Not at all - the logic is irrefutable, unless one of my premises is somehow flawed. Just because you (apparently) don't like the implications of it doesn't change the truth of it.
Let's look at it again:
P1: If there is something that God cannot do, then God cannot be omnipotent and all-powerful.
This is necessarily true, by the definition of "omnipotent". A being that is omnipotent can, by definition, do anything and everything it wishes. And therefore, a being that cannot do anything and everything it wishes is not omnipotent, by definition.
P2: There is something God cannot do - God cannot change his own law.
This is also true, at least according to gore3000. Gore3000 tells me that God's law cannot change. If it cannot change, God cannot change it. After all, if God could change it, then God's law would be changeable. But it isn't, so he can't.
C1: Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent and all-powerful. QED.
And this is the inescapable conclusion. There is something that God cannot do, therefore God cannot be omnipotent, by definition. The only way you can possibly refute this conclusion is to show that one or more of my premises is flawed. If you don't like the first premise, you'll have to take it up with the people who write dictionaries. If you don't like the second, take it up with gore3000.
I understand very well why you don't like it, but that doesn't change the validity of the argument. The logic is perfectly valid, and therefore if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Logic can be a real b**** like that sometimes ;)
Can a square be perfectly round and still be a square?
Logic can be a real b**** like that sometimes
But in setting up this syllogism you've committed some logical errors of your own. For instance:
First, you're assuming that gore3000's statements about God's laws are those of God Himself. You've said nothing about God here, only about gore3000's opinion about God.
Second, you're excluding a possibility: that God might choose not to change His laws.
Third, the syllogism makes some a priori assumptions about God's purposes, nature, and methods of action. If any of those assumptions are incorrect, the syllogism (while still logically consistent) is invalid.
Fourth, the syllogism requires that God's laws as revealed to us are equivalent to God's laws overall -- which isn't necessarily true.
I'm sure you get the idea....
This is also true, at least according to gore3000. Gore3000 tells me that God's law cannot change.
Your conclusion is false and it is not logical. You are changing the words to arrive at it. I did not say that God cannot change His own law. I said that God's law cannot change. Similar but not the same. So you are misrepresenting my statements to arrive at your conclusion. As I explained to you above God can change his own law, but he does not want to. He is not Bill Clinton who changes what he says in the same paragraph. He could deceive, but he does not wish to deceive.
As I've said above, you must be getting pretty desperate in trying to justify your atheism when you have to play word games to bash religion. You are fooling no one.