if God could create a rock with a weight that is not a weight, but instead of a weight heavier than what even God could lift, Matthew would state that there is no weight heavier than what God could lift, and dismiss him as insane.

To conclude this point, Aquinas' interpretation was clearly implied, and even with all power, all power cannot include powers that don't exist.

== Arguments ==

My opponent claims that if there is something that God cannot do, then He is not omnipotent. However, if this "thing" does not exist, period, then all power does not include such a power.

Secondly, my opponent claims that because God shows mercy in one situation, but not in another, He contradicts His own nature. However, God is not the one changing, but the situation. Obviously, God has some standards as to whether or not people should receive mercy or be punished, depending on the action.

My opponent claims that a rock with weight beyond incomprehension (an impossibility) cannot exist because God can't create it. However, a rock with weight beyond incomprehension cannot exist because no weight is beyond incomprehension. Therefore, God can't create it, because it can't exist.

One question we need to clarify is, how heavy would a rock be so that God would be unable to lift it? Well, given that God can lift anything, regardless of its weight, the rock would have to have a weight that isn't a weight. This is, of course, just plain impossible. Therefore, such a rock cannot exist, period.

God clearly stated that He has all power. However, all power does not include powers that don't exist, because there is no such power as the power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight. He clearly states that His power comes from heaven and earth; therefore, any power not found in heaven and in earth would not be found in God. All power is given unto Him in heaven and in earth; He has all powers that exist. The power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight does not exist, period.

My opponent claims that God is not bound by logic. However, if this is the case, then it would explain why God would have powers that cannot exist. Now, having all power is not the same as having unbound power, so my opponent would have to prove "omnipotent" to mean having unbound power, rather than all power.

My opponent also claims that resurrection is logically impossible. In that case, a syllogism would be required to show how the dead cannot become alive. Is this logic, or is this just observation? Why should we assume that when the living die, it is logically impossible for their body to be returned to a state that it was in before it died, that it has already been proven to be able to have. Therefore, it is not logically impossible to be resurrected, but rather biologically impossible, given our mortal understanding of biology. Obviously, God knows more about biology, and could easily manipulate nature to return a body to its previous state of life, and then grant the original life again.

My opponent now has a pseudo-syllogism. However, it commits the equivocation fallacy in that the definition of "omnipotent" could be different in Step 3 and Step 5. However, she then says that God can therefore do the logically impossible. However, this is hardly a proof against God, even if the fallacy were to be ignored, for it must also be logically proven that the logically impossible cannot exist, but how can one prove that something not bound by logic would follow the logic used to determine existence?

== More Stuff ==

We only think of walking on water as a logical impossibility. However, we don't know exactly how God granted the ability to walk on water. He could have concentrated salt into the water below Peter's feet, for all we know. Or God could have just used His supernatural ability to create a force repelling Peter's back, front, and sides from the water, forcing him to stay upright.

== Conclusion Analysis, Part 1 ==

The syllogism first fails at 8, which assumes a rock that God cannot lift. However, God can lift any rock, so this step is irrelevant.

The syllogism then makes a more complicated failure at 10, which should actually be broken up into multiple parts, as it cannot follow from the previous nine steps in a single step:

10. An all-powerful God can create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. (Assumption, also contradicts 4)
11. An all-powerful God can lift a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. (Further assumption)
Dichotomy A: God is assumed to be unable to lift a rock with a weight that isn't a weight.
12a. God is not all-powerful.
Dichotomy B: God is assumed to be able to lift a rock with a weight that isn't a weight.
12b. God cannot create a rock that He cannot lift.
13b. God is not all-powerful.

This entire syllogism rests on the idea that an all-powerful God can great a rock with a weight that isn't a weight, step 10. However, even an all-powerful God cannot create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight, because there is no power to create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. Can any being have such a power, ever? Then why consider such a power to even exist, except to make the concept of omnipotence semantically twisted?

Therefore, the syllogism fails to establish God to be unable to be omnipotent.

== Conclusion Analysis, Part 2 ==

My opponent claims that God must behave logically, or else he would be able to lie. However, if God has the power to defy some logic, this does not necessarily mean that he defies all logic. He naturally has the power to choose not to defy some important aspects of logic.
Additionally, my opponent promises to clarify this in the next round, but that would be a bit too late, as the next round is the last round.

== Conclusion, Ultimately ==

My opponent's entire case relies on the idea that all power includes powers that cannot exist. However, I have already shown how any real usage of "all" would not include things that cannot exist. God stated Himself that His powers are those in heaven and in earth; the power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight is not in heaven or on earth, because it doesn't exist.

In conclusion, God can be all-powerful without having the nonexistent power to create a rock with a weight that is not a weight. The resolution is negated. Vote CON.

Lwerd, thanks for this debate.
Danielle

Pro

== Definitions ==

Once again, Con is trying to manipulate definitions -- he notes that Dictionary.com's definition of omnipotent is regarded as very great power, when in fact I have pointed out in R1 that Dictionary.com's definition reads having very great or UNLIMITED (a.k.a. ALL) authority or power [1]. This is not debatable -- a quick look at the source will reveal which one of us is being truthful and which one of us is omitting relevant information to further their position. My definition is correct, stands, and is solely instrumental in negating the resolution even without considering my other arguments.

Con writes, "There is no such thing as the power to create a rock with a weight greater than an infinite weight. There is no such power..." which of course as I pointed out is completely circular reasoning. No HUMAN has the power to do so, but given the definition and description of God, he should be able to do all things - to have all powers - as the Bible describes him as being able to do any and everything at his discretion including things that men cannot do.

Con's watch example is flawed. If a man is said to have collected all watches, then surely he hasn't collected watches that cannot exist. However if it is said that a Godly watch maker can create any watch (even if it means transcending mortal laws of logic) then it is assumed that the watch maker can indeed make any watch because this watch maker controls reality (in fact, CREATED reality so can therefore manipulate it to His liking) because this watch maker can do any and every thing; nothing is impossible for this watch maker. This paradox proves how the task would be impossible via the laws of logic, and I have explained (and will reiterate later on in the debate) why logic is applicable to God.

== Interpretations ==

Con writes, "The inability to contradict His own nature was obviously implied." Not once he does he address the fact that I pointed out where God in the Bible specifically contradicts his own nature. And, even if you're a theist who disagrees with me, you cannot award this point to Con considering he himself hasn't even presented an argument and while judging you have to take what the debaters have offered -- not your own opinion. That said, Con's rebuttal in no way negated my point about St. Thomas Aquinas' interpretation of the definition being just that - an interprettion - whereas the definition of the word itself is clear and the interpretation is merely an alteration manipulated to suit a false position. Also, Con says that I have "conceded that even definitions can imply things not mentioned, so this is definitely acceptable" whereas I have never conceded such a thing and in fact stated the opposite.

Con writes, "If one were to ask Matthew if God could create a rock with a weight that is not a weight... Matthew wold dismiss him as insane." However, once more we see manipulation of what this argument entails. No one is asking God to create a rock with a weight that isn't a weight. That is a ridiculous and asinine argument that I have never mentioned. Once more, the paradox calls for God to create a rock with a weight that is too heavy for Him to list... not create a rock with no weight. Please do not let Con manipulate the terms, definitions and conditions of this debate so as to appear to make a valid point when he does not.

In conclusion, I reject the idea that all power cannot include powers that don't exist, for by his own standards God is said to be able to CREATE and carry out ANY and every power. So, even if such a thing did not exist, God could create it and accomplish it anyway. That is obviously illogical which is what this paradox proves, thereby disproving God's omnipotence thus God himself.

== Arguments ==

Con writes, "My opponent claims that if there is something that God cannot do, then He is not omnipotent. However, if this "thing" does not exist, period, then all power does not include such a power." Obviously if you read the preceding paragraphs, you'll see how I completely dismantled this notion.

Con continues, "Because God shows mercy in one situation, but not in another, He contradicts His own nature. However, God is not the one changing, but the situation. Obviously, God has some standards as to whether or not people should receive mercy or be punished, depending on the action." LoL that entire statement contradicts itself. First of all, if God shows mercy in one situation but not in another, then right there you are admitting that he can be unmerciful. Now since God's nature is merciful, then regardless of His reasoning it is still possible for him to act unmercifully upon His will. Therefore, while He will do whatever He wants, He can still be unmerciful (i.e. contrary to his all-good, merciful nature) thereby my point stands.

Con's third point states, "My opponent claims that a rock with weight beyond incomprehension (an impossibility) cannot exist because God can't create it." Once again, this is a manipulation of everything I've said. What I said was that it is impossible for God to create a rock He cannot lift... the paradox speaks for itself in addressing the logical impossibility. Nowhere did I ever say anything about "comprehension." So when Con continues, "However, a rock with weight beyond incomprehension cannot exist because no weight is beyond incomprehension. Therefore, God can't create it, because it can't exist" we see how his point is not only irrelevant but completely non-sensical. I think he meant to use the word 'comprehension' instead of 'incomprehension' which just makes his entirely flawed statement even harder to grasp. For instance, he states that a rock with a weight beyond comprehension is an impossibility... but it's only an impossibility if God can't or won't create it! There are plenty of measurements beyond human comprehension (such as infinity). But again, the whole paradox itself is about whether or not God can *create this rock to begin with* so to say that it's impossible is just proving the paradox right.

Since Con seems adamant to repeat the same circular argument over and over again, let's analyze it further. "One question we need to clarify is, how heavy would a rock be so that God would be unable to lift it?" Again - that's exactly the pickle that paradox itself establishes!!! Con is not offering any argument whatsoever except verifying the impossibility of God's omnipotence. He continues, "Well, given that God can lift anything, regardless of its weight, the rock would have to have a weight that isn't a weight. This is, of course, just plain impossible." Okay, any rock that God creates will have a weight. This is true. However the point isn't that the rock God creates will have no weight (this is some made up thing that Con came up with which is just not relevant) but rather it's an impossibility for God to be able to both lift anything and not be able to life anything at the same time! This draws very heavily upon the law of non-contradiction... however, in recalling that Con does not understand the nature of self-evident logic principles, perhaps that is where the problem lies.

== Conclusion ==

The law of the excluded middle states how something has to be either A or not A. In other words, God can either lift the rock or not lift the rock. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time; in other words if God can lift the rock, then He cannot NOT lift the rock. This is what the paradox itself explains. Once you acknowledge this, you see how God's omnipotence is impossible. Also, unfortunately for my opponent, I already DID explain in the last round how God MUST adhere to the laws of logic so therefore my argument in that regard stands. God's nature calls for logic, but the paradox explains this logical impossibility. Vote PRO.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by paulexcoff 6 years ago
paulexcoff
Can God create an argument so circular not even he can believe it?
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Yup. And if you can't prove that your notion is correct, it can't be used to disprove God.
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
So...to summarize, this is all based on one's notion of omnipotence?

What.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Surprising how long it took atheistman to find this debate.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
He can only do what brings Him glory?

God can eat any amount of bread, no question.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
making/lifting a stone would in the end, not bring him glory, therefore no he could not. I find the thing so funny. It's like saying
Could God bake so much bread, he couldn't eat it?
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Which means the final way I could evaluate this debate round is too look within logic and examine what omnipotents means. Omnipotents in this debate appears to mean the ability to do all things.

I'm left unconvinced by either side as to whether or not impossible things count under this definition:

Should an omnipotent being be able to create an invisible visible? A divisible indivisible? A constant variable? Must it be able to posses things which it cannot posses?

I think this argument hinges around the definition of what a "thing" is. And thus I think this debate should have centered in the end, more so, around the definition of "nothing". This is where the debate could have more easily been won for either side. But neither side takes it there enough to convince me on the logical level. Furthermore both sides offer more arguments to prove the illogical nature of god. Thus I either don't know how to vote or am unconvinced to vote.

Good debate round though. It was an enjoyable read and made me think for a while.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
The problem with this debate is that it centers around the use contradictions, or more correctly George Orwell's notion of doublethink:

"This debate is all completely bad, however this debate is completely good. "
"I possess power which I do not have."
"The invisible ghost over there is visible."
"I lack power yet am all powerful."

I think the problems occur with the premise of the debate. You both accept that the bibles depiction of God is correct. Yet you both, especially Lwerd, point out multiple instances of double-think all over the bible:

All things are possible with god, yet he cannot change.
God is all benevolent, yet he does malevolent actions.
God has all powers, yet he cannot lie.

The combined definitions of gods abilities coming out of both sides of this debate lack logic. In fact, as Lwerd points out in her appeal to the law of excluded middle, the very premise of this debate thwarts logic.

And the faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion. You both accept that god can lift any weight as he is all powerful. This means that a rock which he could not lift would have to lack the attribute of weight. In other words the question asked is whether god can create a rock of weight which has no weight. A rock of mass but lacking mass.

Or if you'd like to see through the analogy of the rock, the question asks: can god be all powerful while simultaneously lacking power? His ability to create any rock being the all power while his inability to lift such a rock is a deficit there of.

The answer of course is no..... God cannot be something which cannot be. That's illogical.... the problem being you both establish that god functions outside of logic (or can in select instances). Meaning I don't have a way to evaluate this round or evaluate whether god can or cannot do something illogical. Unfortunately, I am bound by logic.
Posted by Yraelz 6 years ago
Yraelz
Yeah, I just finished reading it, I see where you derived the "not omnipotent". I'm thinking for a little bit, post a comment sometime soon. There's a strange contradiction running through both arguments....
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Yraelz: No, I proved that he was omnipotent in other ways (not just using the paradox). Also, saying "He's not omnipotent - thus he abides by the laws of logic - thus..." etc. is wrong. One doesn't follow the other necessarily, so putting them in a specific order is not where I was going with that at all. If you read the debate, you'll see where I went with it. Regardless, I appreciate you admitting that you at least didn't read it (because if people actually read it, my opponent would not have over 50 points). Also my question that mongoose did not answer about circular reasoning wasn't about using the paradox itself, but logic in general.
35 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by paulexcoff 6 years ago
paulexcoff
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by philosphical 6 years ago
philosphical
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Paris 6 years ago
Paris
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Awed 6 years ago
Awed
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mongoose 6 years ago
mongoose
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60