God is all-powerful, or as theologians put it, “omnipotent”; there is nothing that he cannot do.?

Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible: An omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. The omnipotent being creates a stone which it cannot lift. The omnipotent being then lifts the stone. Presumably, such a being could also make the sum 2 + 2 = 5 become mathematically possible, or could create a square circle. In this case the being's omnipotence is defined by its power to overcome the inherent contradiction of such statements. In the words of Harry Frankfurt, "If an omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible, then he can not only create situations which he cannot handle but also, since he is not bound by the limits of consistency, he can handle situations which he cannot handle."

The problem here is more with the STONE (at least as you've DEFINED it), than with GOD! Your question SOUNDS like it makes sense because of how it works when I apply it to ME (or any other mere creature). In other words, the statement "I can make an object that is too heavy for ME to lift" makes sense (and of course happens to be true). So it appears like you're doing the same thing if you ask about the statement "God can make an object [instead of 'rock' to make it match the first case] that is too heavy for God to lift." If we say "No, he cannot do that" it creates quite a conundrum -- God cannot do something that *I* can do! But is that really true? Not necessarily. You see, you've been comparing apples and oranges. To say *I* can do something that God cannot do, I would have to say "I can make an object too heavy for GOD to lift." And that is NOT self-evidently true. ----------------- To see that's going on try breaking it down into two statements. The first statement is that of God's omnipotence. In this case it is expressed "If God is all powerful, he can lift any object, no matter how heavy." We'll assume that this is a proper deduction, so that the statement "God can lift any object, no matter how heavy." is true. The second statement is "There is [or 'can be'] an object too heavy for God too lift". Hmmm. Do you see the problem here? It is NOT, as you have assumed, with the idea of God being omnipotent (at least we cannot assume that it is, since we have not yet proved there is a problem with that idea). Rather it is that you have accepted, if only for the sake of argument, the proposition "God IS omnipotent". And from that you get the statement "God can lift anything." In other words, the DEFINITION of God you are using includes "One-who-can-lift-anything....... So if that's your definition of God we should be able to plug it back into your second statement above: "There can be an object to heavy for 'the-One-who-can-lift-anything (no matter how heavy)' to lift." But that, of course, is nonsense. By the definition we've been using we have already SAID that such an object CANNOT exist-- "by definition!" ----------------- If that isn't clear, try this. The statement you started with "God [as omnipotent] can lift any object, no matter how heavy" leads, by simple deduction to another statement. => "there CANNOT be an object too heavy for God to lift" Once you've said that, you cannot, at the SAME time, say "There CAN be an object too heavy for God to lift". You are, quite simply, contradicting yourself." So, however it may appear to you at first (when you haven't spelled out the definitions you are, in fact, using) your statement has no meaning. Going back the original point -- it is hardly a limitation to God's power to say he is "unable" to do something that is a self-contradiction (and therefore meaningless). And nowhere does the Bible make such a sillly claim. ----------------- Note then that the argument for the concept of omnipotence being self-contradictory is NOT supported by the scenario you've been using. Yes, there is a contradiction, but it stems from EQUIVOCATION by those posing the question -- that is, definitions are switched in the middle of the argument (and those definitions contradict each other). The problem, in other words, is with the framing of the QUESTION, not with the concept of omnipotence. There are certainly legitimate grounds for criticizing theism, but to simply "define God away" by such confused used of language is not one of them!

fairy tales

can he burp the alphabet?

Ah the paradox of the stone. I love to use this one against door to door Bible humpers.

Apparently he can do everything you can think of and more. He can also resolve paradoxes.

He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He is the creator of everything so no there is nothing he cant do. The Bible speaks of it. Ezekial 38:19-21 for example.

God, cannot put the caramel in the caramilk bar. Only Cadbury can do that.

Of course I exist ...for not beileving in me you shall be smited !!!! Are you smited yet?? hehe.. well everything with me takes millions of years ..but you'll get whats coming too ya.. hehe