The Stone Paradox is a Valid Paradox against the Biblical God

I agree with his statement that the definition of omnipotence must be rooted squarely in the Scripture and applaud the passages chosen. What is Omnipotence? (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)When asked this question, most people willl answer "the ability to do anything. " Now, if you ask a more philosophically inclined person, they may say something along the lines of "being maximally great" or "having maximal power. " If you get even more granular in the definition, most philosopers (and especially Christian Theologians) will define it as "God's power to do all things that are logically possible. " They include the phrase "logically possible" in order to rule out nonsensical thinsg like creating four sided triangles, or married bachelors. This kind of omnipotence is sometimes called "Common Omnipotence,"However, if we observe Mr. Infidel's argument, it does not include this limitation. In Mr. Infidel's definition, God can do not only allthings that are logically possible, but can do all things that are logically impossible as well. This kind of omnipotence is sometimes called "Utter Omnipotence" or "Absolute Omnipotence. "This is further bolstered when we observe the implications of the so-called "Stone Paradox" (SP). By the very definition of "omnipotence" a stone that is too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift is nonsensical. The very definition of omnipotence, a rock that is to large for an omnipotent being to lift is a nonsensical concept, just like a square triangle or a married bachelor. This paradox assumes that God can do something nonsensical by making a stone so heavy that an omnipotent being cannot lift it. So we see that the stoen paradox assumes omnipotence. Lifting a Rock That Is Too Heavy To LiftNow, if we observe the logic of the SP, we see that it relies on the law of Non-Contradiction (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) for its base. It asserts that something cannot be A (Liftable) and Non-A (Non-Liftable). Either God makes it A, or he makes it Non-A. If he makes it A (because he cannot make it Non-A) he is not omnipotent because he cannot do something. If he makes it Non-A then he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it. However, since we are talking about a God who is not bound by the laws of logic, the law of Non-Contradiction does not apply to God. God indeed can make it so heavy that he cannot lift it, and then proceed to lift the rock that is genuinely so heavy that he cannot lift it. If that doesn't seem logical. .. it is because it is not. But you must remember that we are working with a God who is not bound by logic, as defined by my opponent and implied by the SP. In terms of dismantling my opponent's syllogism, I have shown that premise 3 is not accurate. That is to say that premise 2 being correct does not exclude the existence of God by limiting his abilities. Closing SyllogismI shall close with a syllogism that will help clear things up.1) Nothing is impossible for God2) Illogical things are something3) Lifting a stone so heavy he can't lift it is an illogical thing4) Therefore, lifting a stone so heavy he can't lift is possible for God5) Therefore, God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, yet still lift it6) Therefore, the SP fails in its attempt to disprove the existence of an Omnipotent God. Thank you