A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist

I stand in affirmation of the resolution "Resolved: a completely omnipotent being cannot logically exist." Definitions (www.dictionary.com) 1)Completely Omnipotent Being: A living thing possessing absolutely almighty power -Completely: having all parts or elements; lacking nothing; whole; entire; full -Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God. -Being: a living thing 2)Logically: according to or agreeing with the principles of logic 3)Exist: to have actual being; be Under these definitions, the resolution can be viewed as "A living thing possessing absolutely almighty power cannot 'be' in accordance to principles of logic" Observation: No restrictions can apply to a completely omnipotent being The idea of an omnipotent being is that it is a being with infinite/almighty power. As such, to impose any restrictions on that being shows that it does not have almighty power. For example, if you were to establish a restriction that prevents an OB from eating strawberries, then the being is not completely omnipotent, as you can take away its power to make decisions. To be completely omnipotent, a being must therefore have no restrictions on what it can do. Observation: Can an omnipotent being create a task so difficult that it could not complete that task? A common example of this is the stone paradox. It goes 'Can an OB create a stone so heavy that he/she/it cannot lift it?'ï¿½ The paradox here is evident. If an OB can create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it, it is not omnipotent. If an OB cannot create such a heavy stone, then it is not omnipotent. Similar to the stone paradox, is it possible for an omnipotent being to create a being more powerful than itself? If so, that being was never omnipotent, as there exists a potential power greater than itself. If an OB cannot do so, we have another restriction, therefore not omnipotent. Contention One: To maintain omnipotence, a being must be bound by logic -As shown in my observations, an omnipotent being unbound by logic is not truly completely omnipotent, as there exist scenarios in which it removes its own omnipotence. Contention Two: Such a restriction removes omnipotence -If the OB is restricted, it is not longer an almighty power, as there is a rule it must bow its head to. If there is a restriction on its actions, it is not almighty, as there is a greater source of power with the ability to bind the OB. These two contentions show us the logical impossibility of an OB. If a being is to be completely omnipotent, it cannot be bound by logic. In this case, the resolution is affirmed, as the OB does not 'logically' exist. On the other hand, if the being is bound by logic, it is not completely omnipotent. On to my opponent's case "Theology always being a topic of interest to me, I want to start off by stating that I am agnostic, and I believe in the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, because it seems almost crazy to me not to. As I understand, this debate is not a run of the mill, intelligent design vs evolution snoozer. So ToastOfDestiny, I accept your challenge under the resolution "A Completely Omnipotent Being Cannot Logically Exist."" -I do agree. This shall be a debate of epic proportions (provided I can access a computer at nationals. I should be able to get some sort of internet access. Somehow.), and I look forward to it. "Pikachu, I choose you!" -Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Regardless, I will go with the ultimate form of cheapness, and pull out a Groudon. Or perhaps one of the new-fangled ground-type legendaries. Or for that matter, all of them.