Help me understand atheism

[Shift]

Not what I have been told in the past.

 

[Druckles]

Whoever said that is a moron.

 

[Shift]

Im pretty sure it was some regulars on here in the past haha.

 

[Azner]

Simple, it's like it is when we are sleeping, but forever. You know how you fall asleep then wake up and there's a big gap in there? yeah that's what death's like.

Thats what someguy from "Seventh Day Adventist" told me.

But then... it.. Ah nevermind

 

[Druckles]

No. You don't dream when you're dead. Think Darkside's (believe it was Darkside) quote is the best to describe it. Like before you were born.

 

[Azner]

BRAIN MALFUNCTION

INFINITY

SYSTEM ERROR SYSTEM ERROR

 

[[Matt]]

Infinity argument over? if not please dont waste anymore time :/

 

[Absinthe]

So guys, I heard that agnostics aren't atheists and that logic sucks since it's articulated by human minds.

What's up with that.

 

[PvtRyan]

If evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?

 

[Cole]

If evolution is true, then why are there still monkeys?

what does that mean?
Humans did not evolve from monkeys.
Monkeys and Humans both evolved from a common ancestor which is no longer around. If you really wanna get technical we are essentially both mutations of that common ancestor. That ancestor may have been struggling to survive, there babies were being malnurished and therefor genetic problems may have been occuring. While many were bad, a few good genetic defects led into the offspring that allowed those offspring to better survive. Since those offsprings survived better, there population climbed while the defected ones and the normal ones were struggling and died off.

Monkeys are still around because they can find food and mate. Just like humans. Monkeys are slowly evolving, THEY HAVE SPEARS!!! AHH!!!

 

[fatchance]

Evolution's got a plothole bigger than Beowulf.

 

[PvtRyan]

Evolution's got a plothole bigger than Beowulf.

Please make a good write-up of that "plothole" and I'll let the Nobel commission know that you'll come to pick up your Nobel price shortly.

Cole: I was kidding.

 

[RidleyRockets]

I'm guessing the plot hole is that he just doesn't like the idea of it.

 

[sinkoman]

@ ShinRA, cause and effect != logic

 

[Pesmerga]

If evolution is true where are the dinosaurs?

 

[Jintor]

Evolution's got a plothole bigger than Beowulf.

Statement without backup alert! Statement without backup alert!

 

[Darkside55]

Fatchance is just mad because evolution made the gays, and they're yucky.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

I found Jesus once, but he jumped my ass and stole my crack rocks.

****ing asshole.

 

[TCfromBN]

Evolution's got a plothole bigger than Beowulf.

Religion itself has multiple plot-holes bigger than Beowulf.

I can't believe how caught up in religion some people are. They're "blinded by the light."

I can accept the foundation of religion, what I think it was designed for, the good morals and such. I cant accept what it's turned into. Nor do I believe that theres a man in the sky guiding everyone's fate.

I'm pretty sure people are clingy about religion because they are afraid of what existing really is.

 

[Muffin Man]

190.

ARGUMENT FROM MONKEYS
(1) If man came from monkeys, there shouldn't be any more monkeys.
(2) There are still monkeys.
(3) Therefore, God Exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

 

[TCfromBN]

lulz.

5char

 

[Shift]

Whoever write all that REALLY needs a hobby.

 

[Druckles]

Omg! All of you are as closed mind as the fundamentalist Christians you're arguing against.

Fact: I don't believe in God. I believe in Evolution. I believe Science holds the answers to the questions I seek.

Fact: You don't seem to accept that you might not be right. There's no 100% conclusion to this debate, and the only thing you're arguing against me is that you're right and that's all there is to it. I have no motive to get you to believe in Christiantity, God, or that there is a heaven or hell, simply to accept the fact that none of you can tell me that our answer is 100%, without fault, true.

It's the most logical conclusion, for me, and evidently for you. But to put it simply, that doesn't mean that you're right.

 

[Jintor]

It just means we're 99% more likely to be right?

 

[Absinthe]

You don't seem to accept that you might not be right.

It's absolutely stupid to second guess yourself when you have all the evidence and reasoning on your side and when the alternative is flat-out retarded.

There's a chance all the history books are wrong and Hitler conquered Australia on a battalion of killer whales. But if I honestly argued as such, you wouldn't give me a modicum of credence. No, I would be wrong. Just because absolute 100% certainty on something cannot be obtained doesn't mean your batshit stupid ideas are on equal footing with legitimate science.

If there's one thing that's begun to really piss me off on this forum, it's all the pussy naysayers of logic and science. I honestly have nothing but contempt for such people. You use your computers, you take your medicine, you use math, you hold a basic grasp of when something is wrong and when it is right, and almost every supporting element in your life has had its roots born from logic and hard scientific inquiry. But nobody lets loose a ****ing peep in denial of how "real" they are, especially considering the vast headway and accomplishments we have achieved with them.
But no, they don't apply to God. "LOL it's just a theory!", "You have no proof X doesn't exist so don't be close-minded!", "But science can be wrong!"... Anybody who has ever uttered a line similar to those should be executed and burned in a heaping ditch of bodies on the grounds of being a hypocritical ass. We don't have the time, the effort, the patience, or the capacity to indulge every single baseless ****wit fantasy just because you don't like honest, science-backed reality.

I need a god damn aspirin.

 

[Baserape>]

If you take aspirin and end up in a car crash with internal injuries you will bleed to death.

Aspirin addicts have been warned.

 

[Jintor]

I love you Absinthe.

You should explode with your unholy rage more often.

 

[Warbie]

It's absolutely stupid to second guess yourself when you have all the evidence and reasoning on your side and when the alternative is flat-out retarded.

There's a chance all the history books are wrong and Hitler conquered Australia on a battalion of killer whales. But if I honestly argued as such, you wouldn't give me a modicum of credence. No, I would be wrong. Just because absolute 100% certainty on something cannot be obtained doesn't mean your batshit stupid ideas are on equal footing with legitimate science.

If there's one thing that's begun to really piss me off on this forum, it's all the pussy naysayers of logic and science. I honestly have nothing but contempt for such people. You use your computers, you take your medicine, you use math, you hold a basic grasp of when something is wrong and when it is right, and almost every supporting element in your life has had its roots born from logic and hard scientific inquiry. But nobody lets loose a ****ing peep in denial of how "real" they are, especially considering the vast headway and accomplishments we have achieved with them.
But no, they don't apply to God. "LOL it's just a theory!", "You have no proof X doesn't exist so don't be close-minded!", "But science can be wrong!"... Anybody who has ever uttered a line similar to those should be executed and burned in a heaping ditch of bodies on the grounds of being a hypocritical ass. We don't have the time, the effort, the patience, or the capacity to indulge every single baseless ****wit fantasy just because you don't like honest, science-backed reality.

I need a god damn aspirin.

You go girl!

Awesome post

 

[Druckles]

It just means we're 99% more likely to be right?

No, but you get the general idea. You can't prove something wrong that you can't see and can't understand.

your batshit stupid ideas are on equal footing with legitimate science.

Fed up with you not even bothering to listen, and I don't think insulting other people's belief systems is ever going to get you anywhere in an argument. So until you accept the fact that I'm not against your belief system, quite the contrary, and you back up your claims that the existance of God is "batshit stupid", you're not going to get anywhere.

To go back to your Hitler example, and people's ridiculous Pink Unicorn examples. The fact that there are thousands of people who believe in God make it plausible already. It means that anyone who says it is going to be listened to. Someone who sees a Pink Unicorn can be described as hallucinating and can be explained by perfectly logical and reasonable arguments. When half the population of earth all believe they saw a Pink Unicorn, the evidence for it suddenly increases dramatically, simply because the probability of so many people hallucinating at the same time is so low, the fact that a Pink Unicorn does exist immediately becomes a possibility. Sure, you can try and find out why a Pink Unicorn was seen by 50% of the world, but to those people who saw it, they'll believe they saw a Pink Unicorn until you can prove otherwise, or give them a solution in response. Similarly, thousands of people believe in God, but a solutions as to why, logically, certain things happen, can't be given and/or proven, and thus people will continue to believe in this deity.

As to Hitler. The very fact that you immediately refer to a book, a source which you seem to find irrefutable, you almost crushed your own point, as the bible, even older than any containing Hitler and World War Two, is still the world's number one book in terms of copies sold.

Just because you believe in science, doesn't make you right. Christians generally accept science, and simply use God to fill in holes in their knowledge. You don't know everything, and you don't know all the answers, and so as to certain things, while it might be a "batshit stupid" answer, it's still one answer better than anything you've come up with.

Edit: No-one argued with proven science.

 

[Beerdude26]

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

I cried from laughter.

 

[RidleyRockets]

No, but you get the general idea. You can't prove something wrong that you can't see and can't understand.

You don't need to prove something wrong that has no evidence of existance in the first place. It is a fallacy that people like you assume that because you cannot prove something 100% each way that therefore the chances are split 50/50.

Fed up with you not even bothering to listen, and I don't think insulting other people's belief systems is ever going to get you anywhere in an argument.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out absurd beliefs. Be it political, moral or religious.

So until you accept the fact that I'm not against your belief system

For the 100th time, athiesm is the lack of a belief and not a belief system.

quite the contrary, and you back up your claims that the existance of God is "batshit stupid", you're not going to get anywhere.

There is no evidence for a god. It's that simple.

To go back to your Hitler example, and people's ridiculous Pink Unicorn examples. The fact that there are thousands of people who believe in God make it plausible already.

For the 3rd time now, this is called an appeal to popularity. It is a fallacy, you do yourself no favours by using this.

Once the majority thought the sun moved around the earth, it doesn't. No matter how many people think this it is not true, it will never be true. If you could get everyone on earth to belive that the moon is made of cheese this will have no effect on the moon.

It isn't hard to understand.

It means that anyone who says it is going to be listened to.

Appeal to popularity.

Someone who sees a Pink Unicorn can be described as hallucinating and can be explained by perfectly logical and reasonable arguments.

The same then applies to anyone who claims to see a vision of the Virgin Mary, Jesus, any saint or religious figure. You are cherry picking and choosing where logic applies.

When half the population of earth all believe they saw a Pink Unicorn, the evidence for it suddenly increases dramatically, simply because the probability of so many people hallucinating at the same time is so low,

Appeal to popularity.

the fact that a Pink Unicorn does exist immediately becomes a possibility.

Appeal to popularity. Does the sun revlove around the earth?

Sure, you can try and find out why a Pink Unicorn was seen by 50% of the world, but to those people who saw it, they'll believe they saw a Pink Unicorn until you can prove otherwise, or give them a solution in response.

To quote a great man..
"Someone who sees a Pink Unicorn can be described as hallucinating and can be explained by perfectly logical and reasonable arguments."

Similarly, thousands of people believe in God, but a solutions as to why, logically, certain things happen, can't be given and/or proven, and thus people will continue to believe in this deity.

Appeal to popularuty
No matter how many times you go into it, no matter how many times to try to explain why this is a good argument this will always be a logical fallacy. You are waisting your time with this.

As to Hitler. The very fact that you immediately refer to a book, a source which you seem to find irrefutable, you almost crushed your own point, as the bible, even older than any containing Hitler and World War Two, is still the world's number one book in terms of copies sold.

Appeal to popularity
Being a best seller doesn't mean it is true, it just means it sold a lot.

Just because you believe in science, doesn't make you right. Christians generally accept science, and simply use God to fill in holes in their knowledge.

Here we have the god of the gaps. A horrible way going about explaining the world. God was once attributed to causing rain/thunder/any number of natural events. But as we gradually figured out through science the mechanics behind rain and thunder suddenly god wasn't the cause. The more we understand the smaller the gaps and the less of a role god seems to play.

You don't know everything, and you don't know all the answers, and so as to certain things, while it might be a "batshit stupid" answer, it's still one answer better than anything you've come up with.

Science never claims to know everything, it is just a process of investigation that has come up with amazing and consistant results. It starts with a question and then methodically investigates and tests to try and come up with an answer

Religion however starts with an answer, claiming to know incredible things off the bat with no investigation at all. How life came around, how the universe began and most arragont of all claims to know the intamate thoughts and wishes of a god.

Edit: No-one argued with proven science.

I wadger you wouldn't even know it if it was.

 

[Druckles]

I give up. It's like arguing with a Mormon/Fundamentalist/Christian etc.

I've even taken the time to drawn a diagram to try to indicate where you are:

Edit: If you don't understand, I feel my withdrawal from this discussion was a wise choice

Edit edit: WTF? I'm on my own arguing against a bunch of you, and you consider me to be "appealing to popularity"??

Edit edit edit: I'm not a ****ing Christian!

 

[Absinthe]

Fed up with you not even bothering to listen, and I don't think insulting other people's belief systems is ever going to get you anywhere in an argument. So until you accept the fact that I'm not against your belief system, quite the contrary, and you back up your claims that the existance of God is "batshit stupid", you're not going to get anywhere.

No, no. You have to differentiate between being close-minded and being mean. Right now, I'm sure my posts could be quantified as... not so nice. But that doesn't mean I'm being ignorant to your posts. I'll tone down my attitude, honestly. But I really do see this as insane.

Ridiculing beliefs may not ever be necessary, but I don't see why it should be barred from happening. For instance, if I were to posit that the universe was made by an omnipotent hippo that governs human affairs, I'd be treated as a joke. But replace the hippo with God and it's considered almost taboo to many. The problem is that the two entities are fundamentally the same in that that neither are falsifiable, neither can be evidenced, and neither explain anything about the world or us. You point to a thing in the sky and say "It did it", which only results in pushing the questioning further back on the continuum. What made God? Why does he operate the way he does? How does he manipulate the universe? "He works in mysterious ways" or invoking gaps in knowledge as proof of its existence are not valid.

If you think this is all good enough reason to believe in a deity's existence, then it begs the question as to why you don't hold the same approach to the multitude of other silly conjectural fantasies that people can come up with. Why don't you believe in fairies? Or gryphons? Hell, you could probably end up believing the earth is shaped like a dinner plate, rationalizing our observation of it being a sphere as "God's testing us". These are all empty, dumb ideas and the burden of proof allows us to dismiss most of them because we generally don't believe in shit unless it's credible.

Therein lies the reason why it's "batshit stupid".

To go back to your Hitler example, and people's ridiculous Pink Unicorn examples. The fact that there are thousands of people who believe in God make it plausible already. It means that anyone who says it is going to be listened to.

It's not plausible. Just because stupid people like to pretend it is doesn't make it so.

Someone who sees a Pink Unicorn can be described as hallucinating and can be explained by perfectly logical and reasonable arguments. When half the population of earth all believe they saw a Pink Unicorn, the evidence for it suddenly increases dramatically, simply because the probability of so many people hallucinating at the same time is so low, the fact that a Pink Unicorn does exist immediately becomes a possibility. Sure, you can try and find out why a Pink Unicorn was seen by 50% of the world, but to those people who saw it, they'll believe they saw a Pink Unicorn until you can prove otherwise, or give them a solution in response. Similarly, thousands of people believe in God, but a solutions as to why, logically, certain things happen, can't be given and/or proven, and thus people will continue to believe in this deity.

The only reason it's given credence is because so many have believed in one for ages. It survives only because of a reluctance to expose such "cherished" beliefs as the superstitious, hollow junk it is.

Yes, a person who hallucinates while seeing a pink unicorn can be explained reasonably. With science. This is usually an indication of a medical problem. Doesn't sound too flattering for your argument, really. In no way is that evidence of a pink unicorn actually existing. If people around the world started seeing pink unicorns, this would be an event, not a revelation. Without any further research into it, it would be wildly premature to treat it as a sign from deity because you're just making vast assumptions in order to jump from the event to your conclusion: "People hallucinated and saw a mythical beast. -> It's possible it exists!". Especially considering the tricks the minds can pull on itself. You're trying to reverse Occam's Razor in your favor, but it just doesn't wash.

While that could arguably give a slim amount of credence to the idea, I doubt your comparison really applies here. I highly doubt most theists actually do see God in person. They operate on what they're told. Celestial visitations in your dreams or while knocked out fall extremely short of valid evidence. Many cases of God giving "signs" can be easily fabricated if one's mind is already predisposed to ludicrous thinking (ie. Virgin Mary on a muffin). We do have solutions to delusional thinking. They're called critical thinking, or maybe even therapy. Or sometimes you just have to throw your hands up and admit you don't know why something happened. Just don't pin it on your invisible, insubstantial father figure.

As to Hitler. The very fact that you immediately refer to a book, a source which you seem to find irrefutable, you almost crushed your own point, as the bible, even older than any containing Hitler and World War Two, is still the world's number one book in terms of copies sold.

1.) This is an argument from popularity. The Bible's popularity is not a testament to its accuracy. Its a testament to how many people have been duped by it.

2.) Why did you specifically choose the Bible? Why not the Koran? Or the Tora? Are you saying these are wrong? I hope not, because then you'd really be putting your own foot up your ass. After all, who are you to decide that Christianity is more evidenced than Islam? Or were you just using it as an example? You can't have it both ways. Seeing as how the Bible's popularity is a complete non-argument here, I think it would be rather cheap of you to make some big transcendental case for belief in God only to make a totally arbitrary selection of which religion you think has more validity.

3.) History books and the Bible are not the same. You see, history books document events and people from the past, using research, sources, and peer reviewing. There is a careful, scrutinizing process that goes into them to ensure that they are accurate. The Bible is a loose, edited collection from many people over time with its primary purpose being moral instruction. They are not comparable. It's like saying the show 24 is more accurate than The History Channel's WW2 special because it gets more viewers.

Just because you believe in science, doesn't make you right. Christians generally accept science, and simply use God to fill in holes in their knowledge.

But that is exactly the problem. How do you not understand this? Shoving God into your gaps of knowledge does not give you an answer, it just gives you bullshit. It doesn't make you valid, it means you're guessing from your wallow of ignorance. And every time science manages to plug one of the gaps with a credible, evidenced theory or fact, your invoking of godly mystery is shown to be the shallow, worthless junk it is.

There was a time when we didn't know how natural disasters worked. I'm sure it would have been quite easy to chalk them up to God's work, but this is no longer the case. We understand far more about the forces of nature now, to the point where we can make accurate predictions based off of their workings as we have discovered through scientific inquiry thus far. God never comes close to this level of usefulness. Ever. We now know that geographic formations, climate, gravity, and weather patterns, and a host of other factors lie at the root of the latest tsunami or earthquake. God's been booted out of the picture. This is how replaceable and meaningless he is.

You'd expend a lot less of peoples' good will if you just said you didn't know why certain things happen instead of making up your own crap to shove into your frame for understanding the world.

You don't know everything, and you don't know all the answers, and so as to certain things, while it might be a "batshit stupid" answer, it's still one answer better than anything you've come up with.

An answer for what? Tell me, Druckles. What answer? To what question? "What makes the world spin"? I don't need to come up with an answer. But you need to explain why yours is worthy of being treated with respect. Throwing out any brain fart in the absence of competition does not make it the right answer by default. That's an argument from ignorance.

Edit: No-one argued with proven science.

You miss the point. Proven science often comes at the expense of religious dogma. This is something we've seen repeatedly throughout history, as science grows to tackle the mysteries we witness, replacing "God did it" with real, scientifically backed explanations. The only pertinent question here is why you continually ignore this just so you can feel ****ing wise, as if you're so god damn open-minded because you'll swallow religious whore shit.

That's not open-minded. That's dumb.

 

[Beerdude26]

The fact that there are thousands of people who believe in God make it plausible already. It means that anyone who says it is going to be listened to.

Let's put that in another religion:

The fact that there are thousands of people who believe in Allah make it (it referring to "[INSERT ANY ANTI-GAY,ANTI-WOMAN,ANTI-NON-ISLAMITE STATEMENT HERE, REFERRING TO ITS ACCEPTIBILITY IN SOCIETY*]") plausible already. It means that anyone who says it is going to be listened to.

*Please note that this statement must be extrapolated from the Koran and completely ripped from its actual meaning. Please look up "fundamentalists" in the phone book if you need professional aid.

 

[RidleyRockets]

I give up. It's like arguing with a Mormon/Fundamentalist/Christian etc.

I've even taken the time to drawn a diagram to try to indicate where you are:

Edit: If you don't understand, I feel my withdrawal from this discussion was a wise choice

Edit edit: WTF? I'm on my own arguing against a bunch of you, and you consider me to be "appealing to popularity"??

Edit edit edit: I'm not a ****ing Christian!

So are you going adress any of the points i made? I am not attacking you, just pointing out very obvious errors in your argument.

If i have read your diagram correctly you lean towards athiesm more than anything else yet argue in favour of a god (unless you are playing devils advocate) and do not think that evolution is plausible?

Out of curiosty, what are your religious beliefs?

 

[Druckles]

If you'd read the posts you seem to be arguing against:

I'm an atheist. I believe evolution is how we were created, as a species, and I believe that logicall, God cannot exist.

I'm not arguing in favour of God, I'm merely arguing that Evolution has not been proven in the same way that God has not been proven, and that neither group of us can be shown to be right, ie that God does or doesn't exist, when:

a) The Church disappears. There must be a reason why no-one believes in him anymore. And if the rapture hasn't happened, then why the hell is God waiting any longer?
b) You die (but no one else can have that proof shown to them, which is a bit annoying)
c) Someone prooves that Jesus never existed (almost impossible)
d) Everyone dies.
e) A different god/s is/are proven to exist.

It's funny though, because all of those simply disprove God. The fact is there that God cannot be proven, through logic (the idea behind him is beyond notion) or experience (you can easily counter that with a quick "oh, it's a fake", and you can't see the bastard anyway). Thus the only possibility is to disprove him, thus meaning that there can be a belief in not believing God.

That paragraph made more sense in my head, and I'm not going to be able to word it better.

Christians and the like will be around for a very long time because they believe in something no-one can say and prove to them is wrong. Simply because they always have an answer. God. Who is a metaphorical idea beyond human comprehension.

Edit: and the answer is yes to Beerdude's post.

 

[Tollbooth Willie]

There is no evidence for a god. It's that simple.

I have your evidence in my hand right now.

Snack cakes mother ****er.

 

[RidleyRockets]

If you'd read the posts you seem to be arguing against:

I mean no offence but it isn't alltogether clear what you're arguing in places. This post especially.

I'm an atheist. I believe evolution is how we were created, as a species, and I believe that logicall, God cannot exist.

I wouldn't say he cannot exist, it is just very, very unlikley that a god exists. Also if you think it is illogical to believe in a god, why do seem to want to play devils advocate and use weak, illogical arguments in favour?

I'm not arguing in favour of God,

This is where i get confused.
1. In some posts that you are in fact making an argument in favour of god
2. List evidence you feel supports this.
3. State the evidence is weak and easily debunked.
4. Then claim this weak debunked evidence cannot be ignored.

I'm merely arguing that Evolution has not been proven in the same way that God has not been proven, and that neither group of us can be shown to be right, ie that God does or doesn't exist.

These two things are very different and not comparable.

Evolution has been proven sufficiently, beyond a reasonable doubt and has an amount of evidence in support of it that is undeniable. It is falsifiable. It is not 50/50 if evolution is a real process or not, it is more like 99.99% in favour of evolution.

God in this case is much like a teapot orbiting Saturn. Nobody can prove either way that there is a teapot orbiting Saturn. There is no evidence in support and no evidence to disprove it.

This is called disproving a negative and i beg you to look this up along with all other links posted here on the scientific method, falsifiability, list of evidence and proof of evolution, basic evolution FAQ.

God is very different because there is no evidence or proof for his/its existance.
when:
a) The Church disappears. There must be a reason why no-one believes in him anymore. And if the rapture hasn't happened, then why the hell is God waiting any longer?
b) You die (but no one else can have that proof shown to them, which is a bit annoying)
c) Someone prooves that Jesus never existed (almost impossible)
d) Everyone dies.
e) A different god/s is/are proven to exist.

It's funny though, because all of those simply disprove God. The fact is there that God cannot be proven, through logic (the idea behind him is beyond notion) or experience (you can easily counter that with a quick "oh, it's a fake", and you can't see the bastard anyway). Thus the only possibility is to disprove him, thus meaning that there can be a belief in not believing God.

That paragraph made more sense in my head, and I'm not going to be able to word it better.

I think the problem is you are confused the philosophy and science behind all this. If you are really that interested as to take it further all i can say is read something like the God Delusion by Richard dawkins. It covers everything discussed here and is written better than anyone here could put it.

Christians and the like will be around for a very long time because they believe in something no-one can say and prove to them is wrong. Simply because they always have an answer. God. Who is a metaphorical idea beyond human comprehension.
.

Again i am confused on the points you are trying to make.

I can definitley help with your questions and views on evolution. www.talk-origns.org has all the reading material you need for any questions on evolution, if you do not think it can be proved i really suggest you look through the site.

 

[Druckles]

To sum it all up, I'm saying that you can't prove that God exists, but (to take your teapot example) you can prove that the teapot does or doesn't exist. I was merely taking Evolution as a [bad] example. The weak arguments I was using are merely evidence why people created the notion of God in the first place.

 

[Absinthe]

You still need to explain your magic barrier that prevents macroevolution.