@Kasz. He isn't creating a rock he chooses not to lift, he is creating a rock he cannot lift.

If he creates the rock and is able at any point to lift it, then he has not created a rock he cannot lift.

Edit: Also for the George Washington thing - your going back in time most likely changes history meaning you no longer know for certain the decisions he will make. So no you haven't.

No because you could affect his life, causing him to make new decisions you would not know the outcome of.  However, that could lead to an off topic argument on how affecting the past would change the present you have lived before the time travel.

Edit: Rath ninja edited with basically the same response.

You've agreed with my hypothesis again.

Infinite and finite are two very different states Kasz. Think about it. In an infinite realm time, space and matter are infinite. For example, you could say that time does not exist in a realm that has infinite time because time has no "physical value" if that makes sense.

You are a finite being living in a finite world kasz, you can logically create a sub-realm that is less finite than yours, but you and it are still both finite.

What I'm saying is that an infinite being can't create a finite realm.

The thing is you're actually agreeing with my hypothesis Kasz, I just think you're playing devils advocate.

...

Are you watching the Aston Villa match anyway? lol

Sure he has. 

I can find a statue I can't life... but if I worked out enough eventually I could lift it.  Or I can make the statue smaller.... whatever.

It's not really a difficult concept.  Omnipotence would mean that you can do anything you want... (or can't if you want) until you change your mind.

If he could later lift it he created a rock he "couldn't" lift but now can.

At the time of creation it was just rock he couldn't lift however.

No, omniscience would require the being to know which path you are going to go down as well. Otherwise it does not know everything.

Am I right in assuming at this point that we have a lot of non-believers arguing over the semantics of something they don't believe in?

Is that about right?

Look, if you want to get down on that, God may not have a linear perspective on time. Everything may exist simultaneously for him.

(he's not omniscient in my own scenarios but I'm just pointing this out)

Yes but you're not omnipotent.

Omnipotence requires being able to do anything at anytime. Literally all powerful.

And I do get your concept, I just think it doesn't fit the definition of the problem. If you want I can change the question slightly - can God create a rock that he will never be able to lift even if he wants to?

Its a logical paradox, Kasz.  Its impossible.

If an omnipotent god wants to make a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, he cant do it.  Even with their omnipotence they aren't able to do it.  Using your own argument of what God wants, God wants to make a rock he cant lift, but he cant do it.

He chooses to make a rock he can't lift... because he doesn't want to... and it remains unliftable until he actually wants to lift it.

Wanting to do something has nothing to do with wether or not you are strong enough to do so.  If there is a piece of paper in front of me, my not wanting to lift it does not make it too heavy for me to lift.

This isn't supposed to be a logical paradox, though, it's supposed to be a stepping-off point for ruminations about the nature of God and his relationship with his creation

If anything, all this argument does is prove that there is no such thing as omnipotence.