My opinion in this topic is that God being omnipotent, he can create whatever he wants with specifications that he wants. An example would be the human body, he created our body with perfect functions, he wanted our body to work one way and he did it like that. Therefore I can see God creating a rock that would be unmovable by him or by anybody else.
My point of view for this topic is that God being omnipotent he himself can create anything with the specifications that he wants. He can create a rock with the specification that no one absolutely no one not even him could lift the rock. He created the human body to work like he wanted, therefore I can see him creating a rock that would be unmovable to him or to anybody else.
The only way this paradox could be applied to God is if he followed human logic. God, being omnipotent, could easily just be illogical rather than staying logical. For all we know, contradiction could exist within the existence of God.
I think I myself even assumed to much upon writing this.
Yes, God can create a rock that even he cannot lift. God also chooses not to do so. God does not need/want to forge a boulder that he cannot move, it is entirely pointless from my point of view. Same thing if he could chain himself to a rock so he couldn't move, he chooses not to do so.
Though I am an atheist, given the factor of infinite power this could still be done.
If a god existed and had infinite power to create, he could create a rock of infinite size. Basically, all existence would be the rock. If all was the rock, no space would be left that was not the rock so no space would be left to move it in any direction. This would make lifting it illogical no matter how much power the god would have. Even if the rock was much smaller, say only the size of the universe. With no other objects, there would be no reference to being above another object so the idea of lifting would have no meaning. Further, if the god erased all things that do exist in space and just created a small stone. Again, because no other object exists, lifting the stone would have no meaning as there would be nothing to lift it off of. I have shown in various scales how this so called paradox can be proven wrong. Clearly this old paradox needs to retire as it is irrelevant to the existence or not of an all powerful god. I hope you have something better than a failed paradox. I know I do.
A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or Richard Swinburne is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, 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 cannot, 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. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18, which says it is "impossible for God to lie." This raises the question, similar to the Euthyphro Dilemma, of where this law of logic, which God is bound to obey, comes from. 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 does not perform evil actions because God is eternally good. So, God, by nature logical and unable to violate the laws of logic, cannot make a boulder so heavy he cannot lift it because that would violate the law of non contradiction by creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force.
Another common response is that since God is supposedly omnipotent, the phrase "could not lift" does not make sense and the paradox is meaningless. This may mean that the complexity involved in rightly understanding omnipotence---contra all the logical details involved in misunderstanding it---is a function of the fact that omnipotence, like infinity, is perceived at all by contrasting reference to those complex and variable things, which it is not. An alternative meaning, however, is that a non-corporeal God cannot lift anything, but can raise it (a linguistic pedantry)—or to use the beliefs of Hindus (that there is one God, who can be manifest as several different beings) that whilst it is possible for God to do all things, it is not possible for all his incarnations to do them. As such, God could create a stone so heavy that, in one incarnation, he couldn't lift it, yet could do something that an incarnation that could lift the stone could not.
God can lift anything if he exists. The god wouldn't be a god really if he couldn't lift anything he can create. If god created the earth and could do just about anything to it, then how could he create something he couldn't?
Besides, we don't know too much about his capabilities. This is a very bad question to debate.