> the absence of a thing is still a thing, and not a semantics argument thats my point. i never said the absence of a thing wasnt a thing, a better word then thing here might be concept, shadows are real but they are not things lol.  omnipotence is the word we use for something that can do anything, the argument here is essentially well if it can do anything can it also be unable to do something? theres no way to answer that question but that doesnt have any bearing on the concept of omnipotence that is a problem of the constraints of language
United States