JESUS
When Jesus said it was impossible for the rich to inherit God's kingdom, the apostles decided that as everybody had attachments to what they had and wealth is relative, that nobody had any hope. Jesus said, "With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
It is not clear from this if he thought God could do the literally impossible or if he could do what nature cannot do for as its creator he is stronger than it.
Religion says that he only meant man without divine help cannot get to God so he was not talking about the literally impossible but just the very unlikely. Yes but we still don't know if he thought man getting to God was literally impossible.
Most people then did think that gods and God did the impossible in the strongest sense of the word. They thought birds could give birth to humans if a god decreed it.
GOD LIFTING A ROCK TOO HEAVY FOR HIM TO LIFT?
If a being is all-powerful, then it can perform any action that is logically possible, because omnipotence is generally understood as the ability to carry out any coherent action. Logically inconsistent “actions,” such as creating a square circle or making a God greater than himself, are not genuine actions and cannot be performed by any being, including an omnipotent one. Attempting to claim that failing to do the logically impossible would limit omnipotence is a misunderstanding: contradictions are inherently meaningless and cannot count as real achievements.
However, whether an all-powerful being could allow or create misleading perceptions or appearances is not something we can determine through logic alone. This question falls into the realm of epistemic uncertainty: we cannot prove either that our senses and reasoning are perfectly reliable or that they have been manipulated. Even if our perceptions generally correspond to reality, there is no certainty that they are entirely accurate, and an omnipotent being could theoretically influence them without contradicting logical possibility.
From the perspective of religion, God is often described as the creator of all things, using nothing but his own power, which implies omnipotence. But this raises questions about why our perceptions are as accurate as they are. Does God grant us reliable senses simply because he must, or because he desires us to experience a measure of truth? If it is about our desires, this raises questions about free will, consent, and whether our experiences are genuinely meaningful. Human cognition and memory are imperfect, revising the past and sometimes deceiving us, which suggests that our accuracy is always partial.
Consequently, belief in God may weaken our trust in our senses, because it introduces the possibility that our perceptions could be shaped or allowed to be misleading. Appreciating the functional, though imperfect, accuracy of our senses—without assuming divine perfection—offers a more straightforward and reliable basis for understanding the world. In this light, being amazed by the natural processes and chance that produce generally reliable perception is perhaps the most rational alternative.
FINALLY
If God's infinite and complete power makes sense, that concept is no good to us.