Not sure why people overthink this, to me the resolution is quite easy once you realize the “problem” is entirely caused by misuse of syntax and logic.
A) I can build any 1 foot wall
B) I can jump over a 1 foot wall.
C) Therefore, there is no 1 foot wall I can’t build which I can’t jump over.
D) Therefore, I cannot build such a 1 foot wall.
A and B are both true.
Therefore C is true, as it is another way to state the conjunction of A+B.
D cannot be derived from C as the lack of existence of something does not imply it can’t be created
In fact D is FALSE as it completely contradicts A which has already been established as true.
E) God can create any stone
F) God can lift any stone
G) Therefore, there is no stone created by God which he cannot lift.
H) Therefore, God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift.
E and F are both true, as God is omnipotent.
Therefore, G is true, as it is another way to state the conjunction E+F
H cannot be derived from G for the same reasons noted above.
H is in fact FALSE, as it contradicts E which has already been established as true.
And thus IMO, invalidates the entire “paradox”, or at least seemingly so.