The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God

What is omnipotence? I will first off be stating that I did not define omnipotence because I predicted there would be a disagreement on the definition. The POTS(paradox of the stone) posits a certain kind of omnipotence only accepted by some. I will differentiate between the two in a little bit, but I must admit I was initially going to defend one view of omnipotence as well as showing that the paradox fails taking into account either view. But now I don't think it necessary to argue the definition of omnipotence as the POTS cannot be proved sound whichever way you look at omnipotence. My opponent provides his own definition which states that God can do anything other than that which contradicts his character (a morally perfect God cannot sin). I will presume my opponent will argue the most commonly presented view of omnipotence associated with the POTS, that (other than the restrictions my opponent has stated), 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. I notice my opponent cites the scripture to provide his definition for omnipotence. I don't view that as credible criteria for defining this attribute as using scripture would entail the Christian God which was never assumed. Thus scripture is not a valid source for defining omnipotence. As of yet though, I will not waist time arguing the definition as it does not contradict my case in any way that I can see. 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. My opponent seems to be taking a mixed view; that God possesses absolute omnipotence except for when an action would contradict his own nature. I would like to present two statements.1. Assuming the view of absolute omnipotence, the paradox of the stone completely fails.2. Assuming the view of common omnipotence, the paradox of the stone completely fails. I assume my opponent agrees with number two as common omnipotence does not posit the ability to do illogical things and making a stone too heavy to lift is certainly illogical, but I predict he will find issue with number one. 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 it follows that God can make the action of him making a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it while still retaining his omnipotence, logical. 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 is that omnipotence entails the ability to do everything. Thus there exists nothing an omnipotent God cannot do. Thus if God can create a stone so heavy he cannot lift 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 that position it completely reftues itself. If God possesses the trait of absolute omnipotence than it necessarily follows that God is above logic. 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. Thus God could still doing anything for logic would have no baring on his actions. Therefore the "paradox of the stone" is not a sound argument and the resolution has been negated. Good luck to my opponent and I hope the readers, as well as both I and my opponent, retain an open mind on this issue.