The rock God can't lift.

[Tiberius]

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".

No. I haven't met a Christian who buys into your version because your version doesn't represent the omnipotence described by Christianity. The Bible specifically limits God in what he can do, which means that he is not "all powerful" in the sense that he can do everything (both logical and illogical). If a Christian argues that he is all powerful, then they are either being scripturally inaccurate, or using another definition of omnipotence.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Meanings

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.

I don't think it does set a limit. Without logic, things do not make any sense. It goes against reason to think that it would ever be possible for any being to do the logically impossible, since that would immediately make that event logically possible, and not logically impossible. In other words, to say that a being can do the logically impossible is to admit that whatever was thought to be logically impossible is actually logically possible. The concept of "all powerful" in this sense is in itself, illogical, and thus cannot (and should not) be brought up unless someone actively tries to argue for it. Rather, the concept of "all powerful" should mean what I said it means: the ability to everything that is logically possible.

"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.

It doesn't negate the concept of all powerful; it merely alters the meaning of it. As I've demonstrated, the concept of "all powerful" or omnipotence has many different meanings in philosophy. If you don't understand these meanings, there is no point continuing the discussion with you.

Again, there is no stipulation in the concept of omnipotence that we need to know its morality or intent. I'm not sure where you are getting that idea. Morality and intent has absolutely nothing to do with omnipotence.

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 by the same logic, he cannot make a square circle. The concept of omnipotence means many different things; this rock example does not negate omnipotence as a concept, nor does it negate the Christian God's omnipotence.

The Christian God is by definition, the greatest thing in existence. If he were able to create a rock that he could not lift, he would be creating something that was greater than himself, which would negate his own existence. That's not something he can do, by his nature.

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.

Why is he flawed if he can give up his powers? Being flawed has nothing to do with being 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".

No, there are multiple meanings to "all powerful" because over the centuries philosophers have realised that the concept itself is flawed in the absolute sense, and so in order to rationalize the concept, it has to branch out and be applied in different ways.

I don't deny that some Christians may dodge issues by switching the meaning of "all powerful", but that does not mean that there is not a definition of all powerful which contradicts Christianity. Indeed, the one which I find most intelligent Christians using is "God can do anything that is logically possible and does not go against his nature". God's nature is perfect, so despite it being logically possible to lie or sin, God cannot lie or sin.