FS, Methinks thou art wrong. Partly.
If all-powerful creates a linguistic fallacy (self-refferential paradox and mutual-exclusivity and all that) then it means that "all-powerful" as a term, could be considered illogical (at least to the extent of it being used as a premise for a more developed position). And language, being the product of logic applies to us as logical beings. So, it is impossible for anyone to introduce 'all-powerfulness' or 'omnipresence' or any such term in a discussion that adheres to "1 != 2" and other such basic axioms. Which is to say, all discussions, if you go by the Socratic definition of what a discussion is.
Point is: because a term suffers from a fundamental fallacy, is means 'it is not' linguistically, but might 'be so' on another plane of thinking, of which you might be the only one aware. I am not debating this, I am simply saying that if such is the case, the 'term' does not apply to a logical context, if it is not logical.
Sorry god.
Threaded Mode
