[wizardoz]

First of all, you need to learn to format.

Secondly, you missed the ENTIRE POINT. The point is, no definition of "God" makes any sense. It's inherently paradoxical. The paradox is not solved by saying, Oh, don't worry, God won't let it be paradoxical in practice.

It doesn't matter how this hypothetical God would "solve" the paradox. You're making up a personality to with a God that can't even exist in the first place in hopes "He" can argue away the paradox. That's sophistry.

Let me just stop there and ask if you understand me so far.

[Dataman]

It doesn't matter how this hypothetical God would "solve" the paradox. You're making up a personality to with a God that can't even exist in the first place in hopes "He" can argue away the paradox. That's sophistry.

The paradox doesn't really exist. The original question, "Could God create a rock too big for Him to lift?" contains the following flaws:

1) The object in question is a rock. Why a rock? Why not glass fruit? Because rocks are supposed to be heavy. Where are rocks heavy? In a gravitational field. Therefore the question likely assumes the rock is in the earth's gravitational field. Since God created the universe and all that is in it including the earth, it is unlikely that a rock smaller than the universe and all that is in it would be too "heavy" (another term that assumes gravity).

2) It assumes the Creator would be subject to the laws of the universe that He created-- a baseless and illogical assumption since the Creator must have existed before the universe was created which, of course, could not have been within the universe.

3) The act of lifting is supposedly a physical feat of strength. The absurdity here is that the act of creation would be a far superior demonstration of power than would lifting it.

To grant such a foolish question the status of paradox is to not understand the question at all.

[Greek]

Where do I go to learn format? A paradox is a human invention for a finite mind. You are the one who presented an alleged paradox, now that it is demonstrated as not really being a paradox, you cannot merely escape response by claiming I am engaging in "sophistry".