>>if, instead, science came with proof that makes its existence unplausible, then I would have said that it doesn't exist. And that's exactly what's the case with your God.
>
>There is nothing within science that makes the existence of my God "unplausible."

Not impossible. Just unplausible. When there's no proof of existence, you can say that the nonexistence is plausible.

I still admire the idea of a god, as it is presented in Christianity, for its defeat of classical logic. It's such a construct that is actually another proof of Gödel's thesis, that there can't be any complete logical system, because no logical system can contain proof of its completeness. It needs a meta-system (which then needs a meta-system of its own etc - ad infinitum). Now this god idea is supposed to be so big, so all-encompassing, that it can't be proven or disproven. Which is amazing, considering that it was conceived centuries before Gödel.

>>About your catalyst theory, tell me, who or what created your Creator???????
>
>He wasn't created. He is eternal.

And the Universe isn't?

> At some point, you have to come to the conclusion that there is at least something out there that has no creator. Science really cannot deal with that. It follows that there must be something "supernatural."

How about this: it's the Universe that has no creator. We're in it all the time.