*sigh*

1. I never said God can't logically exist. However, God cannot be logically proven. For any argument about the existence of God to be successful, one would have to grant your whole argument, i.e. one would have to assume what you're trying to prove. Logic exists as a step by step process of examining evidence about the physical world; if God is said to exist, it is beyond these boundaries. If one claims that the physical world is God, where does this evidence come from? The Bible? Epiphanies? Any argument that proves God's existence assumes his existence, and the philosopher closest to marrying logic and faith (Aquinas) gave up this enterprise.

2. The Bible is not proof of God's existence. I willingly grant that large portions of the Bible are probably historically accurate, but that doesn't prove the existence of God in any reasonable fashion.

3. Please, stop trying to put words in my mouth--its the straw man argument you cling to so desperately. I never said the sites were faked, only that the threshold for legitimate evidence is higher when you consider conventional possibilities.

4. I have already provided extensive proof of the Catholic Church's "oversights" during WWII; scholars have exhaustively verifed that that Catholic Church committed aforementioned oversights. You are simply too weak to acknowledge the truth. I never mentioned Pius--the Catholic Church is bigger than one man.

5. Just like morality/ethics, being respectful and level-headed contains objective standards. Most of the things you say here ("jackass", "dumbass" and others) are things that simply wouldn't say during the course of a legitimate argument, because it weakens your position. You've found a lot of things that simply don't stand up in the face of real debate skills. Good luck, kid.