"your parodied caricatures".

Actually, "magic sky king" is a fairly accurate description of the Christian God, in all seriousness. He's magic; routinely suspends the laws of physics, created everything that exists (in your world view, of course), he lives in the sky with all of his good followers, and he is a supernatural "king" - that is, his word is law, etc. etc. Obviously, it sounds like a derogatory comment, but there is a lot of truth to the nickname, IMO.

I'd have to take issue with the concept of something that is logically impossible not being conceivable. We can think of numerous things that aren't logically possible.

Even if we just limit it to gods, you are suggesting for example that Poseidon is not logically impossible, as he has been conceived, and therefore is logically necessary.

I don’t think we can really conceive of the logically impossible. I mean, sure, we can say “round square” or “married bachelor,” but I don’t think our minds are capable of conceiving round squares or married bachelors.
But I’m not suggesting Poseidon is logically impossible. What I’m implying is what theologians have been saying and arguing for a thousand years: only a being with the property of aseity is worthy of the name God.

I guess you're thinking along the lines of "if you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory".

The kinds of things you're suggesting our minds aren't capable of, they absolutely are, just not to many people.

(1) is not true. And you've also proven the existence of unicorns and dragons. Congratulations.

Yeah, why can't God be possible but not necessary?

What if the universe was made by blind unguided forces, but that universe created a species that became sufficiently advanced that they could simulate a universe with a super powerful computer? That civilization is the God of the simulated universe but they themselves were not created by a sentient being. Is that not a scenario where a God is possible but not necessary?

Yeah, that's all sorts of wrong. At one point going to space wasn't logically possible. Now it is. In vitro fertilization, cars, hell, ever fire was at one point not logically possible.

If something is not feasible / inconceivable / beyond our technical abilities, that does not make it logically impossible. Sending a rocket into space did not break any laws of logic before it was possible to do so, did it?

I don't think this is about how capable some individual's minds might be, but about the general inability of the human mind to conceptualize the impossible:
You can conceptualize the idea "a square circle".
You cannot conceptualize an actual square circle.


To me, an entity that is described as infinitely powerful is just as inconceivable to the human mind as a square circle. While you can conceive of the notion, you cannot conceive of the thing itself. Atheists are often told that they just don't "know" God, so they cannot speak about God's nature or characteristics. I'm sure this is true - but if such an entity does exist, the theist is just as incapable of "knowing" it.

I think this one has been done a few times. The simulated universe idea is just unnecessary. It merely pushes the first cause problem to another universe.

So now to the blind unguided forces. Where did they come from? (Rhetorical question)

At some point, by necessity (since there are things):

1. there is something that always was and it contains everything or the ability to create everything.

2. this something came out of nothing and it was the first of anything

How can something be the first of anything while containing everything and always be? Idk but it's impossible for the first cause not to.

Something coming out of nothing is impossible.

The impossible happened. Therefore God.

Something coming out of nothing is impossible.

The impossible happened. Therefore God. Wait....wut created God...F***!!!

I don't understand something.

Therefore, God.

The origin of the world of squares and circles was, by necessity, started by a square circle.

Then God would be a contingent being…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
God and Other Necessary Beings
It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings…There are various entities which, if they exist, would be candidates for necessary beings: God, propositions, relations, properties, states of affairs, possible worlds, and numbers, among others.

… and the typical theist’s conception of God…

1. God as a Necessary Being
Perhaps the strongest motivation for thinking that God exists necessarily is perfect-being or Anselmian theology. On an “Anselmian” conception of God, God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. Necessary existence is a perfection, it is thought, and therefore God must possess it.

… would be a misconception of God.

Yes this is the problem with imaginary beings; you can ascribe any quality you like to them and then insist that that quality is implicit in the meaning of the word.

I can easily conceive of a creator-God that is not the most perfect being.