This is a related OP to this one that I started a few days ago. It is a reply to the point of view that God could violate the law of non-contradiction and make themselves omnipotent after divesting themselves of it - something I think makes sense on its face.

My argument is:

1. God is omnipotent leading up to the possible creation of an unliftable stone.

2. God must be able to create the unliftable stone to be omnipotent, i.e. divest themselves of their omnipotence.

3. If God creates the unliftable stone, God must be omnipotent in the moment in which the unliftable stone is created - it is necessitated by the act of creation. Thus:

4. God is omnipotent in the span of time leading up to and at the moment of time in which she creates the unliftable stone.

God is no longer omnipotent after the unliftable stone is created unless she violates LNC and affirms that “God is omnipotent” and “God is not omnipotent” are both true, because the unliftable stone can only be lifted if God is omnipotent, and she no longer is; it is the only thing outside of God’s power; the status of the stone determines God’s omnipotence.

If God violates LNC and makes herself omnipotent again, the contradiction “God is omnipotent” and “God is not omnipotent” is affirmed.

From this we can deduce that God was omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone and that god was also not omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is not omnipotent.
3. God is omnipotent or was not omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone.

Since 1. is true, the compound statement 3. must be true, however since the negation of 1. is also true, God must not have been omnipotent when creating the stone. A similar case can be made for God being omnipotent when creating the stone.

However, the very act of creation of the unliftable stone necessitates omnipotence, so we know God had to have been omnipotent when creating the stone. Thus, it comes full circle: God was necessarily omnipotent when creating the unliftable stone, even though it can be shown that she wasn’t.

Edit: Not to mention, even though logical deductions would fall apart if God affirmed a contradiction, that doesn't mean that the contradiction I point out would not be significant - it is with respect to a characteristic possessed by god, something concrete. Here is a link to the law of non-contradiction and one to the principle of explosion.