Since we are discussing chaos and God's power to ordain logical contradictions, I think it will be useful to make some general observations on how the "laws" of logic may be empirically contingent.
Suppose I told you that I did and did not go to the market. Prima facie, this seems like a logical contradiction, but this can be easily resolved if I were to qualify my claims with "I did go to the market yesterday, but I did not go to the market this morning." A logical contradiction has been avoided by introducing a *time index*, something can be and not be but not at the same time. This seems pretty obvious to us today, but it took the ancient Greeks literally centuries to figure this out. Heraclitus and Parmenides infamously battled this out, the former claiming that everything was in contradictory flux because things are changing, being and not being, (you cannot step into the same river twice), while Parmenides asserted that since change lead to contradictions, something being and not being, ergo nothing changes. This problem was only resolved when the notion of time was incorporated and something can be at time t1 and not be at time t2.
However once a time element is introduced to logic there is the uneasy question of whether logic itself becomes dependent on the nature of time, literally a temporal notion. While philosophers have puzzled over the nature of time for thousands of years, Einstein's Relativity seems to imply that "at the same time" itself is not a metaphysical fact embedded in the platonic heavens, but an empirically contingent truth. If the concept of "at the same time" goes, then there's no meaning to laws of logic which says that two contradictories cannot be true "at the same time". According to Special Relativity, whether or not two events are simultaneous is fundamentally contingent upon the velocity of the reference frame of the observer, and furthermore, all reference frames are equally valid. There is no "objective fact" about whether two events are simultaneous or not.
This isn't to say that everything is relative, as some irresponsibly conclude from Relativity. Even if the temporal distance between two events is relative, the four dimensional space-time "distance" between two events is invariant and has the same value regardless of reference frame.
What all this mean is that we need a richer concept of logic than "at the same time" for it to remain intelligible. A hint at the solution already appears even within Relativity. While an event A can both occur before event B and after event B, depending on the frame of reference, the space-time distance between event A and B is invariant. As such, the distance between two space-time events cannot have different values. So we come to a modified "law of logic": two things cannot be and not be under the same "circumstances" or "situation".
The problem here naturally is, but what are these "circumstances" or "situations" which prohibit something from being and not being? After all, the distance between two space-time events being invariant is a theorem of physics, it is not a logically necessary truth. The problem is that the more abstract it is from "reality", it more it is just a conventional game. *We* decide what constitutes same circumstances and same situation whereby a logical move is valid or invalid. It would be a lot more analogous to chess. There's nothing magically special about pawns being able to move one step. *We* decide that pawns should only be able to move one step, if you decide to move pawns two step, reality wouldn't crash to the ground, we simply stop playing the game with you. Of course, if "the same circumstances" and "the same situation" isn't just to be subject to human whim, then it should be fleshed out on the ground, but that would then entail that the use of this law is empirically restricted based on the facts on the ground which can dictate what constitutes "the same circumstance" and the "same situation". The laws of logic become inherently empirical.
The dilemma we face here as such is, insofar as the laws of logic are universal, it becomes a human game maintained by human will, insofar as the laws of logic become substantive, it is contingent upon the empirical facts. But it seems that the laws of logic ultimately are just, as the old name suggests, the laws of thought, human instruments for understanding, they are not the laws of reality as it were.