Sorry for shitty argument. Allow me to state that I assume that God is omnipotent. Actually, let me just define God entirely: an omnipotent, transcendental agent that created the universe and all it entails.
Allow me to phrase this differently.
I. God can perform paradox and what is ordinarily considered impossible. Therefore, God can only be categorized, understood, and distinguished by his agency.
II. Evil exists in two forms
a. that which is ethically â€˜wrongâ€™
b. that which is detrimental to an individual
An agentâ€™s essence is defined by an average or sum of their actions (the distinction is irrelevant in this case). Thus, the existence of evil suggests a God that is:
III. a. not omnipotent (he has the will to end evil, but he cannot)
b. not omnibenevolent (he does not have the will to end evil, therefore he will not)
c. insane (he has the will to end evil, but he does not intend to end evil [a contradictory proposition in his agency])
d. non-existent (he cannot will to end evil because such God does not exist).
"Secondly, even if God were unbound by logic, that doesn't mean the things he creates aren't." Actually, that's exactly what it means. He could constrain it with the laws of logic, but doing so would create evil and therefore be evil in itself.
And the idea that logic must continue to hold sway to exist at all is, in fact, a logical idea. Kind of trippy, but assuming logic could be manipulated, the nature of logic could be manipulated. If its nature is manipulated, this statement is no longer valid. (very unsure about the integrity of this paragraph)
God has the power to manipulate the toy train because of his omnipotence. The train example only holds sway if the train's material is unchangeable. In this case, the train is destroyable and open to manipulation. Not only that, but the train was made
by the observer.