Anything is a hypothetical possibility

Pro has conceded the debate. Recall, if I can find one thing that could not be the case, the resolution has been negated. Pro says my argument doesn’t hold water, however he doesn’t state how, it is merely asserted, so let’s recap my argument regarding omnipotence. P1)X is omnipotent if X can do anything. P2)X can either create a rock he necessarily can’t lift, or he cannot create the rock(exclusive disjunct) C1)X cannot do both C2)X cannot do anything P1- This is true by virtue of definition. It must be noted, in this case, I am speaking of omnipotence in the absolute sense, which is precisely what is meant by omni. If a being is omnipotent, which is to say it is all and absolutely powerful, the being must be able to perform all acts, which is to say there must not be an act that the being can’t commit. P2- Can an omnipotent being create a rock that the being cannot lift. If the being can create a rock which cannot be lifted by the being, there is now an act that this being cannot commit. However, if the being cannot create the rock that he cannot lift, this is also an act which the being is unable to commit. The being cannot create the rock, then lift it, because then the criteria for creating a rock the being cannot lift has not been fulfilled. C1- It follows from P2 that the cannot both create a rock it cannot lift, and lift the rock C2- It follows from P2,C1, that there is at least one act an omnipotent being cannot commit, and thereby the proposition there is an absolutely powerful being is nonsense. This establishes existence, and propositions are bound by logic. Come to think of it, I didn’t even need to argue from square-circles, because the logical impossibility of an absolutely powerful being negates the resolution, however let’s go on to address pro’s refutation. Pro states: Even if you're right about everything, you still haven't proven that it's not the case that, whatever you believe, you're right about everything and a maximally omnipotent god made everything true anyway, as they could do that by definition of being able to do anything. “Everything” is the operative word. As prior established, an absolutely being does not exist, therefore logic is a constraint on existence. Pro adds in the adjective maximally, however, this alone concedes the debate. Maximally is defined as”of or being a maximum; greatest possible; highest.” The catch is, what is maximal is the greatest, as permitted by what is possible, or a possibly possible set of conditions, however, what is possible is set forth by logic, so we can pose the same question regarding the ability to create an unliftable rock to a maximally powerful god, and the result would still remain the same. To rephrase in pro’s terms, it is not possible, for it to be possible for an all powerful, to create an object it can’t lift. And the qualifier “Maximally” indicates that this being's power is constrained by external conditions, therefore there are acts it cannot commit. By definition, a maximally powerful being can not do anything, it can only do what the conditions permit. Recall my square circle argument, the bulk is that X cannot both have 4 and not 4 sides. This is true by non-contradiction. Therefore, it is not possible for it to be possible for x to have 4 and not 4 sides. Last note, there is no meaningful distinction between X is possible, which is to say it is the case in some possible world, and it is possible for x to be possible. The latter is essentially reducible to X would be possible if Y, which is reducible to the former, in the sense that if Y is possible, it is the case in some possible world, then X is the case in some possible world. In both cases, the operative word is possible, and what is possible is constrained by logic, and if we accept the validity of the fundamental laws of logic, the resolution has been negated.