The Paradox of the Stone is sound

I didn't intend to be demeaning, if I have been, I apologize. ?-( Perhaps I've gone to far with my game face. :DBut really pro has done a mighty fine job defending an indefensible resolution:pWhy a stone god can't lift cannot exist:1) God with regard this debate, is defined as an all powerful being, that can do anything. 2) Thus if God exists, there is nothing that "God" can't do.3) Thus if God exists, there is nothing that God cannot lift.4) Thus if god exists there CANNOT exist a thing that god can't lift5) Thus if god exists there cannot exist an object with the characteristic of being unliftable. Such an "object" is impossible, & CANNOT exist, just like a square circle cannot existThus if God exists, which is what the questioner is trying to disprove, there logically cannot be such a thing as "a stone god can't lift". If there logically there cannot be such a thing, it makes no sense to try talking about "it".What is this "it",? This it makes no sense.Thus no coherent question was asked.(To make things clearer:)So now if we play it out:"Can god create a stone he can't lift?""No.""If so, there is some thing god can't do.""something" that CANNOT exist, is not a "thing". Thus lifting "it" is not a thing (i.e. action). Thus no "thing" that god cannot lift has been mentioned.(But really the 1st way is the correct way of saying it.I'll illustrate with an analogy.If "a" says "an unstoppable force exists", & "b" asks will it move an "unmovable object".Technically you might be able to say "no", but the right way of answering would be, "there is no/cannot be such a thing as an unmovable object, thus no question has been asked, & if no question has been asked, no answer can be given."Why?a) Answering no would imply that such a thing exists / can exist.b) If no question was asked, it doesn't make sense to give an answer. A question must precede an answer."a)" reminds me of the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question.The stone question is a loaded question (i.e. a question which contains an unjustified assumption). Or more accurately, petitio principii / begging the question.The question presumes that such an object can exist.)Lets move onto some (hopefully) simpler answers:2) Yes, he can create such a stone. but no such stone ever existed. So the fact that hypothetically God could create such a stone, does not create a weakness in his omnipotence, because there is no such stone. If there is no such stone, than there isn't anything that god can't lift. Such a stone simply doesn't exist. So until such a stone is created, god is omnipotent.3) Not being able to create a stone you can't lift is not really a weakness in omnipotence, it's a result of omnipotence.The problem is in the definition of omni potence.Pro assumes that omnipotence means that god can do anything.That is not necessarily true. (The word comes from from the Latin phraseOmni Potens/ all powerful). For example does the fact that god is infallible, take away from his omnipotence, since he cannot make a mistake. If you think about this it's obvious, the fact that god can't create a stone he can't lift is not really a negative attribute. 4) It is obvious that gods characteristics will exclude his ability to do certain thingsFor example, an all good god, could not do evil.An all fair god cannot be unjust. Even if we say god is also omnipotent, in the sense pro wants to use it (i.e. able to do anything). It obviously means within the context of his other traits. Omni potence is limited to things not excluded by his other characteristics.So too within omnipotence itself, it's within the context of omnipotence i.e. he can do anything that's not excluded by being omnipotent.5) Another way of answering is that saying god is omnipotent, obviously means that he is as omnipotent as a being can be. How else would you describe him? If you were describing a being that was all powerful would you say"He can do anything except create a stone he can't lift"?No. I don't think it's really necessary to say all that. He's as all powerful as beings can get.6) There is a common saying, " you can do anything if you try/put your mind to it, etc., or, I can do whatever I want.Obviously it's not meant literally everything, it means everything within reason. God can do anything a being can do, that's called all power, all powerful within reason.7) Saint Augustine in his "city of god", said that omnipotence with respect to good means "A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do". With such a translation, the whole question falls apart. To quote his words (obviously translated):"For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent."(Perhaps this was the argument pro was referring to when he wrote:"The most common attack is "Why would God care to?"".This is obviously not what Augustine meant.)Okay.That should be enough.I thank pro for giving me the impetus to distal my thoughts & ans. to this riddle, &put them down on paper (er, screen).I would like to spend more time on this, but I've already spent several hours, & I think what I wrote is clear enough, at least one of the answers.Now, I'll turn it back to pro, & get started on my H.W. :(