"Can Allah create an rock that He can't lift?

Is the following lost in translation or why is "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?" considered a paradox?

• It is argued as follows:   “If he could lift the rock, then it seems that the being would not have been omnipotent to begin with in that he would have been incapable of creating a heavy enough stone; if he could not lift the stone, then it seems that the being either would never have been omnipotent to begin with or would have ceased to be omnipotent upon his creation of the stone”   Now in my opinion, it is just a question with an answer if you disregard all the possible implications of the answer.   Here is the definition of Omnipotence according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: om·nip·o·tent /É‘mˈnɪpÉ™tÉ™nt/ adjective formal : having complete and unlimited power : http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/all-powerful â–ª omnipotent gods â–ª an omnipotent ruler/state — om·nip·o·tence /É‘mˈnɪpÉ™tÉ™ns/ noun [noncount] â–ª divine omnipotence â–ª the omnipotence of God   The so-called paradox:   "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it?"   could  (kd) aux.v. Past tense of can 1. Used to indicate ability or permission in the past 2. Used with hypothetical or conditional force. 3. Used to indicate tentativeness or politeness.   So let me re-phrase the question:   Could an omnipotent being blah blah blah?   By definition, yes he could do anything regardless of the action, and of inevitable events thereafter. With all his omnipotence, he could indeed do everything and anything, even end his omnipotence.   It really is that simple, I fail to see the contradiction since the definition of a paradox is the one of which is an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises.  The question did not imply in anyway that the being would need to remain omnipotent after creating it, it was asking whether or not he could, and if we are to answer the question by definition regardless of the implications therein, then it is not a paradox or again, it has been lost in the translation of it all. English isn’t my native language, so it is likely that it is. Any thoughts?

• Answer:

  The word "paradox" is used a variety of ways in English. The strong form means something is self-contradictory; in logical terms, it means "both A and not-A are true". The weaker forms refer to beliefs or understandings: a paradox is something that leads to something where you would expect A, but in reality not-A is true. This is a paradox in the stronger sense. Omnipotence means that one could literally create a direct paradox: 2+2=4 and 2+2=5; Socrates could be both mortal and not-mortal; and so on. That puts the omnipotent being "beyond logic"; depending on your approach you could use it to conclude that logic itself isn't as fundamental as you thought, or that you've made a mistake somewhere along the lines (e.g. concluding that there could be such a thing as an omnipotent being). It could conceivably be that it's only a paradox in the weaker sense: that this could somehow be fit into a logical view of the world but that it's merely my poor understanding that makes it seem like a paradox (in the strong sense). Thus far, however, I have yet to see any cogent argument that would lead me to conclude that.