Infinite regression!
(just watched the planet of the apes recently :p The concept is that one can see himself and his actions as if in a painting in front of him (the painter painting himself painting himself...)
Expand this to everything.
An almighty god could create a rock too heavy for him to lift and at the same time make himself strong enough to lift the rock.
Expand this even further... God creates himself and everything, he sets all the rules and can go back to change them whenever he likes, thus he has no bounds but the ones he sets for himself. He can thus decide to create a rock too heavy for him to lift and still have the capacity of lifting it.

When speaking of an almighty being, you cannot make a trick with words, because there is always a way arround it, he can do both at the same time, he's almighty!


I liked the Genesis story explained by Khuu, it's pretty interesting actually and fits nicely in my conception of religion (which I won't bother to explain).

Which is of course why I said it wasn't a good argument (was actually just displaying one of the arguments against it to give all possible sides).  But main reason I mentioned it is to make sure we understand logic and knowledge is finite but that doesn't mean ours is the same as the ACTUAL logic and knowledge.  So just making sure that distinction is made.  But I think we all know that the law of noncontradiction is something no one can break.

Well no your argument isn't affected by mine because it has nothing to do with the former.  My argument states that you can't disprove god with this contradiction because it is a problem of terminology and therefore needed clarification.  Thus the OP's friend original argument has been defeated once clarification has been made.  Yours is arguing within my realm after omnipotence has already been made very clear as you arguing extent of it.  But nothing to do with the orgiinal case.  You argue extent of the already established former. 

Howewver, I'm not sure you exactly understand the words you are using as "infinite" is no the way you would describe power.  Believe you are trying to say in a world of no end and a god of endless power he could technically do anything while in a world of ends and power that has an end he wouldn't be able to.  However problem with this argument is you assume that only a god that is power-capped could exist in a finite universe and that only a god of endless power could exist in an infinite universe.  Further more you act as if you have exhausted all other possible conclusions when indeed you haven't which is an either-or fallacy (false dichotomy).  There are numerous other proposals for gods existence and ones that fall in with the omnipotent god but make no mention.  Thus you have set it up as either a finite god in a finite universe or an infinite god in an infinite universe.  One obviously being silly to make the other seem like it is the only possible answer when it indeed seems to mock the definition of god to being with.

Thus yo have actually just spiraled back to the beginning challenging the question of what god already is and assuming that god has to have all power imaginable to be indeed a god which indeed has already been noted as not the case.

The OP question just doesn't make sense, it is the logical equivalent of dividing by zero. Just because they are formally/grammatically correct, neither of them have to have a traditional answer.

Probably not actually.  The talking Donkey was just made to make fun of the guy to insinutate he had sex with animals.

That's just how people were back then.

the bible was written by using "idea balls" gather by manatees kept in a tank in the fox studios.

I think you're slightly too confident in your assessment. Your conclusion is one that can be come to, however others will come to the conclusion that God indeed can create a rock that is too big and then lift it while others still will come to the conclusion that omnipotence is impossible. Your argument works only for the definition of omnipotent as you have defined it - unlimited power as long as no logical contradictions are made. However this is not strictly speaking unlimited power.

From the Oxford dictionary;

As you can see the Oxfords definition is that omnipotence means unlimited power. There is no mention of logical contradiction so for their definition of omnipotent your argument isn't correct.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

my god, you really have done it this time, highway star. you almost made me shit myself after this post!

jesus. stop going around saying things are a fact. just because you say its a fact doesn't make it so. are you 100% sure that the big bang happened? if it is any number other than 100, it isn't a fact. (in your mind, of course)

and you think YOU looked like a jerk in the dui thread? lol, yea right. everybody hated me in that thread. STOP TRYING TO STEAL THE ONLY THING I HAVE HERE!!!!!!11111

The real question should be: Can god create a pancake breakfast so big that (he/she/it/ flying spaghetti monster) can't even finish it!!!

Quite a lot of room for an intellectual debate on that one

*Sigh* Edwin Hubble must be spinning in his grave.

So what, did I waste 3 years doing my degree at University? Because the subject of my degree wouldn't have even existed if the big bang hadn't of occurred. 

I don't think you actually understand what the big bang is, I think you just think it was a random explosion out of nothing, it's not. I suggest that you read Universe in a nutshell by Stephen Hawking. I'm 100% sure the big bang theory is fact, but what I think doesn't make it so. What does matter is the thousands of tests that have been carried out with results supporting the big bang theory.

Their are a set of four pieces of observable evidence that together conclusively prove the big bang theory.

1. Hubble's law and the expansion of space.
2. Cosmic microwave background radiation.
3. Concentration of primordial elements.
4. Galactic evolution and distribution.

To be honest I think over the past month or two the Planck probe mission has proven the big bang to be fact alone. Next time you're watching TV, remember that you wouldn't even be watching it if the big bang hadn't occurred.

As someone who actually agrees with you as far as BB Theory is concerned I have to say you make it hard to be on your side when you get indignant that someone else doesn't share your view on the subject.

Don't say you COULD give facts...actually give them.  Actually explain them in a way people can grasp. 

In other words rather than beating people upside the head with the fact that you know something they don't, just explain it to them and let them decide what to do with it.   If they don't want anything to do with it then that is their choice and really shouldn't concern you or bother you at all.

@OP,

As for the original question, I would point out that the defintion of omnipotence is at the heart of the question. If you view omnipotence as the ability to do anything, even that which is inherently impossible, then the question means something.  If you view it as the ability to do anything that is not inherently impossible then it means nothing. 

The point being that the question asks for god to accomplish two mutually exclusive tasks.  If we substitute for another set of mutually exclusive tasks we can see how absurd the request is.  For example: "Can god make the light bulb in your dining room simultaneously be on and off?"

Finally, there is a third option, and most people are not going to like it.  The third option is that he possibly could have a light bulb be on and off at the same time....or that he could make a rock to big for him to lift and then lift it.  If you believe the request puts strain on his ability to be omnipotent then you are asking him to do what you believe is impossible as far as your perception is concerned.  But your perception is limited and any objection of "but that is impossible!" is just being silly.  If you define omnipotence as being able to do the impossible you cannot then balk when the omnipotent being actually does it. 

In conclusion, if omnipotence means you can do anything, even the inherently impossible, then there is no contradiction because he can do the impossible even when it defies logic. On the other hand if omnipotence means you can do anything, as long as it isn't inherently impossible, then there is still no contradiction because he would never claim to be able to make an unliftable rock that he can lift in the first place.

But we can skip all of that and point out that the question is truly moot becuase you would have to ask the man himself and not a bunch of mortals who really have no clue what omnipotence would actually be like.