Yeah, I think it won't be possible to go further in the conversation at this point. It seems to me Andrew is still working with a "theistic personalism" definition of God, in which God is but one exemplar of a greater ontological class of these things called "beings," only God is the "Supreme Being." Even where Andrew claims to accept the classical theist definition of God for the sake of argument, he still wants to suggest as possible what is ruled out by definition to be impossible. This can only be the case if either a) Andrew actually subjects God to contingency and the causal chain of things, or b) Andrew simply rejects logic altogether (only calling that rejection "paradox"). As I read him, he allows the semantically iterable to be equated with the ontologically possible. If that is so, then we can just as well say that square circles exist. And since logic is no longer a trustworthy guide to reality, I feel justified in declaring that I have, in fact, never once participated in this thread.