examining omnipotence

my natural contention is not with the validity of his argument but with its soundness. i contest the second premise of his argument. my opponent will notice that the way i formulated the omnipotence paradox was somewhat unique. i did not formulate them as questions, as he implied when he said 'your questions are with no meaning', rather i gave 2 lines describing 2 different powers. they always consisted of these; the power to create something with a specific property (be it immovable, indestructible or any kind of interaction) and a power that could not logically be performed upon the object. then i would restate the def1, then acknowledge the contradiction and conclude that omnipotence cannot occur. i specified each time that both the first and the second 'powers' are not in and of themselves illogical, and my opponent did not contend this. now my opponent said that statements such as 'immovable' are relative. but then again, so are abilities like 'the ability to move things'. when talking about an omnipotent entity we would then ask 'the ability to move what? ' and the answer would be 'anything'. i admittedly took it as evident that the powers and properties i described where a sort of 'omni-property' if you will. as i was describing the power to create something that is immovable i assumed that it was evident that it was not movable by anything. the terms i provided should be taken as universal. such that when someone asks 'immovable to whom? ' the answer would be 'to anyone'. as that was not explicit before, i have now made it so. the purpose of the first two parts of each of my three examples was to delineate sets of powers that on their own were completely logical but together were not. i demonstrated that there exists at least 2 abilities that cannot simultaneously be had, and as such, it is not possible to have 'all abilities'. i described no state of affairs where someone had both powers, as my opponent implied. rather i demonstrated that the state of affairs of 'having all powers' is meaningless (and therefore omnipotence is meaningless) because there exist mutually exclusive abilities. i agree with my opponent when he says ' Failure is not an aspect of omnipotence' and i do not think that my demonstration implied that in any way. i will rearticulate one of my paradoxes given what i have already said. 1) the "power" to "create" something that cannot be moved by anything or anyone. (this power is not illogical) 2) the "power" to move anything. (this power is not illogical) 3)def 1 4) an omnipotent entity would have two mutually exclusive powers, this cannot occur (unless my opponent accepts universal possibilism) and thus is an illogical state of affairs 5)as omnipotence implies an illogical and thus impossible state of affairs, omnipotence itself is therefore both illogical and impossible. my opponent has said that per def1 a stone that cannot be moved is impossible to exist, but i think i should point out that this is not necessarily the case. it IS the case however that EITHER a stone that cannot be moved by anything cannot exist OR the power to move anything cannot exist. this is what i desired to demonstrate. alone both powers are completely logical. there is a possible world where something that cannot be moved by anything may exist (and thus in that possible world the power to create such a thing would exist) and another possible world where the power to move anything exists, however, there exists no possible world where both the power to create anything (such as an object that cannot be destroyed by anything) and the power to do anything to your creation (such as destroy it), exists. as such, omnipotence cannot occur, unless universal possibilism is accepted. my opponent has said that self or paradoxical concepts are not existent. i think i have demonstrated that omnipotence implies self contradicting situations and as such is itself self contradicting. my opponent in his third paragraph under R2 does not criticize anything i said. it does not seem relevant. my point in bringing up suspending the laws of logic as a problem was not to expound upon the omnipotence paradox, but simply to explain why such a state of affairs is problematic (namely, you could never reliably say that the statement "x is not bound by the laws of logic" is true or false, or even itself. ) i would like my opponent to explain why he does not think suspending the laws of logic would be a power. if he does so successfully, then i will have to agree that def1 does not apply to the ability to suspend the laws of logic, as such an ability would not be amongst 'all powers' and thus could not be had.