examining omnipotence

I apologize for missing the last round. Guess I didn't get or notice the notification. Conduct points goes to Con.My opponent acknowledges that, by definition, the concepts proposed cannot coexist with an omnipotent being. However, my opponent assumes the existence of an omnipotent being at the beginning of the arguments. Ergo, these entities defined as being immune to everything cannot exist as an omnipotent entity capable of doing anything possible already exists.My opponent is incorrect by proclaiming that I did not dispute the soundness of "create something immovable by anything/himself", as I already stated that this object is impossible to exist, thus a meaningless concept while assuming the existence of an omnipotence being. Regarding the relativity of the statements, by anything, I assume anything in existence. However, if an omnipotent being exists (Which would be the case if he created the object in question) then the claim that the object is immune to everything in existence is either false, since the omnipotent being is excluded, or the object is as impossible to exist as a married bachelor. We have agreed that omnipotence includes the impossibility of failure, however what you are irrationally claiming that one of the things an omnipotent being can do is fail. What we can conclude from def 1 is that an omnipotent being can actualize any possible affair in accordance to his will, thus he can create a stone that is heavier than anything we can ever imagine, but he will always be capable to move the stone. The first power my opponent claims to be logical is illogical. "Something immovable to even an omnipotent being" is directly contradicting the definition of an omnipotent being which already assumed to exist. The first premise can be paraphrased into "The power to create something that cannot be moved by self", or "The power to fail at something", which is contradictory to def 1. If an omnipotent being as described by def 1 exists, this automatically means that the objects and scenarios you described are non-existent. To not shift the goal post, my opponent need to prove that an omnipotent being is non-sensical, and that the power to create something to fail at is not a self-refuting concept, rather than just point that it is possible that an immovable stone can exist in a world without an omnipotent being when his argument assumes the existence of an omnipotent being. Regarding the suspension of the laws of logic, my opponent have to first prove that the first power proposed in his premised are not illogical when an omnipotent being is implied to exists, as that would be acknowledging that the power to suspend the laws of logic itself is not illogical. You are basically proposing these impossible and illogical statements: "God can not be God" and "God can create a rock so heavy that he who can lift any rock cannot lift it."Suspending the laws of logic is not generally agreed on to be under omnipotence, however my opponent have yet to explain and prove how the power to break the laws of logic itself is illogical.As for how I know omnipotence does not include breaking the laws of logic, well I don't. We can't be sure if breaking the laws of logic is impossible, however if that is the case then the attributes of an omnipotent being are not set as implied by being eternal. For example he could supposedly choose to make creating the universe while not existing make sense, and he could be evil in a possible world and so forth.If universal possibilism is true, then we can't really call anything irrational. So to sum it up, perhaps the reason is personal bias. Humans are instinctively curious and knowledge seeking, and in order for us to reason, we have to assume that there are necessary truths (married bachelors can't exist). Furthermore, an omnipotent being is often attributed to be omniscient and all wise, which implies that an omnipotent being being always rational is one of his characteristics. However, we really can't be sure.