@Holiday20310401,
Your right, Holiday. But one thing that should always be taken into account is the necessity for humor in a pseudo-serious discussion. It encourages relative perspective in a collegial setting.
Is it that unexpected that a discussion of God's existence would devolve in some sort of way? Doesn't this imply the very nature of the argument? The paradox can be examined but a relative response will always be given. This seems to be the nature of any philosophy, but even more so in this case.
I like to think of this particular question like a hot air balloon. We all fuel this hot air balloon with all manners of "hot air" and gradually the balloon will float away. The course may change, the passengers may differ, the very air might cool, but the nature of the question implies that the balloon will never reach even the stratosphere of our own normative world, even if there is a trained operator at the helm.
I have always thought that people who ask this question ask for an answer to something that cannot be answered. Yet they ask any way under the assertion that proof expresses truth. No proof other than belief can be given, so there is no truth in the affirmative. This is bad logic me.