There are two classic God paradoxes.
1) If God is all powerful can he make an object so heavy that he can't lift it?
2) If God is all knowing and all powerful how can there be free will?
There is a third paradox (which actually is used in theology to question which of the two God actually is):
3) If an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object, which must contradict its classification in order to render the occurrence possible?
I am one of those weird people who sits and talks to myself all the time so these things have been discussed at length with myself and I finally think I can explain all three.
1) The term omnipotence is defined as two different things and THIS is why it is unclear which of the two his 'all powerful' aspect is meant to represent. The first definition is that the all powerful being is capable to DO ALL THINGS that can be done but not necessarily have unlimited resources to do them. So, unlike us, God by this definition has the ability to do anything with his physical body (whatever that is) but may not necessarily be unlimited in the quantity of energy, space and time with which he can do them. So if we define all powerful as capable of all things, he actually can make an object so heavy he can't lift it and still be all powerful because he'd create a machine or being to lift it for him instead and thus meet the criteria to be all powerful in this definition. The second definition of all powerful is that the omnipotent being is unlimited in quantity of resources and power but may be limited in the actual power-types they have. So by this definition, God would always be able to lift the heavy object but him being unable to create such a heavy object that he can't lift it would be a form of power he hasn't got. Thus, it comes down to which of the two (unlimited types of power or unlimited quantity of resources in a power type) we are assigning to the term 'all powerful'.
2) If God controls everything, how can there be free will and how is a miracle even an amazing thing since it's simply God breaking the rules of nature/physics that he himself made to make an unthinkable thing occur? Actually this isn't a paradox at all. The issue is that we think God has free will himself and also think that miracles are in any way a 'good' or 'amazing' thing. They are anomalies to probability. If nothing rare occurred, no one would gamble and casinos would never reel in the big bucks. Miracles happen and it's necessary for rare things to happen in order for common things to be common. In simpler terms, a mental disorder is the mental norm if a vast majority of people have it. In fact, to be perfectly crude here shared mental oddities are what make cultural differences and religious differences in the first place. The sharing of an imaginary friend is how any fictional fan base begins and how all religions other than Buddhism originated. So basically a miracle is just an odd thing and odd things are odd since things that happen more often are not odd; it's that simple. So free will and miracles both may or may not be occurring depending what you really thing they are and how 'amazing' you believe they must be.
3) If an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object there are two aspects to the issue that make it a non-sequitur to think there is an issue here. A streamer of League of Legends who specialises in analysis of the game rather than playing it (he plays it but it's not his forte) realised that players who try to be an unstoppable force may get within the top range of players just as much as players who try to be an immovable object. What he then concluded was that the ones who end up in the top 10 of any season are fundamentally immovable objects who punish the unstoppable forces trying to gain momentum at a faster pace than is optimal and then they turn into the unstoppable force because no one can hurt them without being out-traded in damage or out-traded some other way in a macro-sense of the game. In summary, the immovable object is always superior to the unstoppable force because the unstoppable force is only constantly moving as it's dissatisfied with where it currently is and how things currently are making it self-admittedly inferior and unhappy with the current state of things. Up until colliding with the immovable object, the unstoppable force may have felt powerful and invincible but which of the two is actually invincible? Are you invincible just because so far you'd never stopped running? Of course not. So ultimately what will happen is that either the unstoppable force will have to find a way to cower around the immovable object in order to keep on being an unstoppable force OR it can stop at the immovable object and admire that ultimately this is the superior thing to be. There is a reason why Floyd Mayweather defeated Conor Mcgregor and a reason why he has 0 losses. Two very defensive-styled boxers are simply going to avoid facing each other, that is actually part of being a defensive personality and part of remaining as two immovable objects. The aggressive personas of the world seem more 'amazing' at a first glance but in the end statistics and facts count and these 'unstoppable forces' are simply hyperactive wannabe immovable objects who haven't mastered patience yet. Thus, the answer is that the immovable object ends up being the one who remains true to what it is and the unstoppable force will have to 'push' or 'pull' (depending which of the two it is doing) in a way that works around the immovable object.
I come to debate, I stay to troll,
I leave to think, I return to brawl.