Anti-Climacus

HAHA: Apparently, I've come across 'philosophers' who have never read Hume, Kant or Popper. To wit:

"In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion."

Naturally, what they neglect to mention is that this only can be true if we limit all possible debate to what is coverable by epistemological reason. But, as (take your pick) Descartes/Locke/Berkeley/Kant/Hegel/Kierkegaard/Heidegger/Popper/Wittgenstein demonstrate, epistemological discourse (the 'basic principles of rationality') is only an arbitrarily chosen set of rules designed to reinforce science as a discipline by making scientific discourse the only vehichle for talking about reality. If that seemed circular, well, that's because it is.
Our esteemed philosopher group quoted above is wrong, of course, if we base debate about God in some other way of doing things, generally either the existential or the ontological. And, of course, this is to say nothing of the tradition within what Kierkegaard would call the 'Religious' sphere of existenence to rely on the credo quia absurdum, but I'll spare y'all on that lecture.
And, of course, it in no way follows from allowing God to do the 'logically' impossible that rational discourse about God is impossible.