This is a re-hashing of the same argument you now refuse to engage me in. So let me make this rebutal of these two points as clear as I can for you.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/29347-2-2-5-case-agnostic-atheism.html

You said:

'There is nothing in our Logic that can directly refute the logic we have programmed into the computer. For example, if the computer logically deduces 4 from 2+2. Humans cannot contradict the computer and logically deduce 5 from 2+2.'
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

I have already showed this to be false, and the methoed I used was to show that it is a question of better knowledge. In maths this is a correct asumption to make(and assumjption because you say this yet do not show it to be logicaly true). However the question may also be posed as a non mathimatical riddle, which the computer will give a maths answer to due to the programing of it.


'The same would be true for god if there was a third area encompassing "human logic" and "computer logic." '

Would it also be true of God, how so? Can you provided us evidance to show this assumption to be correct?

Logicaly speaking once an anolgy is made it needs to be 'like for like' for it to work. To procliam that if this is true for humans and their creation computers, then it must also be true for God and Gods creation humans, is not like for like and is also total assumption unless you can show us how.

Show me why if it is true for A then it is also true for B?

In logical terms I'm sure you'll know that what we have here from you is a premise. I say that this premise is false and call upon you to show me why it is not.