Could god make a rock so large...

[OldTrees]

to begin with, lets assume that, by definition,, God is omnipotent. this would give him the ability to aquire omniscience. Because God is omnipotend, then he could also create a defition of good and define it to be self-consistent, whether or not our logic would view it as consistent. As God created the definition for good, he could conform to it without any contradictions, allowing him to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient at the same time.
I believe this would allow god to be all-omni, no?

Also, what if God is stopping us from understanding it? That is also another problem.

Assume God created a definition for Good and then prevented a single Human (lets call him Bob) from understanding it. This action of God's made a good intentioned Bob capable of sin. If God had not prevented Bob from understanding the definition of Good then Bob would not be capable* of sinning. Therefore God's action created sin. Thus God is not omnibenevolent if God prevented even a single Human from understanding the definition of Good.

*Because a moral individual does what they ought to do because that is what they ought to do.

[cometbah]

The usual definition of God is that It is the Set of all Sets ('all-omni', as you put it).

The Set of all Sets does not exist.

Problem: straw man fallacy. I don't think you can turn God into the set of all set's based on that page. You are going to need to use something a little more persuasive before I'll consider talking about that.

The usual definition of the Judeo-Christian God is the same as the definition of the Set of all Sets, namely, that It is all-encompassing, that everything originates from It, that it is the point of connection/common element between all things, that it is capable of everything / includes every possible action (omnipotence), that it is all-knowing / includes all possible knowledge (ominiscience), is everywhere / its member occupies every unit of the object space, and so on and so forth.

If one insists that God is not the Set of all Sets, then there must be at least one set larger than God, of which God is but a part.  There must be something within the Universe that does not originate from God.

Clearly, that is not acceptable to most religious interpretations of 'God'.

[cometbah]

to begin with, lets assume that, by definition,, God is omnipotent. this would give him the ability to aquire omniscience. Because God is omnipotend, then he could also create a defition of good and define it to be self-consistent, whether or not our logic would view it as consistent. As God created the definition for good, he could conform to it without any contradictions, allowing him to be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient at the same time.
I believe this would allow god to be all-omni, no?

Also, what if God is stopping us from understanding it? That is also another problem.

Such scenarios would allow God to 'be there' (for lack of better words), but not as a member in the set of existing things.

God would include both Existence and Non-Existence as a part of Himself. It would include everything that exists, everything that can exist but does not yet exist, and everything that cannot exist (paradoxes, contradictions, etc.). Existence belongs to God; God does not belong to Existence.

When we say something exists, we mean that it belongs to the set 'Existence'. God is not part of the set 'Existence', therefore God cannot be said to 'exist'.

However, just because God does not exist does not imply that He is a member of the set 'Non-Existence' (at least not to a mathematician of the constructivist school of thought). In other words, God also cannot be said to 'not-exist'.

In fact, the 'father' of set theory (Cantor) is highly religious and refers to God as the Infinity of Infinities. Look up 'cardinality of infinite sets' or 'aleph numbers' if interested in Cantor's conception of 'infinity'.

Whether a God like this is relevant is another matter entirely.

[Essence]

I didn't read all this, so I apologize if someone said this already.

There are two ways to address this question.  The "God must obey the rules of logic" way, and the "God doesn't have to obey the rules of logic" way.  if you define omnipotence as being able to defy logic and thus do definitionally-impossible things like "draw a circle with four right angles in it", he totally can lift and fail to lift a rock at the same time, problem solved.

If God has to obey the rules of logic, the question is meaningless, much like asking someone to draw a circle with four right angles in it.  Circles have an existing definition that precludes having right angles -- and the rock is in the same state.

It would include everything that exists, everything that can exist but does not yet exist, and everything that cannot exist (paradoxes, contradictions, etc.). Existence belongs to God; God does not belong to Existence.

He would also include everything that can exist but will never exist.  Don't forget those.  Unicorns!