It's the Empirical Evidence, or the Lack of it, Stupid.

A couple nights ago I attempted to watch that retarded (textbook meaning intended) propaganda, pro Intelligent Design movie by Ben Stein. And today I watched some vid of Christopher Hitchens debating some theologian at some theological college. The theologian was weak and tanked. Totally. Granted, this was the more honest question, in that debate, than in Ben Stein's propaganda piece. After all, Stein's piece of shit was a deliberate attempt, by means of bullshit, to warp the meaning of the word science to include, well to put it in it's real context, pure bullshit. The theologian squaring off against Hitchens at least was an honest fellow. He was arguing to prove the existence of God. He failed, utterly, but honestly, at least.

Here is where the theologian completely fwkd the dog (screwed the pooch does not come close to the level of failure. Fwkd the dog, is exactly desciptive, though.)
(*I did come back and clean up the language. You should get what I mean there with out all the letters*)

The Theologian tried to make a point by saying that he did not understand one of the core proven facts of Quantum Theory, basically, specifically the part about Schrödinger's cat.

Here is the thing, and call me some sort of quantum elitist if you must but what the hell. This is the core, as in basic floor level understanding of quantum physics he is not getting. And it is proven science. Matter can be in two places at the same point in time. Proven Fact. Matter can be, also, energy at the same point in time. And as a natural result something can be in two places at the same point in time, either as matter or energy. This is the easy to get shit. This is the proven science shit. But the theologian can't get it?

But he can believe with out any empirical evidence that actually proves it to be merely more likely than not that Jesus was ever alive, leave alone did any thing said in the gospels.

Hmmm . . . . .

Edit to add:

I do not mean to say or imply that the mere fact no theologian can put together a minimally good argument for the existence of God, empirically, means there is no God (or what ever term you prefer for the Divine.) But it boggles my mind that people are still trying. Let me take the Divine part out, and point out the error in even trying. Imagine I told you there was an invisible creature in your room, and all its atoms were so out of phase with our strand of reality that there was no way to capture, photograph, measure, weigh, or quantify in any way known to human metrics or arts or sciences. You would tell me I was bullshit, right? But when a theologian says God exists because he believes it to be true, and can't imagine life with out God, well? He has made an equally bullshit argument. But I have to concede, he could be right. I could be right too. Oh. And those elusive invisible creatures? I think they might be Nargles. But I will have to check with Professor Lovegood. They could be another creature, entirely.