The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[The Grand Nudger]

a puddle of water turning into the mona lisa.

Logically possible, people depict this stuff all the time in cartoons.

heat moving through a vacuum.

Impossible under the constraint of physical laws, but not logically impossible. An all powerful agent can breaks these laws easily.

...gods

There is no plain logical contradiction in the traditional concept of God. Many ambitious attempts to bring out such contradictions in the history of philosophy, but nothing clinching so far.

Is that what you actually mean when you use the words "logical possibility" - the things depicted in cartoons....?

IDK what cartoons are like where/when you grew up - but here, they're mostly absurdist. At any rate, I think you need to spend some time boning up on the difference between conceivability and logical possibility. Amusingly enough, there are orders of magnitude more conceivable things than logically possible things, and this is the consequence of the system of logic pure and simple. It's eliminative by design.

Do you think it's logically possible that god does not exist? I can conceive of it, so it must be, right? Think this one through.

[Bucky Ball]

Bwahahahahahaha
We do get that cartoons are your level, but dear, cartoons depict all kinds of things that are not real and not possible.
Perhaps you should re-study Bugs Bunny ... or is that too complex for you ?

There are all sorts of logical contradictions to traditional concepts of the gods. You just don't know about them, as you have no education.

Anything that people ever depicted was clearly conceivable for them, and so it's logically possible, even though it's not real.

I'm not wasting any more time with you, Bucky. You're not equipped for this.

False. LOL Prove it. How do you know cartoonists are not depicting things they know are not "conceivable" ? Unless most of them are as insane as your are, 
they know they are depicting a FANTASY, (just as your gods are)... a fantasy. Good to know though that you think Harry Potter could be real. 

You claim is a well known fallacy. I'll let you find it ... maybe you'll learn something. 
You also can't say what is logically possible or impossible unless you demonstrate which logic you're using, (there are many) 
and you must show how you know that the Logic you chose to use using applies to the situation. Get busy. 
Seriously, Logic 101 you BADLY need it.

[Anomalocaris]

heat moving through a vacuum.

Heat moves through vacuum all the time.    Heat is energy, energy can propagate various distance through vacuum via any of the 4 fundamental forces.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's obviously amusing that we're considering cartoons as a description of logical possibility. It's more amusing that we've reached the point in this discourse where, if conceivability and logical possibility are identical, then the traditional definition™ of god is demonstrably false. If my being able to conceive of god not existing makes that a logical possibility, then god ...defined as a(the) necessary being, a being which cannot fail to exist, cannot exist.

[arewethereyet]

Obviously conceivable.  But is it plausible or logical?

[Angrboda]

I can conceive of a square circle provided it is placed correctly in a specific non-Euclidian space. Is it possible? I don't know. I'm not sure conceiving tells us much one way or the other.

[emjay]

Unless you can conceive of how something is logically possible, I don't think you've truly conceived of it in any logically meaningful sense.

[The Grand Nudger]

Suggesting that our conceivers might be busted is not going to end well for conceivability. I mean...it's true.....but, lol.

It drives home exactly why what is conceivable is not, per force of that, logically possible.

[Loaded dice]

I can conceive of a square circle provided it is placed correctly in a specific non-Euclidian space.  Is it possible?  I don't know.  I'm not sure conceiving tells us much one way or the other.

The classical problem of squaring a circle is impossible in euclidian spaces. If you change the space, you change the problem.

And, for the record, it is possible to square a circle in some non euclidian frameworks.

Unless you can conceive of how something is logically possible, I don't think you've truly conceived of it in any logically meaningful sense.

Not necessarily. People conceived of airplanes centuries ago, without knowing how to make them. And still, no one can deny that it's thanks to their wild dreams and ambitions that we have airplanes today.

[arewethereyet]

I can conceive of a square circle provided it is placed correctly in a specific non-Euclidian space.  Is it possible?  I don't know.  I'm not sure conceiving tells us much one way or the other.

The classical problem of squaring a circle is impossible in euclidian spaces. If you change the space, you change the problem.

And, for the record, it is possible to square a circle in some non euclidian frameworks.

Unless you can conceive of how something is logically possible, I don't think you've truly conceived of it in any logically meaningful sense.

Not necessarily. People conceived of airplanes centuries ago, without knowing how to make them. And still, no one can deny that it's thanks to their wild dreams and ambitions that we have airplanes today.

Oh, we have a member here who, until recently, didn't believe in airplanes...though he did believe in dragons.  Science told him that airplanes can't fly but dragons seemed to him like birds so, there you have it.