Well yeah, look at how you presented them. Who in their right mind would try to defend anything like that? You're familiar with the term 'straw-man', yes? You've got a tendency towards that. You've provided potential theists with a limited selection of easily torn-down theistic comments to choose from, but until now, you've seemed unwilling to actually ask a theist virtually standing right in front of you what he thinks God is, and see if you agree or not. I'm not interested in defending any concept of God but my own, of course.
So, as for my own concept of God, you know most of it already- All Powerful, Benevolent, All-Knowing, Creator of the Universe. All of these are general terms that will obviously require explanation if they look suspicious. For example, we already know my understanding of All-Powerful wasn't what you expected- but it couldn't be any other way.
God can't do Impossible things because, well, they're [i]impossible.[/i]
I've been at this a long time, I have to confess, and so I get used to certain trends from atheists I talk to. One common trend is to open up with a single argument to lure in a theist or two, and then when that argument is refuted, to immediately present half a dozen new, unrelated arguments instead of defending the original. Think of yourself as a hydra. I cut the head off your "God doing impossible things" routine, but I have to burn the stump or else it will just grow back later while I deal with all these new heads you've sprouted. Perhaps you're so confident that your arguments have no refutation, that you aren't waiting to see how they are responded to?
So then, let's consider the Omnipotence thing dead and buried. What would you like to discuss next? The Problem of Evil? The state of Evidence? Or perhaps something about my concept of God?
I sort of agree with this. First, I'm not sure that logic and mathematics really exist outside of language. Logic especially just seems to be a way to make sure that our sentences are really meaningful- rules of logic may just be rules of grammar.
But lets assume that rules of logic and mathematics exist 'out there', like the laws of physics seem to. In that case, I would agree with you that God did not create logic and mathematics, just as He did not create His own goodness or His own Power. The properties of 'being logical', 'being powerful', 'being numbered' have always existed alongside God eternally, because He possesses those properties.
I think this would be quite a leap to take. Just because certain properties are co-existent with God doesn’t mean God is not ‘in charge’ and cannot control things. As to why a person ought to worship Him, that’s a moral question and a whole other bag of oranges. One thing at a time. 
He and I are in the same struggle.