Ahhh, see, this is where our views diverge. Logic is very much a human creation. Math is very much a human creation - almost everything we do in math is about notation and writing things in different ways to make the subject easier to understand. And there are times when our traditional ideas get totally thrown away - quantum mechanics, etc. (A friend of mine - an undergraduate physics major - was able to prove that 0=1. Things get wonky whenever you start playing around with quantum mechanics.)
Math and logic are things that we have created to be able to describe and explain phenomena. Nothing more, nothing less. Could you provide some sort of proof for this? I can't find any in your post. An epistemological statement of this grandeur, that many philosophers would never dare make, even non-Christian ones, seems to require some sort of back-up.
The ultimate question I would pose is this: does logic exist outside of God?
This is the crux of the matter. Your point about time I can address, but would take us down the rabbit trail of phenomenology, and I'd prefer not to go there simply for the sake of time. Instead, I'll address your point about logic. John 1:1: In the beginning was the word [logos], and the word [logos] was with God, and the word [logos] was God.
The Greek word being used in the original text of that verse is the word "logos," hence why I put it in brackets there. Logos can be translated as word, but it can also be translated and used as "Logic," as Aristotle does in Rhetoric. In other words, we could translate the verse this way. "In the beginning was the logic, and the logic was with God, and the logic was God." The simple fact is that fundamentally Logic is not something outside of God as you say, but is defined by the character of God.
The word "logic" seems to be a referential term that we use to classify certain laws and structures that exist in the world, and help us determine the truth or falsity of propositions. The proof for this is that if I say that Aristotle's classic syllogism is "logical," that doesn't mean anything unless the context or myself specify what I mean (it is formally valid, and the premises are true, for example).
So, since "logic" is a referential term we must ask what that term references. The term references, as I'm sure you'd agree, certain laws that help us to know whether various propositions about reality are true or false.
Here's the problem then: if you're right, that those laws that we use are a human creation, you literally just shattered your epistemology. You cannot know anything to be true or false with any level of certainty. You must be a total skeptic, and in my opinion, the only place for a skeptic to go is Nihilism. Here's my proof.
Logic is a way in which we understand reality–it's not the only way, but it is a way. The laws that we call "logic," if they are created by humans, face one fundamental problem: how do we know those laws accurately correspond to reality? In other words, if "logic," which we've already seen refers to certain laws that helps us determine reality, is man-made, then how on earth do we know that those laws in fact correspond to reality?
The easy answer is that we've observed that they lead us to proper conclusions about reality. But that assumes a standard for what reality is or isn't. Logic can't be that standard, if you're right, because logic is a man-made way to know what is real. But the laws of logic, if they are man-made, simply beg the question of whether or not these laws actually correspond to reality.
So what standard for these laws do we use? What about observation? Doesn't saying that we observe that the conclusions these laws bring us to to correspond to the reality we perceive with our senses solve the problem? It actually just begs another question–how do we know our senses are valid? This is an age-old question that has to be accounted for. We can't use logic to justify our senses because we are employing our senses as a justification for logic. Thus, how do we know what reality is?
The outworking of this is that we don't know, which is skepticism. I'm sure you're not a skeptic, but your beliefs necessitate that you be one.
What's the alternative? Logic isn't man-made. The laws of logic are out-workings of the character of God. This solves the problem because, since God created reality, we would assume that he would have remained consistent with his nature (which we in part refer to as "logical") in the act of creation. Thus, of course reality will be "logical" because the God that created it is the very definition of logic. Which means, of course, that God is perfectly consistent. Saying that God is logically consistent is simply describing who he is, because he himself defines logical consistency. I appreciate your desire to maintain the "otherness" of God, I really do. It's important that God doesn't become our buddy, I'm with you there.
But in your attempt to rightly maintain that God is "other," you've destroyed all possibility of knowledge, and thus all possibility of knowing God, knowing how to be saved, or for that matter knowing anything. All theology, philosophy, science, history, literature–all of it comes crashing down if you're right that logic is man-made. Sound a little extreme? It's extreme, but not at all unjustifiably so. When dealing with epistemology literally everything is at stake, because we are dealing with the preconditions of knowledge about, well, everything.
*Think of the phrase "this statement is false" for an example of a non-consistent but not exactly contradictory statement.
The phrase "this statement is false" is completely unintelligible. It's impossible to comprehend in any way shape or form. It's so completely shrouded in mystery that it's impossible to know anything about it, even what the words themselves in the sentence mean. It isn't even possible to have much of a conversation about this phrase because it is completely unintelligible. If you're comparing this to God....are you saying God is completely unintelligible? Are you saying that God is impossible to comprehend at all? If so, not to sound rude, but you should probably stop reading the Bible, because the Bible claims to make intelligible statements about God and his character, thus allowing us to partially understand God. Which means that God is, to some extent, intelligible.
specificity is something we should be extremely careful with. It is incredibly easy to be wrong about God if we try to fit Him to our own lives and experiences.
I agree we shouldn't "fit" God into anything, but there's a difference between fitting God into something and describing who he is. I'm saying that when we are describing who God is we are talking about the ultimate creator of the universe, the one who is so holy even the angels can't look at him, the one who is eternal, the one who sustains all things and brings together all things for his own glorification, and a possibly infinite list of other characteristics.
All I'm saying is that when we're talking about a God like that, we should probably be very careful what words we use to talk about him. In other words, let's honor God and show proper reverence to him by describing him accurately, which oftentimes necessitates specificity.
I think you're trying to do that–honor him and show proper reverence–with your arguments here. I respect that, and I'm glad that you want to do that. But I think you're doing it in the wrong way. The way to show proper reverence to God, and to recognize his holiness isn't by making him unintelligible or so vague and general, we barely can even have an intelligent conversation about him. The way to do that is to use his name carefully, to worship him, to ensure that when we speak of him we are speaking of who he actually is, not throwing around sloppy phrases that are easily misinterpreted as saying that God is something he's not.
We both want to show reverence to God, and that's fantastic. The question then rightly must be asked, how do we do that? In essence, your answer is silence. All I'm saying is that the answer isn't silence, it is, in part, specificity.