is he still an omnipotent god?

[RulKinat]

If an omnipotent God created an object he can't lift, is the God still omnipotent?

[Aftokratoria]

No? Cause then the being is not all-powerful. Something that powerful couldn't actually exist in real life, but theoretically, no, the god would no be omnipotent

[HyFy]

Agreed. If someone was all-powerful, it's impossible for them to come up with something they CAN'T do.

[Arstotskiano A.K.A Creopotava]

I agree with the two above, if said god is all-powerful, if they make something they cannot do, they are not all-powerful.

[Nox]

I find a lot of these discussions are rooted in a flawed definition of omnipotence - omnipotence means one is able to do everything that can be done, whereas it is often instead framed as "nothing is impossible."

There is a key difference.

An omnipotent would have infinite power to enact change, but this change would still need to be bound by what could actually be. The theoretical stone would have to be infinitely large to defeat an infinite amount of lifting power, but such a large and heavy rock is a contradiction since material objects cannot be infinite. An omnipotent could create a stone so massive that by our perception it is infinite - but it logically does have an end point, just one impossible for us to even comprehend. At such scale, does the difference really matter?

This ultimately boils down to the point that a being of omnipotence cannot create a contradiction, which doesn't detract from said omnipotence. At least in my opinion.

[Saranzio]

The question is old enough that it has been commented on in Augustine of Hippo's The City of God (5th century AD)

"But assuredly He is rightly called omnipotent, though He can neither die nor fall into error. For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent."