Re: i need urgent help : i'm demonically possessed

You're now left having to prove that logic comes from God. Good luck selling that to anyone who doesn't already believe in that big, bad being in the sky.

I am not selling it to anyone. I am just stating my position why I do not insist in illogical properties, despite your bait that I should do it.

Anyway, explain to me how these qualities of "arbitrary" and "non-empirical" demonstrate that logic is derived from God.

They don't go as far as demonstrating that, but they do mean it is not possible to derive logic from observation of the world.
In every discipline where observation is not the root of knowledge, there is, at some point, an unproven assumption or value judgment sustaining it all - whether or not that assumption or judgment is theistic in nature. But it seems only natural that if one assumes God otherwise, one would assume God when finding the cores of such disciplines.

And does this mean that things which are empirical do not come from God?

No, it only means that they can all be proven through observation without requiring, at any point, an assumption outside the system that cannot itself be observed and proven or dismissed.

Parochial according to whom? You?

Parochial according to anyone that doesn't believe themselves the center of the universe. The metaphor "big daddy in the sky" is the perfect example of this: "big" is a value judgment about size that there is no reason to assign an entity without physical size; "daddy" is a biological and social construction that there is no reason to assign to an entity with no biological or social paternity roles; "in the sky" is a value judgment about that which is in an apparent above direction against that which is in an apparent below or sideways direction, which doesn't make sense except in our little planet which comprises an infinitesimal part of the universe. If that is not parochial, I don't know what is.

If God does not obey the rules of logic or empiricism, then he and his works cannot be measured or observed in a scientific way.

Is that supposed to be another denial of omnipotence or attempt to force me to define it in an illogical way?

That being the case, you cannot make any argument for him which ultimately does not stem from faith alone. That's the point I'm getting round to.

Well it took you like three days and like ten posts.

And I already admitted that, most recently right above. Though I also pointed out that for me it "comes for free" as the unproven and unprovable assumption at the core of non-empirical disciplines. And yes, it is a matter of faith to take that assumption over any other.

I am justified in claiming there is no evidence for God to be found in this world.

You haven't seen my LGF's belly button.