Not..... exactly. I don't think the nature of God lends itself to the idea of omnipotence, but omnipotence is possible if one can imagine that it includes the ability to change the rules of logic.

It is supposed to, but forget intention and what it was supposed to be. It still does pose a logical paradox...

The nature of god is supposed to be Omnipotent, benevolent, etc.

The omnipotence paradox is focusing on the logical ramfications of an omnipotent being existing.

The question can be simplified is god able to not become omnipotent? If yes, then he is no longer omnipotent. If no, then he's not omnipotent, because that'll be the one thing he definetly cannot do.

Then you simply have to change the question to include 'under the current laws of logic' to maintain the paradox I guess.

No it isnt.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2758754

I talk about scriptural reasons for dismissing those assumptions in this post earlier in this topic.

Your not asking if god can create a rock he can't lift then however.

You are asking if god can create an object that is immune to his omnipotence.

Still an easy answer.

Yes.  However he would then no longer be ominpotent.

It would take more then just creating a rock though, clearly he would need to invest some of his "omnipotent" power into said rock so it became more powerful then him, and he in turn became weaker.

Really "Can god wipe himself from existance" is a more interesting question.  Also depressing.  Imagine a religion like Christanity but the god killed himself.

If I were omnipotent (I'm not saying I am or I ain't here), you wouldn't see me going around making giant rocks like an idiot. There are a couple cool giant rocks out there though.

Yeah, I think Uluru was Gods attempt at figuring this paradox out.

I see, I guess I mispoke a bit. However, nobody specificly pointed to the Jewish god at all.

In this paradox we set out in the very beginning that we have a specific omnipotent god (or being). The paradox isn't inteded to disprove god's existence, but the impossibility of an omnipotent god/being.

Not so: the "paradox" is more useful as a jumping-off point concerning the nature of God. Angrypoolman brings it up specifically in th context of the beliefs of believers and that's the context that it has to be addressed in.

It's very much about the Judeo-Christian God, and the answer is still unequivocally "yes". When you argue hte logic behindi t, you stop arguing about God altogether, and it becomes meaningless.

Yeah, if i was omipotent i'd probably just spend all day playing videogames and suspending my ominscience to them and the videogame makers.

I'm pretty boring.