I have seen many come up with similar arguments. You propose a law or logical principle which is then broken, because if you can do anything, you can break the very rules one has set.
But here we have a problem. Anything can only happen when there is a thing upon which the thing or action happens. In defining this thing or object, one embeds limitations by its very existence.
It appears to us an infinite being could not make themselves finite in the same realm as the infinite, but could make themselves finite in another reality. Or can one make an immovable rock and then move it. You would have to ask, immovable to who or what? As soon as one talks about this, one has to assume boundaries and limitations that apply to creation and God Himself which is not possible for us to do.
So our language is bounded by our experience of our reality and perceptions. From our perspective the creator is all knowing, all powerful.
So you could argue omnipotence is only relative to the created world and our experience of it.
A for instance, if you created a rock that could not be lifted, by definition for it not to be at the centre of mass, it is being lifted or held up by something. If one extends this further, any force attracting the object which is being resisted qualifies as lifting the object away from the centre of attraction. So the question is not meaningful or possible to fulfil in the first place unless you start applying the approximations that exist in the real world. An unliftable rock would only exist in a universe where it alone existed. But then there would be nothing else to lift it.