In the beginning...

[Ryantology]

It refutes any variation of the question begging fallacy, like the one above. Omnipotence remains untouched logically. Unless you can actually challenge it.

The logic has been challenged many times and no satisfactory answer has ever defended it. If a being is, by any imaginable definition or for any imaginable reason, incapable of doing even a single thing, that being is not omnipotent.

You can define omnipotence as "all which is logically possible" to avoid that quandary, but the "which is logically possible" is a limit itself. It does not assume the non-omnipotence of God because it doesn't define any characteristic of God. It merely asks a question of his capabilities, and the answer determines whether God is truly omnipotent.

What is really going on is what Christian apologists do every single time a flaw is discovered in their assertion. Like a fantasy writer, they simply redefine either the fictional character's characteristics, or they attempt to alter the rules, and it's because Christians are vicariously vain and narcissistic. It would be too big a defeat to admit that God is merely the most powerful being there is. He has to be omnipotent, even though omnipotence is not necessary to explain God. If the people who invented this nonsense, and the theologians who write the fan fiction, were a little more moderate in assigning traits to their God, there would be little for us to argue about regarding his powers, his personality, and his goals.