So the answer is yes, God can create a rock that would be too heavy for him to lift, while at the same time being able to lift that too-heavy rock.
Requiring the word omnipotence to include the concept of doing the logically impossible or contradictory is arbitrary.
But I already solved your problems 
1.) any rock would have to have a finite mass. A rock with infinite mass would either have infinite volume or infinite density. the former wouldn’t fit in the universe, the latter would collapse into a black hole. So the rock has to be finite. If god has supreme power he should be able to accelerate any finite mass. Therefore the answer to the question is no. God cannot create a rock too heavy to lift.
2.) Questions about omnipotence are irrelevant and lead to absurd paradoxes like this rock pseudo-problem. All that is required of God is that he be powerful enough to create the Universe and do whatever it is that your particular religion requires him (her, it?) to do.
I know that “real” theologians think Harold Kushner is a little flaky, but his logical interpretation of Job seems relevant here.
If I recall correctly, Kushner looked at the Book of Job and decided that an all-loving and all-merciful God would not have allowed all those terrible things to happen, if He could have. But since He did, we have a choice of believing (1) God is not such a loving being after all or (2) God is not all-powerful and therefore was incapable of preventing Job’s suffering.
Kushner prefers to believe that God is not omnipotent, but very powerful and benevolent.
So, outside of the Book of Job, is there any contradiction between the godly attributes of omnipotence and benevolence?
Pleonast
No, there is nothing false about this dictotomy. Either it is possible for humans to comprehend God, or it isn’t. If there is any part of God which we are incapable of comprehending, then we are incapable of comprehending God in general.
Not really, because the statement “God is not bound by logic” cannot be used to arrive at any further conclusion. It does not allow us to conclude anything about God pers se, only about what can be concluded about God. And really, once you reject logic, you can’t say for certain that TVAA’s statement is false, even if you do find a counterexample, because the principle that counterexamples disprove statements is a logical principle, and is dependent on the validity of logic.
robertliguori
But if we define omnipotence as being able to do everything which is possible for one to do, then “omnipotence” is meaningless.
Tinker Grey
Except that it is ambiguous. If we denote “God can lift every rock” as A, and “For each being, God can create a rock which that being cannot lift” as B, then your definition would preclude both A and B from being true, but it would create the ambiguity of which is false. “All thing not-illogical” is no more a well defined term than is “the set of all integers not sharing any prime factors”.
hansel
“Is there a circle which is not a circle?” is not meaningless. By your logic, every yes/no question in Math must be answered “yes”, otherwise it’s meaningless. For instance, “Is there a non-compact closed subset of a compact set?” would be meaningless.
owlofcreamcheese
No, omnipotence means being able to perform every action. What you listed were not actions.
Dogface
If he wasn’t then he would not be worth worshipping. If he was not bound by logic then he could do the wholly logical impossible. He could perform any feat our minds could conceive and then some. A God not bound by logic would be able to eradicate any and all evil from the world while still managing to ensure humans retained complete free will. If he could do that but didn’t he would be some sort of monster.
Could God create a logic puzzle so baffling even He couldn’t solve it?
This is essentially asking if something that is all powerful can make itself become “not” all powerful.
I think it’s a simple question to answer.
Obviously, this entity can do such a thing.
I’m sure God could make himself lesser.
Kinda like saying there are NO absolutes. huh?
You say ask my preacher the “rock question.” No need to, if there is an omnipotent GOD, then I’m sure he/she’d solve the riddle in some mysterious way. Doesn’t mean that WE humans would/could understand it though. That’s the way GOD works isn’t it?
The last question a preacher got right for me was when I asked him to pull my finger.
This is only another way of enouncing the paradox of the existence of an irresistible force and an immovable object.
In an Universe where there exists an irresistible force there cannot axist an immovable object and vice-versa.
Since omnipotence means that God can create both simultaneously makes pmnipotence paradoxical.
The only possible answer is: There is no omnipotence.
** Not really. The interaction of the “knowable” properties with the “unknowable” properties would make God’s behavior unknowable overall.
** But we can’t say that God is not bound by logic, because that statement only has meaning within a logical system.
** What a stupid question. If the universe wasn’t logically consistent, it wouldn’t be.
** Then God can’t interact with this universe, even to create it. Thus, God does not exist – being part of the universe is what we mean by ‘existence’.
It’s very simple.
In order for a rock to be created that God cannot lift, there must exist a power to do so - otherwise, the example is null.
But the idea is logically sound.
Since God possesses all power, this is encompassed.
Therefore, logically, he can.
TVAA, why would God need to be part of the universe to interact with it? A sculptor isn’t part of his creations, but he can still manipulate them.
And yes, theologically speaking, God does not “exist.”
I concur with Sinungaling a bit here.
Exists does not necessarily mean exists in the universe.
In order for what TVAA submits to be true, then one would have to sumbit that the universe itself doesn’t exist - being that is is encompassed by non-existence. If this case is true, then non-existence has boundries, and borders - thereby rendering it thru physical value.
If God is in this realm of non-existence, then He too would, by this means, exist.
Explaining the substance of those properties is the hard part.
Therefore, “exists” is not an accurate word to use in this discussion.
What we do know about God, is that he is omnipotent.
Therefore, we must conclude that he can produce an instance that he is not.
It does not completely sound logical, but it is.
Very sound.
Erm, if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say, yes it does. Of course if you choose some bizarro definition of “the universe”, then you might be right; generally speaking, the universe is taken to mean everything (and that itself is shorthand for “everything that exists”).
I don’t see how any of this follows. Actually, you lost me completely when you said that “non-existence has boundaries”, because non-existent things have no properties (that kind of follows directly from what is meant by “non-existence”), and that includes “boundaries”.
Eek! We know no such thing. We don’t even know that if a god exists that it takes the name “God”.
It doesn’t sound logical in the least, because it isn’t.
Do you mean “just noise”?
** But the sculptor and the sculptures are part of a greater system in which they both exist.
We define ‘universe’ by interaction; if God interacts with something we agree is within the universe, then God is part of the universe.
Yes, the sculptor and his sculptures are part of a greater system, but they are not part of each other. Besides, you could say that God, being omnipotent, actually is the greater system. So it’s possible for God to not be a part of the universe at all, but interacting with it. But it’s at this point that the sculptor analogy breaks down.
And I don’t get what you mean by the statement that we define “universe” by interaction.
Prove it.
That is, demonstrate that things can be demonstrated, and that demonstrations are valid.
Neat trick here, folks. If you posit a rational universe (and you kind of have to to know anything), you’re making an assumption that cannot by definition be proven. Oddly, TVAA and co. seem to take undue exception to others’ assumptions.
God’s ability to lift something has nothing to do with its size. It’s not like the heavier something, the more divine power is required to lift it. G-d expends just as much energy lifting a 1 oz. stone as He (she, it, whatever-- there should just be a different pronoun) expended relocating the wall of Jericho-- none. G-d’s actions do not require effort.
Therefore, the two parts of this question fo not correspond. The rock’s size has nothing to do with G-d’s abiliy to lift it. This question is like, Could I peel an orange so large that it would make me sneeze? The orange’s size does not affect my nasal reaction. It’s the same.