I didnt mean it was necessarily proven for me. I don't believe one specific answer. But It seems like a strong possibility because of evidence I can't present since it's subjective... though in this case you 'should' have your own free will that you can look at for proof, but it's impossible for me to understand exactly the way you understand your own feelings and experiences, since I'm not you, hence it's complicated.. I can still try to explain, but.. anyway.
And I'm not saying there's absoluteness exactly, but saying that the theory of evolution and a lot of academic scientists do.. both directly and indirectly

gotta go too

You are totally missing the point of what he is saying.  The only reason we can't see that stuff is because of technological limitations.  God by definition is a supernatural entity who is in a different realm of reality.  Supernatural things are not something science could even begin to measure.

Compare that to natural phenomenon.  I've never seen a dinosaur.  All I've seen is the bones.  But I sure as hell know dinosaurs existed at some point.  I've never been to France.  I've only seen pictures of it.  But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not missing his point when he says God does not exist. He does not know that for a fact.

You can use logic and science to make statement about life on other planets.  You could say, even though I cannot see life on another planet, it may be possible that life on other planets exist (and draw from knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology, etc.).

You cannot use logic and science to make a statement about God, unicorns, fairies, ghosts, and such phenomona.  Humans have ideas of such things, but where do you draw the line on what is supernaturally possible (God) and what is impossible (Leprachauns).  I make a blanket statement about all such things, but others make up some criteria they use to judge them.

There are things beyond our comprehension, and to state it does not exist because you cannot prove it would be false. The world was flat 500 years ago, wasn't it?

Wind Shlavitor,

We dont know if a slug is programmed or not.

What is the difference between the brain of a snail and the brain of a man?  Nothing other than scale.  A snail sees shade and decides to crawl there to get out of the sun.  A human sees shade and decides to walk there to get out of the sun.  The only difference is that man has a more complex brain that allows him to 'reason' at a much higher level.

Snails are much 'smarter' than robots.  Scientists have a very difficult time getting robots to guide themselves through a room (they cant process what they see and use it to make decisions), though animals from humans to mice easily do this unconciously.  The brain of all animals allows them to make decisions about their environment, and just because man's decision making is much more complicated than that of a snail doesnt mean that there is a disconnect in evolution.

There is no evidence for God's existence, and there is no evidence for god's non-existence. That leaves only speculation.

There is a supernatural being that watches over us but we cannot detect him.

There is an invisible dragon that watches over us but we cannot detect him.

What is the difference between these two statements?  You believe one to be plausible (supernatural being) and one not to be plausible (invisible dragon).  What is the criteria in which you judge 'supernatural' things as being possible and not possible?

Saying something is beyond our comprehension, just like telling someone they wouldnt understand, is an cop out and way to avoid directly addressing difficult problems associated with ideas or actions.

Man knew that the world was round over 3,000 years ago.  Ancient Greeks actually measured the diameter Earth (Eratosthenes).  The problem is that the Bible said the Earth was flat and religionus leaders suppressed ideas that threatened their religion.

Human and Religious Leader's flaws do not deny the existence of God. It is not a "cop out" to say God is beyond our comprehension. You are going to believe whatever you like, but saying God does not exist because you cannot prove it does not mean he does not exist.

Do you believe that an invisible, undetectable dragon exists and is watching you right now?

If the answer is no, then what is the difference between God and the invisible dragon?

Manus, The dragon as well as the god, are both possibilities if you can't prove them wrong. Sure, it'd be pretty weird if it the magical dragon was there ... I'd be surprized for one, but you can't rule them out, because that's Illogical. You can add probabilities though, which is hard to determine, but I do think (yes think, you don't have the choice to not have an opinion when judging something uncertain) that the dragon is less likely than god. Why criteria? It sounds like just judging and making assumptions, which we already do.. we don't need to rule something out when it's still a possibility; you just don't have to deal with it if you don't think it's likely and don't want to. People who do want to shouldn't be judged so harshly for checking out a possibility. Scientists go on hunches often. It's just a shame that ID scientists are looked down upon so much by the others.

As for the snail. It doesn't really matter because we don't know if the snail has conciousness or not, regardless of if it's more complex than a computer or not. And actually that was my point, computer AI is not just inferior to animals and humans, but you can't replicate conciousness,experience, and free will, no matter how many thousands of years you'd stay there programming it.  I'm saying interpretation and experience are not comparable, and it's impossible for something to experience based on cause & effect (action reaction), you need something more.