Instigator / Con
35
1574
rating
10
debates
80.0%
won
Topic

Can The Judeo-Christian God Create a Stone That Is Too Heavy For Him to Lift?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
15
0
Sources points
10
8
Spelling and grammar points
5
5
Conduct points
5
3

With 5 votes and 19 points ahead, the winner is ...

PsychometricBrain
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Pro
16
1448
rating
26
debates
26.92%
won
Description
~ 159 / 5,000

Pro is going to argue that the Judeo-Christian God can create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift, whereas Con is going to argue against this resolution.

Round 1
Con
Argument 1 – Misunderstanding of God’s omnipotence:
God’s perfect nature (or as St. Anselm said: “God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.”) implies that God is, in fact, very limited; God is not able to sin as his perfect nature entails moral perfection, God can not create a being that is greater than himself as he is by definition the greatest possible being and God can not have a false belief as that would contradict his nature (being omniscient). God is furthermore limited by his own perfect rationality, he can only ever carry out the most rational action. This does however not imply that God is limited in any significant way, his omnipotence is expressed in the fact that he can do whatever he wants to do, God is only limited by his own nature, this is referred to as “divine self-limitation” and is supported by biblical evidence such as:

“So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us.”-(Hebrews 6:13)
God can not lie as this goes against his nature of being the greatest/most perfect being there is which entails moral perfection and therefore perfect honesty.

“For example, there was God's promise to Abraham. Since there was no one greater to swear by, God took an oath in his own name, saying:” (Hebrews 6:18)
God can not swear by a being greater than Himself. This is because he is the greatest being and it would be logically impossible for there to be a greater being than God that God could swear by.

Argument 2 – Argument from self-contradiction:
Logical paradoxes do not actually describe anything possible and therefore do not describe anything at all. To argue that God can create a square circle does not make any sense as there is nothing that corresponds to a square circle. Suppose that our assumption about the health of your cat led us to the conclusion that our cat was going to die next week but at the same time it led us to the conclusion that our cat was not going to die next week, then obviously we would conclude that our assumptions are flawed. In the same way, if there is a logical inconsistency in a concept such as a square circle, we have to reject it from the start as it implies an absurdity. Talking about a stone that an omnipotent being can not lift implies an absurdity and therefore does not actually describe anything which leads us to the conclusion that, while an omnipotent being could not create a stone that an omnipotent being could not lift, an omnipotent being would not lack any power regardless as the power to create a stone that could not be lifted by an omnipotent being does not describe any actual power.
 
Conclusion:
“Nonsense is still nonsense even when we speak it about God.” –C.S Lewis
Therefore, one can and must, in fact, reject the possibility of an omnipotent being creating a stone that can not be lifted by an omnipotent being, as it is inherently self-contradictory and therefore does not actually describe a possible power and furthermore, the rejection of this does not question the omnipotence of the Judeo-Christian God as “He” is still able to perform any action that he wants to perform and is not limited by any external source.
 
Pro will have to establish how an omnipotent being could create a stone that could not be lifted by an omnipotent being.
 
 
Sources:


Pro
Argument 1: God can not lie so all he has to do is say he will no longer lift a rock he created and boom the rock is unliftable .

Argument 2: God can put himself in human for like he did with Jesus and all of a sudden he is weaker and can't lift really huge things.


I thank my opponent for the concession that follows

Round 2
Con
Rebuttals:
My opponents kritik is disappointing and does not actually address the debate title: 
"Can The Judeo-Christian God Create a Stone That Is Too Heavy For Him to Lift?"


If argument 1 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that God would never lift the stone, it would not lead to the conclusion that the stone would be "too heavy" for Him to lift.

If argument 2 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that if God in the form of a human could not lift the stone, it would not lead to the conclusion that it would be "too heavy" for Him to lift, as it would not be "too heavy" while God was not in human form.


Furthermore, both argument 1 and argument 2 are questionable as God can only ever carry out the most rational action (see my Round 1, Argument 1) and I fail to see a scenario where it'd be the most rational action for God to say that he would never lift the stone...

Additionally, Con's assumption that a stone would be too heavy to lift for God while God is in human form seems unjustified, as Jesus did many things that are not possible for "normal" humans, such as turning water into wine (John 2), walking on water (Mark 6; Matthew 14; John 6), resurrecting the dead (John 11; Luke 7).



All of my arguments from round 1 still stand and my opponent has thus far failed to address the debate resolution and showed poor conduct.








Pro
Forfeited
Round 3
Con
My round 1 arguments still stand and my opponent has not made any relevant arguments regarding the debate resolution so far. Should my opponent choose to expand his arguments next round, I would like his forfeit to not be taken into account while voting. 

Pro
If argument 1 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that God would never lift the stone, it would not lead to the conclusion that the stone would be "too heavy" for Him to lift.
This is incorrect. In round one my opponent states the following.

“So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie.

If it is impossible for God to lie, than it is impossible for him to lift the stone once he says he can't lift. My opponent's argument is not that "GOD DOESN't LIE" It is that "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE"

What my opponent is doing is moving the goal posts. Just alter it to God saying "After this point I can no longer lift this 1 million pound rock because it is too heavy".

My opponent made an error when saying God can't lie. Award the win to Wylted thanks