God is a logical impossibility

Thanks for the debate. Premise one My opponent still doesn't prove this argument. His entire case for the debate rests on the assumption that in order for something to exist, it has to follow logic, and yet we know (and he concedes--quantum particles) that this is false. He responded to this argument exactly as I hoped he would, saying that if something can defy logic it's logically impossible, but we know from applying logic to observation that Quantum particles exist. Ike is under the flawed assumption that something needs to be bound by logic in order to physcially exist, then procedes to affirm the counter to that. Two extremely important things come from this:1. It's an implicit concession that our logic is fluid/non objective. Ikes argument rests on the assumption that human logic is static and forever unchanging ("classical logic"), but has failed to prove that. I contend that logic changes as new discoveries are made, and previous assumptions are proven false. Moreover, it's self contradictory. Isn't it logically possible that our perceptions and logic are flawed? Logic is derived from observation. If we observe particles doing seemingly illogical things, it means we are wrong. Ikes view of logic is extremely limited in that it doenst allow for new discoveries to be of significane.2. His premise does not hold true, even in the physical universe. Recall that ike conceded by drop that a better wording for this premise would be physical existence. This means that already, his argument does not apply to God since God definitionally would have to exist outside of the physical universe. He drops that even if this premise is true, non-physical, abstract objects are exempt from it such as logic itself or a concious mind, meaning that his entire syllogism is no longer applicable. He also drops the fact that, just as he would not exist or be bound to any rules in a computer program he made (but could still govern its laws), so would God when compared to the physical universe. Logically it makes sense that the creator of all logic would be exempt from it, especially given that beings history of creatio ex nihilo. I get it. Ike is trying to say that even if logic can be undermined, it doesnt matter since logic is (in his view) unchanging and immutable, anything that doesnt follow it is impossible. This is a limited, and falsified view along with being self contradictiory since it's logically possible that what we know as logic is false. Remember that in my first round I claimed that for something to be logically possible, it has to avoid a formal contradiction. Ike has yet to show any real contradiction, only perceived ones. Since God did not arrise from the physical universe, it's not a contradiction to say that he is not bound to the laws that govern the physical universe. This premise falls, especially when referencing a God. Premise 2 To my rebuttal about how God isn't bound by logic, but chooses to follow it, he says that logic "demands a COMPULSORY adherence" not only has this been proven false, he doesnt put it in the context of God. EVEN IF God is "bound" by logic, its only because he CHOOSES to be. It's impossible for God to be bound by logic, bcause all of our logic is based on our perception of the Universe he created. He tries to argue that my argument about logic being bound to God is "pure absurdity" because it destroys logic itself. I had to think a while before coming up to a response to this, but I realized he's making the same flaw that he was making before: he implicitly binds God to logic. That is, he places logic before God by saying that if God can change logic at will, then logic is meaningless, and yet if a God exists then logic, physics, everything HAS TO be bound to his will. Think about it. An omnipotent God, who created the universe and all laws that govern it, he can do whatever he wants with the universe (even change logic), just as a master programmer could do whatever he wants to a program. We just assume that God doesn't change logic as a matter of pragmatism, and moreover its already been established that logic can be changed by new obsevation, even from forces within the physical universe. About my limited omnipotence argument, he misconstrues it. It is my position that God created logic, but since logic and God are both abstract objects, its logically possible that they could operate together-God still creating "everything" because without physical creation logic couldn't have been observed or used and hence didnt actually exist. What is meant by existence is a hard thing to define, but it's a safe assmption to assume that if something has no way of affecting anything (like logic without God), it doesnt exist. Hence, God did create logic, and could have alsobound himself to it. He could just end this by destroying the universe. This is another avenue to negation.