You've just contradicted yourself...AGAIN. Here some links for you :
If you're alleged all-powerful "God" can make a rock so heavy he can't pick it up, then it would mean that he is not all powerful!!!
-I'm all powerful!
-Can you pickup this rock?
-Then you're not all powerful, are you?
-Hmmm, guess not :/
I hope reading them will help you understand how what you just said goes against all your precious beliefs in logic.
Neither of the articles you posted addresses the problem (and yes, I have read both). All they do (both Craig and Geisler) is equivocate on the term "all-powerful" and then make more CLAIMS - just like you
Bill Craig: "...the Christian should say that the necessary truths of logic (and perhaps math) just are representations of the way God's mind essentially thinks."
Setting aside the fact that this is just another arbitrary assertion with no backing, just like nearly every religious claim, I say great! If logic is "the way God's mind essentially thinks" then he can't be "all-powerful". So stopping using the term to refer to your alleged God. Your alleged god is limited by its nature
and therefore CANNOT DO ANYTHING.
Wiki Article: "Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature."
Ah yes, the infamous equivocation fallacy. I'm sorry, if logic applies (and you want to actually be rational) then you can't have your cake and eat it too. If your alleged "Yahweh" has a "nature" then he/she/it is LIMITED and cannot do anything (and it is therefore NOT ALL-POWERFUL). You don't get to just ASSERT that being all-powerful doesn't mean
all-powerful and get away with it. In every other context such reasoning is irrational and is therefore invalid. I could say I'm "all-strong" and can pickup anything. But the second I admit that there is something I cannot pickup I am no longer "all-strong". Merely rationalizing by calling it a "paradox" doesn't solve the problem either (because anyone can do that and it's just as irrational).
Finally, Craig said something in his article that I found hilarious:
"Moreover, Descartes' position is incredible. It asks us to believe, for example, that God could have brought it about that He created all of us without His existing, that is to say, there is a possible world in which both God does not exist and He created all of us. This is simply nonsense."
HA! I love it. Craig correctly points out how irrational it is to hold a position which violates the laws of logic, and yet instead of admitting that his alleged god is not all-powerful (because this is exactly what logic entails) he instead (elsewhere) attempts to equivocate on the term "all-powerful". So he is the pot calling the kettle black - shunning irrational reasoning when it suits him and using it when it helps his confirmation bias. That is called sophistry.