Is God a logical contradiction?

[GrandizerII]

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be snippy. It's hard to tell on here who's serious, sometimes. 

The short answer is that things divide into natural theology and revealed theology. Supposedly in natural theology we can reason from known facts (e.g. things in the world depend for their existence on other things) to know some truths about God. That he exists, that he must be unchanging, etc. 

Revealed theology is all the stuff we could never get to from reason: the Trinity, the virgin birth, the resurrection. In a sense they are admitting that none of this is the least bit logical! But since Catholics, for instance, accept both reason and revelation, they need both types. 

Careful thinkers will keep these separate. What they call the God of the philosophers is a lot closer to the God of natural theology. 

Catholics weave them together, to show for example how the underlying Cause of things -- the Ground of Being or whatever (natural theology) -- manifests itself to people in three ways (revealed theology). As I say, it's really beautiful, especially if you've been reading Dante for a long time. 

Here are a couple of books for the smart layman, that give a good introduction. These would be enough to decide if you wanted to pursue it more. 

David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God

https://www.amazon.com/Experience-God-Be...340&sr=1-3

Edward Feser, Aquinas A Beginner's Guide

https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners...oks&sr=1-1

Again, sorry if I seemed unresponsive before.

That's ok, stuff happens.

I will be checking out one of these books for sure, once I free myself from my current work project.

I'll just say merging the God of the philosopher with the Christian notion is a little deceptive because it's like having your cake and eating it as well. The theist who argues in the manner you speak of wants to argue that their God is reasonable and yet simultaneously say it defies our logic. You can't go wrong then in this case, hence why I have justification to dismiss these arguments at first glance. There is no need to put these views on some intellectual pedestal and then think lowly of atheists for daring to criticize them, just because the views are very sophisticated. Sophistication does not imply truth. Careful and intelligent thinking does not imply critical thinking. Psychological biases are at play here, and people who need God to exist will come up with elaborate ways to counter the apparent difficulties noted about their God, and when cornered badly, will then resort to revelation and God is a mystery. I can't personally have much respect for that.

But again, I will give one of these books a read when I'm free to read a good book. It's possible I'm missing something here after all.