The Paradox of the Stone is sound

The concept I am presenting is not a simple one, so I ask the reader to think deeply.(Unless you are already familiar with the various approaches to the rock paradox.)Rebuttal:“ If God is Omnipotent, He can create a stone so large that even He could not lift it”There cannot be such a thing as “a stone so large that even God could not lift it”.It is a logical impossibility. This stone CANNOT logically exist. It is the equivalent of saying "a square circle".“If God is omnipotent, meaning capable of all things, it only follows that there is no such action that is impossible for him to do (insert multiple biblical verses where he parts oceans and moves mountains, etc.). This would be inclusive to the act of creating a stone so large that He would be unable to lift it. At least, hypotheticaly, that is true. But the point itself is fairly simple: if god can do anything, there's no reason to believe he couldn't do this thing.”“A stone god cannot lift”, is not a thing. & by the same reasoning, creating "it" is not an action.“A1) If God Creates a stone so large even He cannot lift, then there exists something that he cannot do.” This is logically unsound. It should read “then there would exist...”.“B1) If God cannot create a stone so large even He cannot lift, then there exists something he cannot do.”It is not a thing. It does not, & cannot, by definition, exist.“Grand Finale de Conclusions: If There exists a task God cannot do, then God cannot be omnipotent”This is logically unsound.Consider the following counter examples:1) God cannot improve.2) God cannot create a square circle.“Conclusion Part Two: If God is not omni-potent, an omni-potent God cannot exist”Huh?Read that line again.“the most common place to attack this argument is there. The most common attack is "Why would God care to?". “Text book example of a strawman.Who in the world makes that argument?"The second most-common response is that the entire existence of a "stone so large that God cannot lift it" is a logical contradiction, and thusly not something that one could ask God to do."I’m not sure where these ratings come from.“First of all, there is no logical contradiction. Much like it's unlikely that I can do a triple backflip, there are things that a non-omnipotent god cannot do or are unlikely for it to do.” What does likely have to do with anything?We’re talking about things that CANNOT exist, like square circles.They CANNOT exist because the term used to describe them is self contradictory.The term is an oxymoron.“But secondly, even if we take this response as true, then this only further bites into the paradox by saying that because there is no such thing as a rock God cannot lift, God cannot create a rock he CANNOT lift, thus giving an example of something he cannot do. This only further bites into the paradox, which turns the refutation against the attacker. “If the phrase “a stone god can’t lift”, is an internal logical contradiction, then the phrase cannot be used in a sentence. If it is used in a sentence, than the sentence has no meaning. It’s like saying “can god create qwerty?” “qwerty”, has no meaning, thus the question has no meaning, nothing comprehendable has been asked. Here’s another example: Can god create a square circle, can he checkmate with just a king, etc.Not all sentences that follow the rules of grammar make sense.Noam Chomsky illustrates this with the sentence “colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.This answer is attributed to the great philosopher C. S. Lewis. There are a variety of different answers given over the centuries.The "paradox" is now more of a riddle, with various ways of being answered, than a serious theological problem. The paradox even comes up in physics, the question of unstoppable force v.s. unmovable object.Isaac Asimov showed based on Einstein's laws, that the question is self contradictory.Many of the answers are similar, I’ll provide a sampling here:1)Norman Geisler & Richard Swinburne:The paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he can't, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. They bring evidence to this from the bible. For example Hebrews 6:18 says that it’s "impossible for God to lie." According to these theologians, this law is not a law above God that he assents to but, rather, logic is an eternal part of God's nature, like his omniscience or omnibenevolence. God obeys the laws of logic because God is eternally logical in the same way that God doesn't perform evil actions because God is eternally good.2) Thomas Aquinas:The paradox arises from a misunderstanding of omnipotence. Inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God.See more including my main answer from C.S. Luis at:http://en.wikipedia.org...