That’s your interpretation of what “omnipotent” means. That’s your interpretation of what “all” and "powerful’ mean when placed together to form a phrase.
Somebody else will have a slightly different (very different?) interpretation.
By all means, have a discussion about it.
Somebody said that God is “omniwhatever”. He/she had something in mind but it may not have been what you have in mind now. He/she could not possibly know that God is “omniwhatever”.
Whatever.
Who said that it is???
IOW, you’re saying that we can’t know much (if anything) about God.
Okay.
If there possibly could be Something which acted as the catalyst to bring Everything into existence, is it not possible that at the very least studying the Universe could point to This as being Pure Energy?
My intuition tells me that if there is anything which can express the reality of this concept called God, it would be science - certainly not religion. People look for facts in the legal system, not hearsay and belief.
Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Science, as it exists right now, can’t tell us anything about God…
Perhaps the science of the future might shed light on questions pertaining to God (though I doubt it), but certainly not the science of today.
If God is all powerful and unknowable by mere mortals, how can human beings know anything about God?
Can God really be “all powerful”, thpugh; is it possible?
You’ll notice that is why I said if.
Why are you talking about God if you can’t know anything about God?
Probably because others are claiming that they can indeed know things.
Maybe they do know. Since he cannot know about God, then he is in no position to contradict their statements about God.
The only things which can reasonable argued about, are things which are knowable.
Has he established the limits of human knowledge with respect to God? No
What can be known about God and how is it known? Start there.
It could be that he is saying since I cannot know anything about God then nobody else can either.
You’re saying they could possibly know but that would require evidence not faith to prove so.
A very broad statement which would need to be justified.
I’m saying that evidence exists and it’s observable in the world/universe. If it’s not observable, then there is no reason to believe that God exists.
“Faith” is bullshit.
Fair point, you did say “if”.
What CAN be known about God?
Well clear reason lets us deduce some things.
For example: we know that God either exists or doesn’t.
No human has ever proved, to the satisfaction of all, that there is a God, but nobody has ever proved that there is NO God either…
I thought it was obvious from the opening words of my OP (“Many religious thinkers claim”) that I was criticizing what others claim about God…
The universe is evidence of God, but it’s not proof.
This thing we call “God” seems to be beyond proof, beyond disproof…
I doubt it. What a gross waste of power there would be. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
My intuition tells me that the human psyche needs the thought of an omnipotent God to make up for our own sense of powerlessness in such a chaotic world.
My own intuition leads me to believe the same thing…
Notice that I did not reply to the OP. I replied when you asked “why can’t an omnipotent being defy the rules of logic?”. And my reply was in the nature of “Think about it. What kind of answer are you going to get? Why do you bother to even ask?”.
There are few proofs possible in life and they exist only in very controlled and limited circumstances. Even these do not “satisfy” all. For example, mathematical proofs are meaningless to non-mathematicians.
The majority of life is not based on proof, certainty and the agreement of all people. I don’t know why people insist on such things when they are not applicable. 
One has to accept the limitations of human existence.
Justified how? What exactly are you arguing?
What evidence that is observable exists? Yes, I’m arguing that faith is bullshit also. Aren’t we arguing for the same thing here?