When we define a certain four legged animal as a dog, it is defined as a dog in our language only. The word dog is meaningless unless someone recognizes its purpose. When a skeptic says, “There are no absolutes” and someone replies, “Are you absolutely sure?” it is not a paradox in our reality that has been found, but in our language.
Language is the imperfect product of man. We made the whole thing up. The impact of a word is dependent on both the context and the interpreter. People usually have a similiar idea of what a word means when it is used casually, but when philosophy is introduced definitions appear not to be universal.
Another aphorism/question as I remember it is, “If God is omnipotent can he create a rock too heavy for himself to lift?” This is not an idea concerned with the validity of religious claims. It shows omnipresent to be a suspect word. It is the fault of our language. To discover a word as paradoxical isn’t necessarily a refutation of a concept, but rather a suggestion to examine the idea more closely.