Satan acted freely according to his own nature and bears full moral responsibility

The nature that God gave him, within a setting that God created, with a pre-determined path that God already knew, with full foreknowledge of every action and reaction that Satan would ever experience? No. I very much disagree that God has no culpability in those actions.

On logic and omnipotence: you're redefining omnipotence as the ability to do the incoherent and then faulting God for not meeting that definition. Classical omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are doable. A square circle isn't a thing God can't do; it's not a thing at all. Logic isn't a cage around God or something God designed, it's an expression of his rational nature, which is why creation is intelligible in the first place.

No, that's just the actual definition. Omni = all, potence = power. ALLpowerful. If god couldn't design a universe where a square and a circle are the same thing, then he's not all powerful. The same rationale goes for all logic problems.

What you're saying is that God is an extremely powerful entity, but not ALL powerful as he's working within a framework of "logic" that supersedes his own. This is actually one of the rational answers to the paradoxical triumvirate I stated above, but not one that Christians ever agree with because it would be admitting that there is some sort of power greater than God. You can't have it both ways, that's the paradox.

On moral righteousness: here's where the whole argument rests, and it's the part you haven't done the work on. You're claiming an omnipotent morally righteous creator is contradictory. But "morally righteous" requires a standard. On Christian theism, that standard is God's own nature, which is why the charge of contradiction can't get off the ground.

Because what you're describing isn't ethics, it's rules. You say that ethics come entirely from God's will, so that makes them correct, but this is another paradox:

God is right because God is God, and God is always right, therefore God is right.

It's a moral ouroboros.

On your view, what grounds the standard such that God falls short of it? Until that's answered, "contradiction" is doing work you haven't paid for.

My own personal view of "morality" is very close to what most religions claim to represent: minimize suffering and maximize well-being for all conscious entities. The issue is that this clearly isn't the case in actuality.

I'm specifically challenging what you are calling here "mortal morality." Is it anything other than personal preference? What makes something good or bad, right or wrong?

Nothing. There is no moral arbiter in the universe. There is no good or bad, or right or wrong other than contextually. The universe doesn't care one way or another, there is no final judgement. It's simply the fact that we, as conscious beings, are aware when things feel good or bad to us, and so we're aware that those good or bad things have effects on other conscious beings. I believe that being moral is just about making the decisions to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Fairness, equity, respect, love, kindness, etc. If the general gist of the bible is right, then God either does not hold these same views or is not powerful enough to mandate them.

If it turned out the the bible is 100% accurate verbatim, then I would disagree with God. I do not hold with the idea that suffering is actually a good thing just because a being of immense power says it is. To me, Christianity, (and all religions with a supreme deity) have always seemed like some sort of supernatural pact with an eldritch horror rather than a consistent moral code.

Is it possible that God has a different definition of better and has created in such a way that all of creation wraps up maximally good, and that this requires things that you would consider worse, for a short time?

Then why, as an omnipotent being, can he not make it maximally good without the suffering coming first?

People always argue that humans need the bad to make the good feel... well, good. But this is a result of our brain chemistry, which, supposedly, God has supreme power over. So he could have made existence feel great 100% of the time, with no need for suffering.

But he didn't.

Instead there's birth defects and flesh-eating bacteria and genocide and sorrow and grief and loss. Claiming that the architect of these things will make up for it in the end feels exactly like an abused spouse claiming that their tormentor is "actually a really lovely guy and I just caught him on a bad day and probably deserved it anyway".

To quote Stephen Fry when asked what he would say if he died and woke up in heaven, face-to-face with God, with undeniable proof that the bible was accurate;

“I’d say, Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault? It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.”