The Concept of Omnipotence Causes Logical Contradictions

My opponent seems to disagree with me on two points, but only one of these is exclusive to the debate.GOD'S EXISTENCEThe first point my opponent addresses is in regards to the idea of god that we hold. He says that god does not need a cause to exist, because he has no beginning. While how we conceive god's existence is not necessarily pertinent to a debate about omnipotence in general, I would like to respond to this. In my first round, 'atheist me' is responding to 'theist me', asking how god's existence is any more likely than a singularity popping into existence without cause. Basically my opponent has said that the god option makes more sense because he has had no beginning, whereas the singularity has. However, in both scenarios, both things happen without cause. True, god has been around forever, but why? What caused him to exist forever? He just has? Just like that? If that is the case, why is it less likely that a singularity suddenly exist.. just because? As god exists just because. Anyways, since this debate is about omnipotence in general, this doesn't really matter.OMNIPOTENCE HAS LIMITSIn my first round of argumentation, I posited that since an omnipotent being is supremely powerful, it can do illogical things such as will itself to exist before it even exists, therein guaranteeing its own existence. I stated that since this was the case, an infinite number of gods could exist, because omnipotence guarantees existence through being able to ensure your own existence before you even exist. I know that when you take this logic too far, it starts becoming incredibly hard to fathom, but that's the point. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes the idea of omnipotence full of contradictions and hard to grasp.So in response to this idea, my opponent has essentially said that there are things omnipotent beings cannot do. Even before I get to what specific things he said, we should be able to see that this is a faulty statement. Omnipotence by definition guarantees power over everything, meaning there is nothing you cannot do. So when my opponent says that, "Omnipotence by no means entails the ability to do the logically impossible. For example, an omnipotent being couldn't create a square circle, or a married bachelor. This presents no problem to the concept of omnipotence, however, as "square circles" and "married bachelors" aren't really coherent "things"," he is ignoring this fact. Yes, square circles don't make sense to us, and as far as we know, there is no such thing as a square circle. However, if I had supreme power, I would have control over logic and reality as we know it, meaning I could contort these things to make square circles possible."My opponent and I both agree (please correct me if I'm wrong) that an omnipotent being could not cause itself to exist."No, I know that while it seems ridiculous, under the definition of omnipotence, it is possible, because when you're all powerful, nothing is off the table, leading to all sorts of contradictions in logic.As I finish up here, I would like to note that my opponent has not criticized the logical progression of ideas I presented in round 2, rather he criticized the idea it was founded upon. This means that if I convince you of my founding idea (that omnipotence has literally no bounds, not even of logic), by default the progression of ideas I have presented, and their conclusion of contradictions of logic, are correct, at least in terms of the debate.Thank you for reading.