I was wondering the other day can God make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it and if so would your answer impugn God’s omnipotence?
In general, I would say no, because I define omnipotence as it would relate to God (I’m an atheist by the way) as the ability to do anything whatsoever that would be logically possible, and this would violate that. If God can do anything that’s logically impossible, then you get into statements such as “God can create something which has the property of being uncreated”, at which point discussion is more or less going to break down entirely.
Pesonal belief: All things are made of God, so the question is meaningless since the rock is a part of God.
Personal belief 2: Why don’t people think up more interesting questions, like can God make a pair of Pants too big for him to wear?
Can God steal a car with a stick shift He can’t drive?
The questioner assumes the answerer believes in God. Regardless, the answer would be yes. Except on Tuesdays.
Insert obligatory burrito variation here.
No and No.
To put it in simple terms:
God can do anything that is not inconsistent with his nature.
Stated positively.
God can do anything that is consistent with his nature.
Matthew 22:29 …Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures…
Yes, he can make a rock so big he can’t lift it.
He can lift it, too.
Don’t understand how that works?
Maybe you’re not God.
disclaimer: I don’t understand how it works, either. It’s called faith.
Beef, bean, and cheese?
Simpsons reference. A stoned Homer once asked if God could microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it.
I think we’ve even had a debate thread about that very question.
Actually, I thought it was “Jesus” who was microwaving the Burrito.
But Jesus doesen’t need a microwave, as he can no doubt alter the atomic structure of the burrito to be like a microwaved burrito just by touching it.
Personally, I’m still contemplating the question: If Jesus Challenged God and the Holy Ghost to a drinking contest, who would win?
can a programmer of the Sims 2 program a rock so big that he cannot lift it?
Not sure, but I’m sure us Catholics would come in at a solid 4th place. 
There are several things that I find problematic;
How does God have a nature to be consistent with-if God is supernatural? In fact what does that even mean since God isn’t part of the universe and isn’t physical? Additionally, I would think that the theist’s position would be one that has to state that God created (or it came from him/her/it) everything, including logic-right?
If this is so, then doesn’t it suggest that God could have created logic differently? The problem with this is, that it is impossible for logic to be different. In no universe could A not equal A. It’s also arbitrary in that, why does this have to be God’s nature? The only reason that I can see that theists postulate this is to try to save their God from the dilemma’s brought up-which isn’t a good reason and seems ad-hoc.
Additionally I’ve heard this sort of ‘resolution’ to both Eurythropo’s (sp?) dilemma and to the question of omnimax paradoxes and I’m sorry, but I just don’t follow it.
The idea is that God is a logically consistent being (in fact, God would have to be one) and that what is good eminates from God’s being-as opposed to be arbitrary.
The problem with both of these is that God supposedly created the universe, which means he created logic (without space and time, what’s logic?) it also means that God created evil (or allowed it, however you want to say it).
So how does evil originate from a being whose essence is ‘good’? I can’t figure out a way. Additionally God isn’t omnipotent any longer AND God can be held responsible for any morally questionable activities-after all, if the essence/foundation/etc of God is good then there is no possible way that God could commit evil, or stand by and watch it occur when God could do something about it.
Right?
The task is a logical impossibility; if omnipotence is defined as the ability to do anything, then it is impossible to define a rock too large to be moved; if the rock is defined as too large to be moved, it is impossible to completely define omnipotence. This is a conflict of logic, rather than a statement about the character and ability of any particular deity.
You could perhaps simplify the question down to: “Can God do things that are impossible for him?”.
Perhaps a more useful definition of omnipotence would be the ability to perform anything that is actually possible - anything more inclusive would have to answer in the affirmative to questions of simple jibberish: “Can God Flemble wibber plicketty snold? - if he can’t do that, how can he be omnipotent?”
Here’s the problem as I see it, traditionally God has been defined as being omnimax. In fact, that’s pretty much the only consistent ‘definition’ that I’ve heard. Unless God is defined a different way, using concepts that aren’t paradoxical, then ‘omnimax’ doesn’t cut it as a definition for God.
That’s why it’s a conflict for God belief, because the only way to get around the headache of trying to discuss how God created the universe, existence, etc etc is to posit the simple explanation ‘God can do anything’.
The trick of it is, God can’t do anything because not everything is possible. This being so, God can’t be defined-IMO-as a being that can do anything, as that definition is a paradox.
This is a good question, however without the easy answer of ‘omnipotence’ we can’t say whether or not God can do anything, because we don’t know anything about God’s primary characteristics.
What’s possible for a being outside of nature, that’s not material, and outside of time? Is it possible for such a being to exist? How do we know?
Again, here in lies the dilemma, we don’t know what’s possible with God at all, because we don’t know anything about God’s primary attributes.
God can’t be omnimax, as that’s not a description of what God is-only what God is not-and it’s not a possible condition. If you take away God’s omnimax status then you can’t say anything meaningful about God because what are you basing it on?
God can do anything that’s logically possible? Well, doesn’t this beg the question that an immaterial being outside of time/space can do anything period? How does a being outside of time act on time? How does the immaterial create the material?
I don’t know, I’m not professing to be right or even on track, but these are the questions that keep me up late at night… 
A1: ‘omnipotence’ means ‘able to do anything it is possible to do’ excluding meaningless and impossible things, which this is.
A2: Logic doesn’t apply to God, and there’s no point asking questions, because without logic the answers zebra meaningful pineapple.
I’d say an immaterial entity could not possibly create material then. Additionally an eternal being couldn’t participate in the temporal and an all good entity couldn’t allow/create evil.
So logic is not all inclusive and it’s possible that A does not equal A?
Also, by implication, God is not a meaningful concept?
I forgot to mention:
Without knowing God’s ‘substance’ or primary characteristics it is impossible to determine what is logically possible for God to do, thereby rendering God into meaninglessness.
But remember there are a lot of Catholics in Eire, I think that Catholics could at least drink Jesus under the table (he’r only 35ish, and didn’t drink anything stronger than wine in his day), Holy Ghost can obviously handle the spirits, but only God could take Potcheen without falling over.