I agree with the first statement.

The second needs refinement. If evil is a potential and not a thing, then evil must exist so long as God exists. There needn't be actual evil in the absence of actual evil actions.

True that the potential for evil does exist, provided there are free will agents that are not equal to God.

that a thing is not a proper object makes any attempt at referencing the thing impossible... as it not a thing... we might just as well say that the thing is not a thing.

Therefore, there is no rock having the given description and thus ceases to be a problem for God... or for anyone.

Show me a circle that is bigger than itself. Agreed that is nonsense? Any such nonsense stops there... it is pointless to draw any further conclusions... such as whether I can draw such a circle.

no. logic bears a relation to truth. it is necessary to affirm that God is Truth to see that logic is not outside of God but stems from God.

First, there is nothing in the definition of "you" that includes omnipotence. Second, how do you get that "omnipotence" is internally inconsistent? Third, something which is not at first possible does not imply a limitation. That an all powerful God cannot create a man whose hair is both completely white and completely black simultaneously under a consistent interpretation implies no limitations on God's power, as it is not a valid proposition at all. We may view any self-referential contradiction as invalid. For example: "All things are relative" is invalid (albeit heavily used and sounds good at face value) How so? The assertion "All things are relative" includes itself, under the "All things" part, such that the statement itself cannot be absolute, yielding "Not all things are relative", revealing the hidden self-referential contradiction, a logical fallacy. Oddly, the contradiction in the big rock paradox is not so hidden. It is patently self-contradictory and thus useless as an argument against God's omnipotence.