Is God a logical contradiction?

[GrandizerII]

Spiritual:
relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Spirit:
The non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Non-physical:
not relating to or concerning the body.

Soul:
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

A traditional way to approach this is good old hylomorphism. Where hyle is matter and morph is shape, function, etc. 

You are made mostly of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. But you are also you. How the matter -- the non-living elements -- are structured to make you into you is what the old guys would call your soul. 

So the immaterial is not found separate from the material. The immaterial is just the way the material is put together, the laws of nature that decide that, the habits and memories and actions that make you different from what your body would be like if you were dead. When they say the soul leaves the body, they mean the corpse is still there but the you-ness is gone. 

Christian dogma, if I remember right, says that somehow your soul (your form, functions, habits, memories, etc.) will be transferred at death to a different kind of matter. A spirit-body. But they are clear that this is an article of faith, not provable by logic. I personally don't see how it could happen.

---

Then in what way does such a God have a "mind" (or whatever divine equivalent to it is)?

In other words, in terms of knowledge, how is it different from a "virtual library" that contains all known information?

Furthermore, this God you describe seems so static and impersonal that there's no way this is the kind of God a Catholic monk actually believed in. In Thomism, how does the Trinity and Incarnation and all the standard Christian doctrines that presuppose divine personhood come into the picture?

To answer all your questions here would require a 900-page book of theology. And I'm not the guy who can write that. 

I guess we'd just have to start with something like "Thomism for Dummies" or something like that. Not that you're a dummy, but it's a really big topic.

So is every other topic that has been discussed here, Belaqua. I'm not sure why you feel you have to write this many pages to answer any of my questions, as you've been quite good at summarising things in an articulate and adequate manner.

Anyhow if I ever have time, I'll give Aquinas a read and see what hes really saying.