Reread those parts, but I still think the assumptions and hypothesis put forth are still illogical.
It's certainly possible. I don't see a flaw in the double reductio structure itself, but like any argument, the form can only spit out answers as good as the ideas fed in.
I see three major religious structures out there. One is full blown theism, in which there is a God, who holds absolute power over everything. Everyone under him in the hierarchy then simply attempts to discern his will and carry it out. The only big problem with this view is the persistence of suffering, but there are ways around it so it can be termed more or less self consistent.
Pure polytheism, in which there are multiple deities running things, works fine so long as the deities are flawed beings on the Greco-Roman model. They simply operate on a more dramatic scale than mortals do. Looks consistent to me, though of course I'm not looking at verifiability at all.
But what some Buddhists are trying to do is to fuse the two systems, having a complete set of minor deities and an omniscient Buddha at the same time. Now omniscience is a tricky beast and it tends to get out of hand. One might think that omniscience implies knowledge of how to do anything desired, so now there is omnipotence as well. Omnipresence is widely assumed for the Buddha. So you can see, there is some danger of assigning the Buddha the three fundamental properties of the Judeo Christian God at which point they become difficult to distinguish.
So I think the whole question can be rephrased as, "What are the actual limitations on a Buddha's omnipotence?" If there aren't any, don't we just have Christianity with the names translated into Asian languages?
Hm. I think I've wandered into one of those questions Buddha condemned as a waste of time. Oops.