If one can't see the flaws in his analogies, one is not even ready to have this conversation.
Defined as an intelligence or conscious or force or energy or however the hell smug people who say "I dont believe in a white man in a beard in the sky" define their god. Something like that could theoretically exist without being measurable or testable with any current technology we have or will have any time soon. I don't at all believe that it does.
Thiest- One who believes in God.
Athiest- One who does not believe in God. I actually prefer 'one who knows there is no God'.
Theology- The study of the nature of God and religious truth (it's hard to even write).
Atheological- Well, you get the point.
In what universe does the impossible have even a small chance to exist?
Atheism is a statement about belief.
Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge.
They are related to each in much the same way as knowledge and belief are but knowledge is not belief, nor is vice versa.
This is another version of disproving a positive, not proving a negative.
You're simply mixing belief and knowledge.
You're mistaking the action or location of an object for the proof of the existence of the object, and they're not the same thing.
Volcanoes exist, lucky charms exist - they just don't exist in your hotel room or kitchen presently, they nevertheless exist.
Forget all your arguments about volcanoes spewing in hotel rooms or kitchens - just try something simple like proving the non-existence of something.
Simply try to describe the process for proving that talking, blue diamonds do not exist. - without saying there's no evidence of them.
Thats not the point. The case for god is SPECIFIC, its not just "there's some god out there," it has motivations, desires, and consequences attached. If there was a god, there would be evidence of it~ something as distinct and defined as the god in the bible would not exist without effecting the environment that it operates in. So far there is NO evidence of such a thing. The pink unicorn argument is a non sequitur~ it does not come with the caveats that god does~ location, for one, along with behavior, motivation, and intent. If you added those parameters to the pink unicorn argument, you could prove, through their absence, that they do not exist. for example~
Pink unicorns exist. They live in parking lots, get angry when you touch their shopping carts, and eat cigarette butts. Examine
for this scenario, in examination, you would find a parking lot. You could walk through it, hoping to bump into a unicorn. You could also have many people handle shopping carts, to incite some sort reaction from said unicorns~ you could also measure the amount of cigarette butts on on the ground over a number of days or weeks, to determine if any disappeared unaccounted for; possibly eaten by the unicorns.
After all of those variables did not change, you would be able to determine that the pink unicorns in question do not exist. Their existence is contingent on several things~ specifically the details in their definition. When those consequences fail to emerge, you can say that those details are incorrect~ you must then change the definition of the pink unicorn if you still wish it to exist~ but then you have already disproven the original premise.