If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!
Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.
Does a circular argument in this thread disprove its asininity?
The rules of logic are bound by what exists in reality. If something can be done in reality, it must, by the very definition of "logically possible", be logically possible.
You've got he cause and effect backwards. You think that the being is bound by what is logically possible, when in reality what is logically possible would be defined by what the being can do.
It would not be defined by what, if anything, it cannot do.
The argument that God can do things that are logically impossible only shows a lack of understanding of logic on the person who makes the comment and nothing more.
What is logically impossible is only "that which cannot be done". If a being can do something, that specific something cannot be "that which cannot be done".
My premise assumes nothing.
Further more, when you state: "premise assumes that the illogical cannot be done" you are making a few errors.
1. My premise didn't presume such a things as "the illogical cannot be done" because there is no such thing as the "illogical". There are things which are or are not logically possible to be done.
2. You are making an error about what my presumptions are. I am that things that are not logically possible cannot be done. That is because logic is defined by reality. The only way something cannot be logically possible is if it cannot be done in reality. If an omnipotent being can do it, it is then, by definition, logically possible.
Let me write it out:
Premise 1: What is logically possible is defined by what is possible within reality
Premise 2: An omnipotent being would define what is possible within reality
Conclusion: Therefore, an omnipotent being would define what is logically possible.
It's very simple. Saying that this assumes that only that which can logically be done can be done is just getting things backwards.
Look at the premises. They only define the terms. That is what they are defined as. Where is the logical flaw?