examining omnipotence

i am interested in examining omnipotence. i think that the concept itself is somewhat nonsensical. my opponent will explain how it is not nonsensical, and the winner will be the one who is the most cogent. as i understand it, omnipotence means "having all powers". (omni-all, potent-power/ability) the usage of the term seems to generally reflect its etymology. if my opponent wishes to provide any alternative definitions they may, but we shall focus on this definition and call it def 1. any alternative definitions must also be numbered for convenient reference. should my opponent believe that def 1 does not adequately represent the usage of the term, he/she should argue for that as well. i will examine the concept and try to show its problems, my opponent will both provide his/her viewpoint and we shall both attempt to find and articulate fault in eachothers views. round 1 is for opening arguments, my opponent is also allowed to address my opening argument, but only after providing thiers. from there on we shall examine each others arguments until we run out of rounds and the audience shall decide who was most convincing. begin: i will begin with a few omnipotence paradoxes. 1) the power to create something immovable(not logically incoherent concept) the power to move anything (not logically incoherent concept) an omnipotent entity has all powers (def 1). thus an omnipotent entity can both lift anything and create something that is unliftable. as this is a contradiction, omnipotence cannot occur. 2) the power to destroy anything. (not logically incoherent) the power to create something indestructible (not logically incoherent) (def 1) thus an omnipotent entity can both create an indestructible object and destroy that object. as this is a contradiction, omnipotence cannot occur. 3) the power to create something that cannot be interacted with. (not logically incoherent) the power to interact with anything (not logically incoherent) (def 1) thus an omnipotent entity can both create something that cannot be interacted with and then interact with it. as this is a contradiction, omnipotence cannot occur. it is apparent that omnipotence paradoxes will always describe the the creation of something with a certain property (which in itself is not illogical) and a power that cannot coexist with that property (but by itself is completely fine). as omnipotence is to have all powers and one can always find two properties that cannot coexist, it follows that no supposed entity can 'have all powers' and thus omnipotence is impossible. another problem of omnipotence would be 'the power to suspend the laws of logic'. this is problematic, as an entity not bound by logic is definitionally illogical. it is not an entity that makes sense any more. in this case, if you wish to assign some entity the property of omnipotence, then from then on all statements about that entity that can have truth values become suspect (including the statement that the entity is omnipotent). as logic is the necessary (though not sufficient) condition for statements to be assigned truth values, any statement claiming that itself or any referent within itself is not bound by logic, is a statement that cannot be given a truth value. heres a demonstration: basic laws of logic: identity: a=a non-contradiction: there exists no case where both a and not-a are true. excluded middle: only a or not-a (there are no other options) proposition A = "john is omnipotent" proposition B = "statements involving john do not have to follow the laws of logic" proposition C = "john exists" proposition T = "x is (exclusively)true" proposition F = "x is (exclusively)false" if A implies B (which it does) then neither T nor F can apply to propositions A,B or C, since the law of identity may not apply (and thus proposition A is not itself, and since only A is true or false, then we don't know the truth value of A since A is not A) and the law of noncontradiction may not apply (and thus B can both be true and false simultaneously) and the law of excluded middle may not apply (so there may be some third magical truth value that we don't know of that applies to C) so it comes out that the statement 'john is omnipotent' if it is true, then its not true (since its not itself). the statement "statements involving john do not have to follow the laws of logic" is both true and false simultaneously and the statement 'john exists' is some third truth value 'glurble' or maybe john half exists half doesn't exist or something like that. these are the reasons i see omnipotence as nonsensical. the concept leads to all kinds of weird and illogical situations.