I don't have a mom. Only American's have moms.

Do you know if you love your mom or do you suspect otherwise? Of course you know truths.

Augustine, Stein, Hildebrand, Sheen, Chesterton are just a few of the ramparts against men like Nietzsche. So many huge and great walls against the great Nietzsche are enough for me.

No sarcasm about Nietzsche intended, great and wrong don't often go together and I salute him but I fall into the arms of Augustine who I believe holds the best mind in human history aside from Christ.

Yours in Christ

P.S. please read Augustine on the Trinity. Best philosophical treatise to date.

Ok, if you're not going to read what I'm writing, I don't see the point.

TWICE now i have pointed out why "We are examining your claim that God's existence is logically or evidentially impossible." is incorrect.

these don't make god impossible: after all we don't know everything
about how this weird universe works, but it does set a pretty high bar
for evidence to say that everything we know is wrong or has one
particular loophole.<----- Is the third time the charm? Can you hear me now?

RW, We are *not* currently trying to prove God's existence. We are examining your claim that God's existence is logically or evidentially impossible.

Your first reason in support for the impossibility of God is that God, in your words, violates the laws of nature.

My refutation of this reason is that *if* God created the universe he would not be limited by any laws he made for his creation.

Is it not self-evident that a creator is greater than his creation and is not limited by it?

I think your first reason is successfully refuted.

If you want to abandon your claim that God's existence is not logically or evidentially impossible, I'll accept that.

Most atheists I've encountered don't try to claim that they can disprove God's existence. The fall back on the much easier position to maintain that the arguments in God's favor are not strong enough to warrant acceptance. I think they generally do a pretty good job at that.

That means that he makes the laws, so he is not limited by them.
Therefore, the fact that God violates the laws of nature (as you put
it), is not an argument for the impossibility of God's existence.<---- That excuse. You are claiming, without evidence, that

God is (God exists)
God is the creator of the universe
God made the laws of the universe
God is not limited by the laws of the universe

What is the "excuse" you are referring to?

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I think that's just about over.

I want to take your objections seriously. You claimed the following as evidence against the existence of God:

>God violates the laws of physics as we know them.
>God is not needed to explain or predict anything.
>I objectively know that Romans 1:19 is wrong.
>The catholic church has not been and is not any more moral than any other organization.
>The allegedly infallible popes have been ... more than fallible.

Can we cross off the first claim and move on the the second?

Again....

these don't make god impossible: after all we don't know everything about how this weird universe works, but it does set a pretty high bar for evidence to say that everything we know is wrong or has one particular loophole.

Do you have any evidence for the claims implicit in your answer? Is that evidence sufficient to believe something that doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence we have about how reality works?

God is (God exists)
God is the creator of the universe
God made the laws of the universe
God is not limited by the laws of the universe