The Concept of Omnipotence Causes Logical Contradictions

Thanks, Pro.1. Rebuttali. GOD'S EXISTENCEI am in agreement with my opponent here that God's existence is not pertinent to this debate. I responded to some questions my opponent asked about God's existence in the last round, but as my opponent does not have any further questions on this topic and this topic is not the subject of the debate, I will move on to the next section of my opponent's argument. II. BOUNDS OF OMNIPOTENCEThroughout this debate, my opponent has asserted that God must have the ability to actualize incoherences (square circles, married bachelors, etc. ) I have disagreed, arguing that the term omnipotence implies the ability to do the logically possible. In support of my position, I noted a source containing quotes of several atheist philosophers who agree that omnipotence does not involve the ability to do what is logically impossible: . http://treesearch.org...Here, my opponent argues, "just because famous philosophers think it, does not necessarily mean it's right". This is absolutely true, but I could just as plausibly (perhaps more plausibly) say "just because my opponent thinks it, does not necessarily mean it's right". I think it's telling that the heavy majority of academic philosophers (including atheists) affirm my position that omnipotence does not involve the ability to do what is logically impossible. It's also telling that my opponent's argument (that an omnipotent entity ought to be able to actualize incoherences) has absolutely no standing in academia. If his argument had the slightest hint of truth to it, then it would be championed by atheist academics everywhere. But, just as academic atheists (and theists) reject the omnipotence paradox as an argument against God, they also reject the entire idea of the concept of omnipotence causing logical contradictions. My opponent argues that there is some sort of logical contradiction between an entity (1) being omnipotent and (2) being unable to actualize incoherences. But again, as I have argued throughout this debate, I don't see that there actually is a contradiction here. Square circles and married bachelors, as I have stated, are not "things" at all. If it's true that square circles and married bachelors are incoherences (not "things") then there is no issue with an omnipotent entity's being unable to actualize such incoherences. My opponent's argument can be summed as follows: an omnipotent entity ought to be able to create nothing. But surely this is absurd. Nothing cannot be created, or else it would become "something". So, I think it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that an omnipotent entity cannot create "nothing" (square circles, married bachelors, etc. ) and thus no issue to the concept of omnipotence stands.2. ConclusionRecall that my opponent was responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. So, in order to win the debate, my opponent must have provided adequate justification for his assertion that "the concept of omnipotence causes logical contradictions". I think it's clear that my opponent has failed to provide such justification. His entire argument throughout this debate has consisted of the unwarranted claim that if an omnipotent entity exists, that entity ought to be able to create nothing (incoherences). As I have pointed out several times, this is absurd. So, I think we can reasonably conclude that the debate resolution has not been shown to be true.