Here is an extremely brief (and rather simple) argumentation against the logicality of omnipotence. Please offer constructive criticism. Thanks... I assert that omnipotence, devoid of qualifications, is illogical. If a being can do everything, then there is nothing it cannot do. Therefore, it cannot do nothing; hence making the being not omnipotent. If it is replied that ‘nothing’ is not something in itself, but it is merely a lack of something, then a question arises: Is it possible for such a being to do something to a lack of something? The answer is, obviously, no; for it is inconceivable to do something to non-existence. Consequently, even an “omnipotent” being is still bound by some logical necessities. These binding laws, then, make an “omnipotent” being not actually omnipotent—that is, absolutely and infinitely powerful.