I don't know if any of you ever came across this argument, probably yes. And if so, were you able to "use" it? Did it work? Is it flaud?
From a mere logical point of view:
Could god create a stone which is so heavy/big he couldn't lift it himself.
The question is could, not want to. So the answer: But he wouldn't do it is irrelevant.
If he can, that would mean there's something he can't do, lift the stone. If he can't create it, again something he can't do. Therefore: god is not
omnipotent in our realm of logic.
Works similar with: Can god kill himself/itself. If yes, he's omnipotent but mortal, otherwise he's mortal bun not omnipotent.
It is a well-known argument. It is not logically flawed.
I know of two responses to the stone too heavy to lift argument. One is that God is not constrained by logic, and the other is that he is.
If he's not constrained by logic, he can make a rock too heavy to lift and then lift it, anyway.
If he is constrained by logic, then he is omnipotent except in regard to that which is logically impossible.
Either way, there's stronger arguments. look up Euthyphro's Dilemma and the Problem of Evil, just to name a couple.
However, a noted problem with logical arguments against theists is that theists don't hold their beliefs based on logic, so logic cannot cause them to dismiss those beliefs.
Some form of these arguments are used by atheists who may or may not be aware of the Greek philosopher's paradoxes. These are logical arguments from Greek philosophers when not believing in the gods was a crime. Many Greek philosophers thought religion was ignorant and destructive. These arguments were posed to prove that an all-powerful - all-good - all-knowing - god does not exist.
Darius said, "Could god create a stone which is so heavy/big he couldn't lift it himself. The question is could, not want to. So the answer: But he wouldn't do it is irrelevant."
The apologist's argument that it wouldn't be logical to create such a rock does not solve the paradox. It requires assuming something that is unknown. The paradox is not about logic it's about His omnipotence. If god can do everything and anything He could create such a rock. If He could not create it He is not omnipotent; if He can't lift it He is not omnipotent.
Epicurus's the problem of evil: Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
Apologists have all kinds of arguments that labor to explain why evil would be allowed by an all-good god. None of the arguments can account for senseless or (without apparent reason, cause, or justification) gratuitous evil. Apologists have no actual reasons for an all-good god allowing evil. It's clear that they have no idea why. That indicates that for all they know there is no justifiable reason at all for an all-good god to permit evil.
Plato's Euthyphro's Dilemma - divine command: Does god command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by god?
The paradox or dilemma is that if goodness existed before god made a command then good is independent of god. It had to exist before the god's command. god's commands are not the source of good. The latter part, if anything god commanded would be good if god commanded it. That means slavery or senseless killing etc. is good if god commanded it? The god of the Bible sanctions them both. Some of us know that history reveals that many monstrous people have used god's command to commit horrendous evil acts. Apologists try to solve all of these paradoxes but many people do not think they have solved anything. Their arguments don't work because they rely on things that are unknown or just assumed.