The rock God can't lift.

[Brian37]

I don't see that as a loaded question.

It is one. There are two questions combined into one:

1) Can God create a rock?
2) Can God fail at lifting that rock?

It's like the question that Violet alluded to: have you stopped beating your wife? If you answer "yes", it means you are admitting to wife-beating. If you answer "no", it means you are still beating her. The problem with these questions is that there are other valid answers, and sometimes a "yes or no" doesn't cut it. For instance, a perfectly valid answer to the wife-beating question would be "I have never beaten my wife."

Likewise, a perfectly valid answer to the question about God and rocks is "God can always lift the rocks he creates."

"Can god lie"
"Can god make a square circle"
"Is god capable of murder"

Any one of those examples creates a contradiction.

No they don't. Only the second one makes a contradiction with logic. It is perfectly possible for a God to lie, or a God to murder, since lying and murdering are both logically possible tasks. Creating a square circle is not.

If he can lie, then you could never know if he is good or bad or anything about his intent. If he cant lie, then he is not all powerful.

There is nothing in any definition of omnipotence that has anything to do with intent. You are confusing the issues by making this about a specific God. For the purposes of logical evaluation, it is not. Rather, it applies generally to the concept of Gods.

"Capable of murder"

If he can, then he cannot be considered moral. (murder, meaning criminal, not self defense). Murdering out of jealousy seems to be the OT God and Revelation character's motif.

If he cannot murder out of jeolousy, for example, again, you could not call him all powerful.

Again, we are not talking about the God of the OT. We're talking about actions that are logically possible.

All of those are examples of why, as a concept, as a claim, not as a real thing, but as a claim, makes the idea of "all powerful" as an atribute an absurd claim.

No, it makes it an absurd claim for Christians, as you've demonstrated, but not many Christians (at least, not many thinking Christians) make the claim that their God is "all powerful". Rather, they claim he is all powerful apart from aspects which god against his nature as a "perfect" moral being. Indeed, ask most intelligent Christians if there is anything they can do that God can't, and they'll give a one word answer: sin.

Being "all powerful" in the sense that you can do anything logically possible is a valid concept. It just doesn't apply to the Christian god, but I was never talking about the Christian god.

"all" in "all powerful" means can do anything and everything. That includes being illogical. I like my explinations to reality to be logical not illogical.

There are multiple meanings to the word "omnipotence". Likewise, there are multiple meanings to the concept of "all powerful". In a very narrow view, it means exactly as you state...that any all-powerful being can do everything, including those things that are logically impossible. I have yet to meet a single theist who subscribes to this view, and until I do (or until one shows up here) it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The more common meanings are that an all-powerful being can do everything that is logically possible, or that they can do everything that is logically possible except things that go against its nature.

All you are doing is explaing the dodges Christians use to get arround their inconsistancies. When you say that you have not met one Christian that buys into my version what you mean is that you have't met one willing to be honest with you. It's called back peddling. Moving the goal posts. Catch them in a logical inconsistency and they imediatly say "Thats not what I mean".

You just said the same thing I did
"any all powerful being can do everything logically possible"

That sets a limit on the god claim. If it can do something illogical, then it is not all powerful. If it can, then it is not perfect and no reson to call it "all powerful'. It cannot be all powerful without the ability to be logical and illogical. If it is then it is a broken concept.

"exept things that go against it's nature"

There again, "exept sets a perameter, a limit" which negates the concept "all powerful". It must have the power to go against it's nature otherwise by semantic definition it cannot be called "all powerful". If it can go against it's nature, then there is no way of knowing it's morality or intent.

And again I too am NOT adressing a specific god, just the concept of "all powerful" .

If he can always lift the rocks he creates then he cannot make one he cant lift thus limiting his power.

And even just the issue of his powers is a contradiction.

Can god give up his powers? If he can he is flawed. If he cant, he is not all powerful.

Of course there are multiple meanings to "all powerful", that is how the theist dodges contradictions "thats not what I meant, I meant this". Then when they give you another one, you find a flaw in that, then they give you another one.

Again the reason "all powerful" can dodge the inconsistencies we present them is because YOU gave them muliple choices. And the way they dodge the issue is because they start with the presuposition that "God can do what he wants"

Well yea he can as soon as they swallow that tripe they can use all those dodges by re defining anything about their god to avoid inconsistencies. Including re defining "all powerful".