Married bachelor.

God creates a parallel universe in which the bachelor is married. Next.

Cute, but complete nonsense. Logical contradictions don't just "go away" in a parallel universe.

Humour? What's that...

I don't think it's nonsense. In the parallel universe scenario, the same person is both a bachelor and married. Unless you can show me how it's nonsense?

Feel free to exchange the example for David's "two integer cubes that add up to a third" if you're getting hung up on some semantic sleight of hand.

"Married bachelor" is meant as the archetypal example of a logical contradiction where the definition of the one term contradicts the definition of the other. While I don't think your parallel universe even helps you (parallel universe don't seem to be the identical person, certainly having different groups of atoms, and thus in no universe are they ever a married bachelor even if similar groups of atoms in similar universes sometimes are married and sometimes are bachelors), you certainly can't think you would ever find such a trick for every single contradiction.

Unless you change the definitions of the words then it is nonsense. Can you show that it is not nonsense?

What's interesting to me about this question, is wondering exactly how an intelligent marshmallow could be differentiated from a more normal, everyday marshmallow.

So god created a universe in which there are things that even he can't do? An all powerful god creates the universe and promptly limits it's own powers?

It seems to me that the concept of omnipotence is flawed and somewhat meaningless. So the answer to my OP question is no, not everything can be possible since omnipotence isn't possible.

Don't forget that it can talk, so you can just ask it......

This has nothing (necessarily) to do with an all powerful god placing limits on his own powers.

No, the concept isn't flawed; your perception of it is, however.

Perhaps this will help.

Imagine I make up my own little formal system. Sentences consist of strings in the symbols x and o (for example xoxoxoxxx). I have a single axiom, the sentence x. I have a single rule of inference, the adjoining of an o to the right side of any string. Thus all true sentences are of the form xooo...o.

I could have made up any similar system. I could have made up one where xx was a true sentences. So one can imagine me being omnipotent in the sense of being able to make up any similar system I want. But after asserting it I am in a sense bound by what I have asserted. So a not unreasonable definition of omnipotence in this context could be the ability to come up with any such system, and not the ability that given any system I can just assert any string is true or false as I please.

Nothing is going to help if someone is purposefully obtuse. If it was not clear after the first explanatory post it never will be.

So it's the context? Then is it possible to create a system where there's no omnipotence paradox without redefining the word omnipotence? Criteria like 'logically possible' and 'logically consistent' or self contradictory examples (married bachelor) wouldn't be possible or necessary if omnipotence actually meant 'all powerful'. All powerful except for X, isn't omnipotence?

How is my perception flawed?

Incorrect on two counts. I'm not being purposefully obtuse and it may still become clear. In fact that was just a pointless and offensive post, infract yourself immediately.

Do you recognize that "omnipotent deity" can have different definitions, such as the different definitions listed by asdfasdf? It isn't a matter of REdefining the word, it is a matter of defining it. It seems you are stuck on a rather bad definition of it, and are rejecting anybody who offers a different definition.

Just because the marshmallow is intelligent, doesn't mean it has the capacity to talk. If you give a marshmallow other physical attributes like a mouth and the capacity for speech, it is no longer a marshmallow.

Of course, I thought I was addressing at least three of the definitions in my last post with references to 'logical consistency', logically possible' and self contradictory examples. I looked at asdf's list and I've done some reading up.

Clearly though, omnipotent doesn't actually mean 'all powerful' since you can't have something be all powerful except for X...

I think the OP has been answered, not everything is possible with an omnipotent god. so just because I can imagine a giant intelligent marshmallow doesn't mean that it could actually be created by a god.

It's a marshmallow with the capacity for speech. So, what would you like to ask it?

BTW A person who is same-sex married in one US state may not be considered married in another state or another country. So it may be that a "married bachelor" is actually possible.

Which is why we exchanged this example for the "two integer cubes that add up to a third" example.

I believe this is false. Please name the state or states where a marriage certificate from another state is invalid.

As incompletely specified in in this thread, there's a simple answer to this problem that you all should figure out in 10 seconds.

Maybe you are a legal expert or something or know more, but my understanding is that The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, allows each state to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.

You didn't answer. Go figure.

Please name the state or states where a marriage certificate from another state is invalid.

Alabama:

Ref.1 (b) & Ref.2 (b)
Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

Ref.1 (e) & Ref.2 (e)
The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.

Ref.1 (g)
A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

Alaska:

Section 25.05.013. Same-sex marriage :
(a) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or under statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state, and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage, including its termination, are unenforceable in this state.

lol

Also, for non-math inclined, is a valid solution to the math problem, since zero was not formally excluded as a solution.