Yes. Using your brain. You've pointed out the obvious internal contradiction between the notion that there exists some Other-being which has is supposedly outside the influence of causal process (because supposed being is responsible for the existence of said process and the underlying structures such as time) and the very idea that this being has causal powers at all, and hence, that it can influence the world around us at all, or indeed, do anything or perform any action, or be anything other than an inert nothingness. As a side note, isn't it bizarre that the same people who will cheerily tell you that they worship an entity which is outside space and time, is utterly inconceivable to human cognizance, is so anthropomorphic in their tastes and nature that they care about your baseball team and what you do while naked?

Of course, you might claim that this supposed being is ineffable and these sorts of conceptual problems about its causal powers do not apply, but then you would be left with a mystery of your own devising, and as such, you would be negating your ability to make knowledge claims about this entity, which in turn would mean you are begging the question by asserting that the being is beyond our conception in the first place...

Funny, I've pointed out the same thing as you did and never recieved a response.

Often times in religion God isn't all power.  He is fooled by a devil and has to fight a war, or he doesn't notice something, or he has a character flaw, or he changes his mind, et cetera....
But then the people who made him up, or the ancestors, want their God to be all powerful and trustable and shit.
So, like the religious nuts they are, they just say he is and wala.
Then they can explain that the old text was just metaphors or something.

You have to understand God is whatever they want him (or her) to be, whenever they want him to be it.

Is there a type of logic to your line of thinking?  Um, no.

Listen, all you need to know is that there is LOGIC, and then there is SHIT.
There are things that make sense, and then there is crap.
That's it.

If someone give a name to a type of logic they are either:
A.) Categorizing logic for easier reference (although this often makes things needlessly confusing).
or...
B.) They are trying to the masses to accept some bullshit as "logical" by literally trying to redifine the word "logic" by adding to it what they want.

Ohh, good.  Cause like I said, "types of logic" are bullshit.  Lol.

Um, lemme see.  It just looks like these theists who believe the needless events occured to cause something, while believe that God is all powerful (and thus be able to cause something without the need of events) are just contradicting themselves.  There probably isn't a fallacy name for that, because we can just call it a contradition.  I tried, but I don't even think I can tack Non Sequitor or Ad Hoc on them for it.  It's just simple contradition.

all true problems when trying to think about God.

The question then becomes is it paradoxical but true that God can influence human events, if he exists? In a sense it is a meaningless question. In another sense, it can be "approximate truth" as far as we can understand.

To resolve a paradox we have take a viewpoint outside what is currently "known". By definition, what is known is determined through science. Science will not prove God. God will always be paradoxical if he exists. At least we can have the concept of a paradox but no true concept of God.

Well, when he says 'no true concept of God', he could be saying, effectively, that while we might be able to have partial or flawed conceptions of God, we lack the frame of reference to truly conceive of the complete nature of such a being.

As an example:

A man who is blind from birth might know that an orange is, well, orange, but that doesn't mean he really comprehends what an orange looks like. He simply doesn't have a frame of reference to give him just what the color 'orange' (or even what the word 'color') really means from a visual standpoint. Obviously, he could know that "orange" refers to a range in the visible  spectrum with wavelengths between about 585 – 620 nanometers, but that doesn't give him the concept of what orange looks like.

Similarly, we might be able to have a partial understanding of a deity, if it existed, through data, but we still wouldn't be able to fully grasp the concept without having the right experiencial frame of reference.

To add to what DG has said (again), it's one thing to say that some people cannot perceive color, and so are limited.  We know what color is.  It's a mental representation of electromagnetic radiation within a small portion of the spectrum.  When we say that we cannot perceive subatomic particles directly, we have a perfect reason -- they're very, very small.  Too small for us to perceive.

When someone attempts to use the same kind of argument for god, it fails for the same reason that the definition of god fails.  It's fine to say that we can't perceive god, but we must give a reason why.  In order to do this, we'd have to know what god was.  So again, the ineffable nature of god becomes the downfall of the statement, regardless of which approach we take.

I just wonder how existing outside of time and space is any different from not existing at all

This is clearly absurd. You are commiting little more than a special pleading fallacy. You might claim that this supposed being is ineffable and these sorts of conceptual problems about its causal powers do not apply, but then you would be left with a mystery of your own devising, and as such, you would be negating your ability to make knowledge claims about this entity, which in turn would mean you are begging the question by asserting that the being is beyond our conception in the first place...

The question put forth by the OP was formalized by me. When viewed in this manner, it is obvious that you did not address the argument at hand:

There is an obvious internal contradiction between the notion that there exists some Other-being which has is supposedly outside the influence of causal process (because supposed being is responsible for the existence of said process and the underlying structures such as time) and the very idea that this being has causal powers at all, and hence, that it can influence the world around us at all, or indeed, do anything or perform any action, or be anything other than an inert nothingness. To restate that the agent in question is outside such problems by virtue of its agency-omnipotence is merely the assignation of an incoherent and ad hoc special characteristic which, as formalized above, constitutes a special pleading fallacy.

No. Because it is claimed that this being created the very causal structure itself, it is inherently contradictory to state it has causal powers. The problem comes because "causal actions" constitute actions that occur within certain causal substrates. We call them space and time. Thus, the assertion that there exists some being outside of the causal structures, ie those necessary for causal actions to occur, by the very definition of causal actions, shoots itself in the foot, especially if we are to hold that this being is an entity with causal powers as we recognize them (which is the very basis of the Cosmological argument, as an example. Another problem is that if said being has no causal powers within the world that we inhabit, because that is defined in terms of actions that occur within space and time, then it is contradictory to assert that this agent can do anything within the material world. Not because it is "outside of it", but because to commit actions requires causal powers, and causal powers in turn require certain features which are properties of the physical world. You obviously didn't read the argument at hand,  or you were incapable of grasping it, either of which leads me to conclude that you are lacking in intellectual capacity.

Well this aint gonna get anywhere. You are just gonna keep on with your assertion and I'll keep on denying it.  I'm bored.  It's late. I like Saki.

You seem confused.. you haven't made an argument but an assertion.  I know they both begin with a, but they are different things. I deny your assertion.  I deny your assumptions.  I'm bored. Perhaps at some future time I'll find you interesting.