Well, I did not get that drift from you. I thought I had to make you make a stand. If your position was that right from the start, I missed it, as I was mislead.

Mislead by what? I don't know. Perhaps by my interpretation/miscomprehension of what you said. — god must be atheist

Not to be malicious, but I'm quite sure a fair reading of what I wrote in proper context made it more than a little clear that I held the position I did, given that I say multiple times things like:

God is pure actuality (or pure being itself if you'd like), which is analogous I suppose to infinity, then nothing less than pure actuality (such as an act/potency composite) could ever limit, derail, encumber, or even produce change in God. — Questio

But I suppose one can have a tendency to read over what is spelled out in the open.

So now you agree that God is not omnipotent, because omnipotence is a concept that is absurd in and by itself — god must be atheist

No, actually. My whole argument was that this conception of omnipotence you forward is not the proper way to concieve of real omnipotence, as it is based on voluntarist assumptions which, inspite of your reasoning, may side step any logical or rational based argument against them due to their central premise (will over intellect). Instead of attempting to refute God in his omnipotence by playing into their hand, I suggested that we instead recognize and debate these matters on classical theistic grounds, where not only is intelligibility primary in reality, thus making it so that no contridictive state of affairs can be wrought, but it also denies heavily the first premise of your argument, meaning that it is both rational, intelligible, and not suseptible to the caricatures that modern atheist seem to love destroying. A serious atheist takes on the serious, defendable positions, not the irrational, simplistic, and frankly more contemporary interpretation and approach to God. Thus, I disagree that this refutes omnipotent Being (though I agree that it is an argument against voluntarist omnipotence, though not a great one given what I've said earlier).

Omnipotent does not mean being able to do illogical things. It means God is capable of doing everything that is naturally and logically possible. It is not possible to make mankind free and not free at the same time.

Omnipotent does not mean being able to do illogical things. It means God is capable of doing everything that is naturally and logically possible. It is not possible to make mankind free and not free at the same time. — EnPassant

Fair enough. What is impossible: that god can create a heavy stone, or that god can lift a heavy stone?

Your objection had been brought up by some other critics. This was my reply to them:

I find no unintelligibility {lack of logic or ill logic} about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. I find no unintelligibility {i.e. ill logic} about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting. — god must be atheist

Then it evolved into an argument when someone stated that god is not bound by logic. It turns out that the person who mentioned this did not espouse this, but just reminded us that some church figures stand by that. Unfortunately I missed that, as the context in that very post did not indicate that he did not espouse that opinion.

I find no unintelligibility {lack of logic or ill logic} about "god is capable of creating a stone he can't lift" if it comes to his power of creation. I find no unintelligibility {i.e. ill logic} about "God is capable of lifting a stone he had created" if it comes to his power of lifting. — god must be atheist

If God creates a stone He cannot lift that does not mean God is not omnipotent it means that there is no natural way to lift the stone. A strong man can create a pile of stones he cannot lift but that does not mean he is not strong. Omnipotence means all that is possible, all that is possible in God's nature. No natural possibilities exist outside God.

it means that there is no natural way to lift the stone. — EnPassant

God is supernatural. Please don't defile him by equating Him with the profane.

God is supernatural. Please don't defile him by equating Him with the profane. — god must be atheist

Supernatural only in the sense that we define what is natural. What is possible for God is natural for God.

So saying you're god in this example is effectively useless. It might logically follow, based on your argument, but the term loses it's power if all it takes to be god is setting and meeting your own requirements. Besides, to give something characteristics, you want to be able to show it exists, so this whole discussion is basically pointless haha