Omnipotence is Not Disproven by Paradoxical Questions

I am in agreement with pretty much everything you have stated. I tried to make this issue as pointed as I could for the reason that I've see many people cling to these statements as solid reasoning as to why omnipotence is impossible. This debate is specifically intended to address the literary aspect of this and was not intended to address the concept of omnipotence in other ways. I was actually expecting an opponent who would stand by the validity of these statements but, nonetheless, I'm happy to hear your arguments! Anyhow, as I am sure you will agree, words in of themselves have no meaning. We are trained to associate meaning and ideas to words (spoken or written). This can be demonstrated in a few ways, one of which is by the examining the variety of languages that humans possess; if a given word held meaning, such as "dog", when spoken to another person who does not speak English, the person would understand. However, since that person must be trained to associate the idea with that word, it is not understood, demonstrating that the meaning lies within an individual's associated meaning of the word. Spoken or written words are intended to communicate with others by constructing an idea or concept in the recipient's mind based on the presumption of a common understanding of the meanings of the words that are used. If the idea is communicated and understood accurately, then the transmission of the idea from one mind to another was successful. Words are powerful tools that we employ for communication, in that, we can combine multiple words that each represent concepts, or modifications thereof, into more complex ideas. We can choose a collection of words that most accurately represent an idea and then assemble those words (i.e. a sentence) and present them to another capable mind in order to communicate the original idea. If successful, the recipient will hold the same or at least a generally similar idea in their mind. However, if the words are arranged in a non-cohesive manner, then an idea or concept cannot be formed by the recipient. We have the ability to create new ideas by combining or modifying existing ones, which is made substantially more possible my means of language. For instance, everyone can conceptualize the word "dog"; virtually every English speaking individual will immediate recall their associated meaning for that word to form a general mental image of a dog. Similarly, the descriptive [modifier] word "blue" will form the concept of a visual appearance of that color. We can combine these words, "blue dog", to form the idea of a dog that is of the color blue, even though we have likely never experienced such a thing, before. However, words can also be assembled in a non-cohesive or contradictory way. For instance, the statement, "large blue", is composed of two descriptive words, and although each of them is understood individually, the presented concept is not a valid idea because there is no subject to which to apply these, thus, no idea can be formed it the mind with interjecting our own subject. Using the tools of our language, we could infer that there is a subject in the statement, "a large blue", but since neither of those words form an idea that can be conceptualized as a subject, one still fails to form an idea. If an idea or concept is not formed by the understanding of a assembly of words, it can neither be deemed possible or impossible, because the idea or concept doesn't exist. It is similar to a situation in which someone flips a coin and tells you to call "heads" or "tails" and you do not call anything. You are neither right, nor wrong, because you have submitted nothing that can be judged as such. Paradoxical statements, such as those examples presented in Round #1, do not form coherent and complete ideas or concepts in one's mind, which is the nature of a paradox, and thus, are not subject to being possible or impossible. Because of this, they are not valid arguments to disprove the concept of omnipotence. These sentences are assemblies of words formed in such a way that they merely *appear* to form a singular idea, when they do not. For clarity, I shall explain why each of those sentences are faulty. #1 - "Can an omnipotent being create a square triangle?" The point of fault in this question lies obviously with the contradicting words "square" and "triangle". Not only are their associated meaning contradictory, both of those words are descriptive words, similar to the previous example, "a large red". If we try to imagine a square or triangle, we automatically imagine some subject that fits the description of that shape. This sentence has two failing point that prevent it from being formed into an idea. #2 - "Can an omnipotent being make an object smell like yellow?" The point of fault in this sentence lies in the incompatible words "smell" and "yellow". The word "smell" indicates that a following descriptive word will apply specifically to the sense of smell. Since the word "yellow" represents a color, which is inherently specific to the sense of vision, no concept or idea can be formed, and is thus, neither possible or impossible. #3 - "Can an omnipotent being create an object so large that even it cannot move it?" This one is a little more complex in that the sentence forms two separate concepts (each of which is valid) and then attempts to combine them into a single idea. The two ideas that are presented are contradictory, and thus, renders the ultimate concept invalid because it cannot be formed into a singular idea. The deception here is that we can easily form an idea of the components of this sentence. As a whole, this sentence conveys no idea or concept. #4 - "Can an omnipotent being create a being more powerful than itself?" There is a conceptual contradiction in this statement that prevents this from forming an idea or concept. The word, "omnipotent" is defined as being of unlimited or "infinite" power. The term "infinite" is a imaginary, valueless term. The term "more" indicates an increase in value, and because "infinite" is a valueless term, these words are contradictory and thus, fail to form an idea. Side note: The arguments and thoughts above are entirely mine, and I wish to subject them to criticism (in the form of this debate) to see if my understanding is correct or incorrect. Thank you for assisting my efforts!