Christianity; the World's Most Violently Persecuted Religion

[Angrboda]

Generally speaking, theologians don't define or describe omnipotence as "limitless power," though some people may colloquially do so.  The principle of charity obligates you to respond to the strongest version of an argument, to steelman it.

Incidentally, your objection cuts both ways.  If Omnipotence implies being able to do the impossible, then pointing out something impossible isn't an argument against him as he is not bound by the law of noncontradiction, being limitless.

It sounds to me like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

It sounds to me like you're straw manning me, read my original post for proper context. Tell you what I'll save you the time, here it is:

I am not an expert in superstition of course, or theology if you want to pretend, but it seems to me that the more autonomy or choice any entity has, the more culpable that entity must be for its actions. It's impossible to imagine more autonomy or freedom of choice than an entity that was both omniscient and omnipotent. Of course apologists usually offer omnipotent lite as a desperate rationalisation, to try and pretend limitless power has limits, but this doesn't help, as the notion of both omnipotence and omniscience inevitably violate the law of non contradiction, it cannot be otherwise. 

Now, @TheWhiteMarten, I have asked several times, can you demonstrate anything approaching any objective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or that these ideas are even possible? I have noticed over the years, how reticent apologists become when anyone asks this. And to avoid semantics, all those words are in the dictionary for you.

I've emboldened the part where I very specifically made the point you are now suggesting I did not.

I understand your point, but I'm pointing out that you can't have it both ways. If omnipotence means no limits, then you cannot then argue that such an omnipotence is limited by the law of noncontradiction. You have to pick a lane. That's fine if you want to grouse that theists shouldn't be allowed to define their god in a way that you find inconvenient, but that isn't a logical objection. Moreover, anyone with even passing familiarity with the god of the bible knows that the idea that god has limits isn't something that apologists just conveniently pulled out of their ass, it's very plain from the biblical text that God has limits, such as his inability to lie. If you have a problem with that, tough. And no, I haven't strawmanned you. I've pointed out facts that you find inconvenient about your position.