it's circular logic - if you assume god exists and is rational, then you can deduce virtually anything you want from it, given that there is some concept of logic in everything in nature.
but, that doesn't make the discourse valuable, it makes it useless - it's untestable. it's just mental masturbation.
but, like i say, that's not what asimov is doing; he's just starting with the perceived absurdity of divine creation juxtaposed with anthropomorphic self-destruction, and presenting the contradiction as comedic. and, i'm not going with him on that, because i really don't see the absurdity in it, because i don't accept the assumptions underlying his concept of god.
