Because, grateful, that would be a contradiction.

<<…why can we not simply say God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift BECAUSE HE IS OMNIPOTENT??

I’ll re-word what you just said to highlight why:

“Why can we not simply say that God’s power has a limit to it because he has unlimited power?”

If a god cannot create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it, then he is, by necessity, not omnipotent. How can you limit a god’s power on the one hand, and then immediately proceed to say that it's unlimited? That makes no sense. Such a god would disappear into a puff of logic the moment you conceived of it.

All you’ve done is gone from a paradoxical concept to a contradictory statement.

Yutsie: God is always there, the only true reality, He moves nothing and nothing moves Him.

Or Her, or it. You are saying that "a God" doesn't do actually do anything at all. God is just there. So exactly what use is "a God" other than for people to use the figment of "a God" to control other people.

Yutsie you're just plain weird mate. Just as well there is no doG. Opps, dyslexia steps in again.

AJ: "All you’ve done is gone from a paradoxical concept to a contradictory statement."

Fair enough.

Well doesn't the whole notion of God lifting anything presuppose he is limited and therefore not omnipotent? He has no need to lift a rock to cause it to disappear from one position and appear in another (as we would perceive it). So the paradox presupposes God is not omnipotent, then assumes he is omnipotent to conclude that he cannot be omnipotent.

Jayb: "Yutsie you're just plain weird mate. Just as well there is no doG. Opps, dyslexia steps in again."

From what i have been able to observe on these forums, atheism seems to attract a disproportionate number of people who take pleasure in belittling others. These remarks could have been spoke by Trump.

grateful,

The main point, that you're still desperately trying not to understand, is that the whole concept of omnipotence is in and of itself one big contradictory paradox. Even before you apply it to a god.

<<Well doesn't the whole notion of God lifting anything presuppose he is limited and therefore not omnipotent?>>

No, the paradox says nothing about a god’s need, or not, to physically lift something. A paradox is as impossible in theory as it is in practice.

<<He has no need to lift a rock to cause it to disappear from one position and appear in another (as we would perceive it).>>

And I have no need to go back in time and shoot myself, but that wouldn’t stop it being a paradox if I did.

You are just sidestepping the problem here. An unstoppable force may never meet an immovable object, but that doesn’t make the paradox of the two existing in the same dimension go away. How, for example, can an unstoppable force be unstoppable if an immovable object exists to stop it? Similarly, how can a limitless being exist if it exists to limit itself?

<<So the paradox presupposes God is not omnipotent, then assumes he is omnipotent to conclude that he cannot be omnipotent.>>

No, the paradox starts with the assumption that God is omnipotent. Like I said before, though, the concept of omnipotence is a paradox before one even gets to the point of applying it to a god.

Modern theologians and sophists get around this dilemma now by claiming that God is “maximally powerful”. Personally, I find the idea of a “maximally powerful” god pretty underwhelming (it is, after all, infinitely less powerful than an omnipotent god), but at least with a maximally powerful god you have the luxury of defining and re-defining your god as you see fit, depending on whether you hit a contradiction or not.

Not a very honest way of thinking, I know. But since when has any theological pursuit been concerned with intellectual honesty?

grateful: atheism seems to attract a disproportionate number of people who take pleasure in belittling others.

You didn't find Yutsie post rediculess & belittling.

grateful: These remarks could have been spoke by Trump.

The World need people like Trump. We, in Australia, should be so lucky. Maybe the next Senate will be full of little Trumps, with any luck.