Being illogical exists, in the sense that I can hold two contradictory beliefs at once. We can also study the nature of logical inconsistency. However, my existence, in and of itself, cannot be inconsistent. I can believe x is true and not-x is true, but I cannot be x and be not-x. Of course, God could, I suppose, be illogical in the former sense, but the nature of His existence cannot be illogical in and of itself. To exist is to be something with definite properties: to be an x but not to be a not-x, to exist and to not not-exist.
For one, if god wasn't logical - logic itself couldn't exist.
.Let me first say that if the ground of all being, ie the first cause, was illogical - then by default logic cannot exist, or if it does it has no real meaning. But this is a really messed up form of reality to imagine to exist.
It's painfully obvious that God did not create everything. Where or when did God exist before creating the universe? Without a universe, there is no there or then to exist in. Do you know what exists nowhere? Nothing, because things that exist are somewhere. Even the notion of creating presupposes a universe where, perhaps among other things, it is possible to create something: cause and effect is being assumed before the universe is supposed to exist. Did I say 'before the universe'? How can there be a before the universe when time doesn't exist yet? The long and short of all this is that, whichever way you swing it, God could not possibly have created everything, because one cannot create unless there is already some metauniverse to do the creating in. Among the laws of this metauniverse, of course, are basic logical truths.
.
Where did I suppose that if I couldn't imagine it, then it doesn't exist? Nowhere. Instead, I supposed that if something was logically absurd, then it couldn't exist. Things that exist are one thing and not something else. Is it too much to ask that God satisfy the basic prerequisites of what it means for something to exist? I could use this same argument to claim that, in fact, there is a highest prime number, because it doesn't have to make sense to exist: mathematicians and their proofs be damned.
You can't 'logic your way past that point' because there is nothing beyond that point. However, the least we can ask is that explanations of the beginning of universe avoid basic logical errors. It may be that the Big Bang was not the beginning of the universe, but if it was, then there was nothing 'before' the Big Bang, because time didn't exist before the Big Bang. The timeline begins with the Big Bang: no befores allowed. You might as well ask 'what came before there was such thing as before?'
No, I never argued that. I did argue that you had presupposed differentiation in the universe before its creation (for how does one create where there is no differentiation to begin with). I have affirmed a couple of times that 'shit happens' is a perfectly sensible answer to the question 'why does anything exist?'
