The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God[2]

First I would like to apologize for the confusion. The last round there will be no new arguments introduced. What is omnipotence? The POTS(paradox of the stone) posits a certain kind of omnipotence only accepted by some. Generally there are two different types of omnipotence. I will differentiate between the two. I will presume my opponent will argue the most commonly presented view of omnipotence associated with the POTS that God can do literally anything. The second and more common view of omnipotence is that God can do anything within the realm of logic. In other words, God can make potential reality into reality but he cannot make impossibility reality. The two most common meanings can be summed up as absolute omnipotence and common omnipotence. Absolute omnipotence would posit the ability to do literally everything. Common omnipotence posits the ability to do only but everything that corresponds with the laws of logic. With absolute omnipotence God could make one plus one equal three. Those who hold the view of common omnipotence would deny such a view as it would go against the laws of logic. Absolute omnipotence would entail that God is above logic and can manipulate it while common omnipotence posits that God can only do what is logical and thus logic is above God. I gather from my opponents opening statements that he will be arguing absolute omnipotence which I have no issue over. The paradox of the stone completely fails to refute an omnipotent God whichever definition you take. Here is my basic argument put in a syllogism. P.1 If God can do literally anything, then God is above logic. P.2 If God is above logic, God can do anything seemingly illogical. P.3 If God can make anything logical then God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it while still being able to lift it. P.4 Thus the paradox of the stone fails in its attempt to refute an omnipotent God. The logic of the paradox of the stone poses that omnipotence entails the ability to do everything. Thus there exists nothing an omnipotent God could not do. Thus if God can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it than God cannot do something(lifting this stone) and is not omnipotent. And if God cannot create a stone so heavy he can't lift it, than God is not omnipotent. However we find that the paradox of the stone is a self-refuting argument. It necessitates a God that is above logic and uses that factor to disprove God. But assuming the position that God is above logic it completely refutes itself. If God possesses the trait of absolute omnipotence than it necessarily follows that logic has no baring on God. If God is above logic than God could over-come literally any logical feat for God could shift logic to meet his purpose. Assuming this concept of omnipotence God could make square circles, a clearly illogical fact. This demonstrates that God would be above logic. It again follows that God could make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it while still retaining his omnipotence. The argument my opponent is defending challenges Gods omnipotence by presenting a paradox. However if God is above logic God can overcome any paradox. God would have the ability to shift logic according to his will thus could make any illogical statement logical. Any statement would include that God could make a stone so heavy he can't lift it while still being able to lift it. That seems like a deeply flawed and non-sensical statement but if God can shift logic he can turn it into a completely logical statement. Therefore the "paradox of the stone" is not a sound argument and the resolution has been negated. Re-cap From the very concepts assumed by the paradox of the stone, the argument can be safely refuted. The paradox of the stone attempts refute God by posing a seemingly impossible logical feat. However it also necessarily poses that God is above logic. But if God is above logic than all logical feats are irrelevant for God could shift logic according to his will. I hand it over to the pro.