Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

I think we need to go into a bit more detail on what is meant , when something is said to be "absolute". Something is absolute when their are no exceptions to it. For instance if I said all T shirts are blue, but their existed just one T shirt that was red, then this would mean that T shirts being blue is NOT absolute, as their is an exception. Now Pro says that logic is NOT absolute, in this case, the exception being God. Pro then bases their argument on this premise, so imagine my confusion when after Pro had talked about how logic doesn't apply to God, Pro near the end of their argument goes on too say . .. .. .. "With all that said now I will provide my argument as well as reasons why it is true. First in order to prove the existence of God we look at the properties of logic. Keep in mind though, that this does not apply to God for he is above logic as I have proved above. 1. Logic is Absolute" So which is it ? is logic absolute or isn't it ? Pro raises an objection where they said "I would like to ask my opponent that if he does not think that logic depends on God for their existence to show valid proof for this. "logic laws exist because they exist" is not a valid argument. As I stated above this is circular reasoning. If my opponent insists on saying this, then I can also say God exist because He exists, and that would be a valid argument as well. " Actually you can't say that, you just stated that something existing, because it exists is is not a valid argument. If you had NOT raised this objection, you could of argued that, hey you believe that logic is self existent, well I believe that God is self existent, trouble is you already claimed that something being self existent should be rejected as invalid. So which is it, is something existing because it exists, should be regarded as invalid or not ? I was surprised that Con took the approach of denying that God is subject to logic, cause what ever problems you think you avoid by denying that logic is absolute and is not applicable to God, you just create even bigger problems by denying, as Pro says "While this is true, opponent still uses logic to try to reason why logic could has to apply to God. If logic does not apply to God that means that indeed God could exist and not exist as well as being God and not being God, this does not mean God is still not God and does not exist for "and" means both. Without logic it is fine to contradict each other. In other words the Law of Contradiction does not apply when something is not subject to logic" According to Pros principles, it is quite correct to say that God does not exist. .. .. .but does exist. .. .. .. .. but doesn't. Pro must agree that this statement "God does not exist" is true, even if some one agrees that God exists, that person can then claim that God doesn't exist, and the obvious contradiction of God existing and God not existing does not apply, cause God is not subject to logic, so I say again, according to PROS argument, God does not exist. .. .. .. .. funny I thought TAG was meant to prove that God does exist ? It should be fun watching Pro dig them self out of the hole they have made, I look forward to Pros response.