I thought it was clear. As a category, God exists as the greatest holder of power. If you want to introduce the notion of God's relationship with something greater than Himself (aka the heavy rock) you automatically begin discussing a different category. Much like the moment you start discussing corners in a circle, you are discussing a different category of shape. The value of logic is that it enables one to discern what is plausible despite not having direct access to the value in question (whether it be the omnimax capacity of God or the perfection of a circle). If you want to exclusively discuss the influence of Fideism on historical and contemporary christianity (Augustine -> C. S. Lewis) that may warrant a different thread with a specific eurocentric focus. To the degree that they can problematize synthetic geometry (which, while a tall order, is certainly child's play in comparison to denoting everything of this world to mathematics) On the contrary, I doubt you feel more empowered by being called an "it". Of course since our ideas of gender tend to popularly arise from the language of a fallen world, perhaps, given consideration of current company, it's safer not to take that path. A quandary at the stage of existence precludes more intimate notions of identity. It's not so much presuming about God's existence, but presuming about our own. The tendency is to eradicate aspects of God's identity for the sake of empowering our own. The more we remove God as an agency of context, the more noble we feel about taking the gauntlet. Well if it's not your Will that illuminates your path, whose is it? Technically, a person who bites their own tongue has no one else to blame. Well that's kind of rude. Even in this world we find that mental assylums that don't keep their clients drugged up in strait jackets 24/7 more endearing than those that do. At the very least, I am sure even Diderot, no stranger to incarceration, appreciated the opportunity to air his madness.