@jeffcliff @kaia @Boomerman @EdBoatConnoisseur @JSDorn @Shlomo @SuperSnekFriend That's a really terrible argument, and it's about the nature of god, not about the existence of one in the first place.

> So you either accept nothing about the world or you accept god, in the former case you have absolutely no knowledge of anything. Including the existence of god which you need the other stuff to justify.
No, this is just poor epistemology. You can even be reasonably certain about the nature of sensible reality, draw meaningful conclusions, and still accept that it is possible for that nature to change. It's unpleasant but it's acceptable.

God may or may not be able to alter hard universal laws on a whim. It doesn't matter. The omnipotence paradox is irrelevant, and you basing your assumption on that is weak.

Give me something better.