This is a post with a question for the theists who read this blog:

Here’s what I believe to be a bad argument against the existence of God: “Could God make a stone so big even he couldn’t lift it? Both answers seem inconsistent with God’s omnipotence, so the idea of divine omnipotence doesn’t make any sense.” The response to this argument is to say that the idea of a stone too large for God to lift doesn’t make any sense, the idea of omnipotence doesn’t come with size limitations. The idea of a stone too big for God to lift is a contradiction, and omnipotence doesn’t include the ability to do contradictions, so theists can legitimately answer “no” to this question. I think that’s a perfectly good response.

But consider a related question: can God place limits on himself? Unlike the idea of a stone too large for God to lift, the idea of a limit is coherent, so this argument isn’t as easy to respond to as the stone paradox. The few things I’ve seen theists say about this just repeat the point about God not being able to do what’s absolutely impossible, but I’ve never seen a clear explanation of why it would be impossible for God to place limits on himself.

When I first encountered the argument a couple years ago, it looked like a successful argument to me, but I never made an effort to read up on it and I wouldn’t press the point in a debate with a theist, I guess because it sounds like a technical quibble. But I got asked about it the other day, and now I wish I had a better idea of how the replies and counter-replies to this argument work.

So: theists, how do you deal with these kinds of problems with the idea of omnipotence?