The Omnipotence Paradox is commonly expressed through the question: Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it? The paradox appears to show that omnipotence is incoherent, since either answer seems to imply a limitation. This conceptual paper argues that the Omnipotence Paradox is not decisive as a general refutation of omnipotence because it can be resisted under two major interpretations. If omnipotence is understood as logic-bound, then the paradox describes an incoherent task rather than a genuine limitation. If omnipotence is understood as supra-logical, then contradiction cannot function as a decisive refutation of a being defined as transcending logical limitation. The paper’s original contribution is the concept of Negative Power, defined as the power to actualize limitation, inability, restraint, negation, non-performance, or self-restriction. Negative Power is distinguished from weakness: weakness is passive incapacity, while Negative Power is active limitation-production. The paper does not attempt to prove the existence of an omnipotent being. Nor does it claim that Negative Power explains all contradictions. Its aim is narrower: to challenge whether the Omnipotence Paradox successfully refutes omnipotence, especially where the paradox depends on the assumption that inability must always signify deficiency.