Does logic apply to God..? Part 2

A friend posted the following as a supplement to the post before this, regarding logic not applying to God.

"I think most people simply do not understand what logic is. They immagine it to be some esoteric, unnecesary thing that the layman need not worry about.
You made the statement "The thought process of looking at something, and then linking it to something else, is based in logic.", I would take this further and say that the very fact that you can look at something and recognise that it is a thing automatically implies logic, these are the simple axioms from which we derive logic.
Something to which logic does not apply, we wouldn't be able to have a concept of, we wouldn't be able to speak about it or even hypothesize it's existence. The mere fact that theists can say "God exists" requires the truth of logic with regard to every part of the statement, particularly the subject. It is so disshonest to holf that God is not subject to logic because to even hold this statement you jave to hold that the statement is logical, and for the statement to be logical it has to have a subject that can be deal with through logic.

You are right, when you say that if God is not subject to logic then any conversation about it becomes completely irrelevant, but I do not think we have to take it this far, the theist has already admitted that he considers God to be subject to logic, by admitting that he considers God at all. The human mind can't compute non-logical concepts, as hard as I try I can't even begin to think of a thing which is not itself, it's just not possible for the human mind to deal with concepts which may or may not be themselves."

Logic and God..?

I realise that the previous two posts might be challenged on the grounds that 'God is beyond logic'. This post will address that potential rebuttal.

There are a few problems with using the 'God is beyond logic' line. If God is indeed beyond logic, then no doubt, any logical contradictions would not apply. No disproof could ever be found, in any circumstance. I'll get more into this later.

It is a double-edged sword for a theist to use such a line. Certainly, all possibility of criticism is removed, but so is all possibility of positive evidence. If indeed that were the case, then there could be no positive proof of God, too. Forget Intelligent Design, forget any of the holy books, forget ANY form of evidence of God. Everything is based in logic, evidence included. The thought process of looking at something, and then linking it to something else, is based in logic. Once the famous line is invoked, then all this becomes irrelevant. Then religion boils down to 100% faith, with absolutely NO reason whatsoever to justify the belief.

The alternative, is to subject God to the laws of logic, to ensure that the current system of 'evidence' of God is relevant. However, such a move would effectively ensure that theists would be forced to accept a much reduced notion of God. For example: If God is subject to the laws of logic, is he then truly omnipotent? If he is subject to logical contradiction, then many logical criticisms can arise, such as the critique of omnipotence and omniscience co-existing, among others..

Not to mention, who defines the concept of God? Humans. Who awards the attributes of God, to God? Humans. If I wanted to ensure that an idea I thought of could never be disproven, what better way to ensure it by defining it from the outset as 'supernatural', and 'beyond our understanding'?
It's funny how some theists can claim that God is so beyond human understanding, yet are able to rigorously defend his actions as if they understood his thoughts, and are also able to accurately know his attributes..Would the same reverence be given to Santa Claus, if I were to say that he was a supernatural being beyond our understanding?