God is a logical impossibility

Thanks, ike. 1. All things logically possible are bound by logicFirst, this is not self evident as he claims. Indeed, it first begs the question as to what is actually meant by existence. That is, I can imagine illogical situations and the chemicals that created the perception exist, and the situation exists in my head. It's clear that they do not actually exist however, and ike means to say that everything that exists in the universe is bound by universial law. Hence, a better wording for this premise would be "Everything that exists in the physical universe is bound by logic" (questionable given the insane rules of quantum physics), in which case I'll offer the observation that God does not have to physically exist. It's most probable that God exists in another dimension, since he existed prior to the creation of the physical universe. Just as Ike wouldn't exist (or be bound to the rules) in a program he created, he could still affect and govern the program as he wishes while existing outside of it. Second, there are obvious exceptions to this claim, including the very thing we are debating which is logic itself. Indeed the enitre debate presumes that logic itself exists, and since bounds can only be imposed by outside forces, the premise is demonstratively false. Logic and mathematics exist as abstract objects, while they do not physically exist they affect our perceptions and every day lives greatly, and are fundamental component of reality. Concious minds also are not bound to logic since they can imagine illogical situations. Third, he's presuming the objectivity of logic within all things, not just our univverse. Just as the logic and mathematics of our universe would not govern another dimension with different laws, wherever God "physically" exists (if such a thing could be even concieved) is obviously not our univserse, so our logic would not govern him. Fourth, God has the power to do illogical things. He used creatio ex nihilo, and yet from nothing, nothing comes logically! This shows clearly that God is not bound by the logic he created.It's evident that if this premise holds true for anything, it holds only for physical existents.2. God is not bound by logicThis is where the argument really falls apart. Let's first look at his main point of contention, that "if God is in fact bound by logic, then he is not all-powerful. If logic is not God’s creation, then he is not the divine author of everything." The obvious counter to this is that God could have created logic while still not being bound to it. Ike gives you no reason to think that God is forced to follow the rules in the Universe he created rather than just choosing to do so. For example, if I impose a rule upon myself, I am the creator of the rule, but I can break it if I wish.Secondly, it is most probable that it's not God that is bound to logic, but logic that is bound to Gods action. As it stands, nothing begins to physcially exist without a cause, 2 + 2 is 4 and squares cannot be circular. However since God controls completely the Universe, if he decides to make circular squares than it becomes possible to have a circular square, even if that doesn't make sense to us. The consistency in our logic indicates only that God has thus far decided not to alter his created rules thus far.Thirdly, he's presuming that human logical interpretation is always correct, despite humans having physical and mental limitations. Just because we cannot concieve of a circular square, or 2 + 2 being greater than 4 doesn't mean that our perception is accurate. Fourth, there is significant advocacy amoung philosophers that God can do everything that is logically possible, while still being omnipotent. My opponent posits that if God cant do illogical things than he must not be omnipotent, but try to imagine an illogical thing. A circular square is meaningless, it cannt be concieved. How exactly is it a limit on Gods power to not create an abstract object that has no concievable meaning? He could easily create another univserse in which a circular square is possible or alter ours to make it possible. It's meaningless that he doesn't.His premise two also falls, from which the conclusion falls.Nonphysical, abstract concepts are not bound by logic. Something that does not physically exist is not bound by rules in the physical universe, and creators of worlds can change that world at will. That God (seemingly) doesnt change the rules governing the universe is meaningless. The resolution is negated.