Which would be another usage of "our" logic (and would be, then, self defeating); By saying our logic cannot give the big picture (as it were) or equate to the whole of logic, and then saying this thus allows God to perform what would be a contradiction for us is to apply our logic, which could not be trusted.  It's essentially like giving a proof that there are no proofs.

No, there are proofs.  Proofs usually deal with specific scenarios, sometimes general in scope, but they establish the environment from which the proof is speaking before proceeding because if you do not have a base set of rules and declarations to start from, then there would be nowhere to go with the proof.  A proof would deal in a subset of logic.  I'm not saying that our logic is one entity either, but can also be broken down into its own subsets of logic.  I never said it wasn't "possible" to provide the big picture.  Certainly if what logic we understand were a subset of the overall logic then we could come into contact with aspects that are condusive to the overall set logic.  So it is possible to deduce and hypothesize about the overall set logic based on what logics we can understand, but there isn't a guarantee that we will not be missing key aspects not known to us or using qualities that are simply a trait of the confinement of our own logic.  Certainly though if we see an aspect that would structure our current logic into a smaller set, then that aspect is a limiting factor and we can possible deduce that the overall logic set would not be limited to its confines.

With that i'm taking a break, but please continue if you want.  All this stuff helps me to refine my thoughts and find possible errors.  I'll check it out later.

It could be said.  yeah.  lol.

What I meant is I was likening your reasoning to the impossible "proof of no proof".  And the distinction you're making of our logic lacking certain aspects or qualities, as opposed to God's complete logic, is the same in that it relies on logic (our logic) to make such a distinction, and is ultimately a self-defeating supposition, despite your proposal that our logic can, sometimes, relay information about overall logic, as you noted that there is no guarantee that what we have is all that is there to be taken into account.  For if, indeed, our logic can lack key elements, then so would it be that our logic might lack a key element when it concludes that is lacks key elements.  So the argument must be false in that it asserts it's own falseness.

Logic must be all encompassing (by logic, I mean noncontradiction), for otherwise, it would follow that logic is still all there is.

QFT

The holocaust. WHAT THE FUCK DUDE!?

I hope this ends that silly question.

The Irresistible force paradox, also the unstoppable force paradox, is a classic paradox formulated as follows:

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
this is the true word sort to logic and semantics.

Logic: if such a thing as an irresistible force exists, then no object is immovable, and vice versa. It is logically impossible to have these two entities (a force that cannot be resisted and an object that cannot be moved by any force) in the same universe.
Semantics: if there is such a thing as an irresistible force, then the phrase immovable object is meaningless in that context, and vice versa, and the issue amounts to the same thing as, for example, asking for a triangle that has four sides.
This paradox is a form of the omnipotence paradox, but that paradox is most often discussed in the context of God's omnipotence (Can God create a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted, not even by God Himself?").

The paradox should be understood as an exercise in logic, not as the postulation of a possible reality. According to modern scientific understanding, no force is completely irresistible, and there are no immovable objects and cannot be any, as even a minuscule force will cause a slight acceleration on an object of any mass. An immovable object would have to have an inertia that was infinite, and therefore infinite mass. Such an object would collapse under its own gravity and create a singularity. An unstoppable force would require infinite energy, which does not exist in a finite universe.


An example of this paradox in non-western thought can be found in the origin of the Chinese word for paradox (Chinese: 矛盾; pinyin: máodùn; literally "Spear-Shield"). This term originates from a story (see the Kanbun example) in the 3rd century BC philosophical book Han Feizi.[1]. In the story, a man was trying to sell a spear and a shield. When asked how good his spear was, he said that his spear could pierce any shield. Then, when asked how good his shield was, he said that it could defend from all spear attacks. Then one person asked him what would happen if he were to take his spear to strike his shield; the seller could not answer. This led to the idiom of "zìxīang máodùn" (自相矛盾), or "self-contradictory."

Bolded: No, the absurd examples were just to exaggerate my point. 

Non Bolded: With that line of thinking, human beings wouldn't have gotten anywhere. We would probably still be living in caves. If you want evidence that your computer exists just smash the keyboard over your head. If it hurts, your computer exists  

Wait, do you mean the last line of what I said would get us nowhere, or all of the nonbolded?  If all, I don't see why not assuming one way or the other would have affected humanity's progress.  If the last, that's a different topic (how do I know my head exists?  ;)   )

About the bolded: So, if you weren't to give absurdity as proof, then why assume nonexistence?

While I'm not stating that one can know what logic is not available to us, that does not mean that it is impossible to deduce a generic case that there exists logic beyond what we know.  That "statement" is well within our logic as here it is, it exists.  If you could see numbers in a group from 1 to 11 and all you knew were 1 to 11, you may not know about 12 or 0 or -5, but that does not mean that you cannot think of the possibility of some number greater than 11 or less than 1.  The logic dealing with the possibility of existence is definitely within our logic base, but that does not mean that we have the ability to know all that it consists of or the means to understand it even if we did know what it consisted of.  Just the aspect that logic could have an infinite amount of subsets of which there is most likely an infinite amount of subsets outside of our collection of subsets shows that we would at least not be capable of knowing all that makes up the logical spectrum since we are mortal and will not have the time or capacity needed to understand an infinite number of subsets in its entirety.

While there may not seem a way to "prove" it as of yet and may never be.  It still is a possibility.  If we knew all that there is to know then there wouldn't be many people searching for solutions to problems.  And you'll have to excuse me, I think my mind is escaping me.   In fact, I'm not entirely sure I caught your whole argument because of the fact, but I think I roughly responded to it.