Most religions put some limitation on the capability of gods, e.g. their "power" and mental faculty. Some gods are human-like or personified (human believers projected their views on the gods, no doubt), and have many faults in their characters and behaviors: A lot like just a super powerful human being.
The Christian, Jewish and Arab, however, say that their god (it has the same root, so it is one and the same) is the only god and it is almighty.
More or less any religion tends to try to assert that its god(s) is (are) superior to ones that others believe. How a god can be superior to other gods? Typically one can claim that his god is more "powerful" than the others. If you follow this logic, of course, the most powerful god can do anything the other gods can do, or it can do it better, or it can do other things the other gods can't do. Then, it must be a logical conclusion that an ultimate god must be almighty. Of course, this does not prove whether the god in question is almighty or not, nonetheless it seems this has been claimed without any good proof.
I think that the people who started this god had a need to claim that their god was almighty to declare the supremacy of the god in some time in the history.
However, I was thinking, if any being were almighty, it does not have to do anything with events or humans at all. It would have no reason to do anything. It did not have to create a world or have to force humans to labour for anything.
I don't go into a detailed argument but it is a fallacy that a god can be almighty at the same time it could have any human-like motivations or it could have any concern with humans or any worldly matters.
Along the same thought, I was thinking of the idea of the parallel worlds and that the current time point is a starting point of infinite possibilities that lead to different time lines. This is probably a fallacy, too. If the infinite possibilities existed in any point of time and space, one of the most "adjacent" time lines will have only 1 "event" different. Since each time line consists of infinite number of "events", the probability of any two time lines that may have only 1 event different is infinitely zero (1 over infinity). Is this a correct math??? Does anyone have any thought? Please mind, this is not a serious math or philosophical conjecture. This is just an idea about a commonly used science fiction ideas and the argument is at that level. As to the reality of the time line, I think that actually only one "time line" will happen and all the other "possibilities" (presumably they existed - which I doubt) become naught as soon as they did not happen.
Another commonly used ideas is the space travel: Warp or Jump or Faster-than-light travel. I think that these are also fallacies. A recent SF idea of the Startgate travel, using the Wormholes, would be ever thinkable seriously at all? Anyone? Personally, I think that human bodies will be disintegrated even if it is ever possible :-)
This is, however, not to say some old SF ideas, e.g. airplanes, rockets, TV, cell phones, computers, are reality now. I think, though, there is a line between what may become possible and what would not ever possible.
