Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

None of this is showing an argument for a specific belief.  It is showing how your analogy, the only support you've given, is flawed.  Complaints about philosophers don't fix that.  You provided one support for your principle, an analogy.  I've shown that the analogy that you've used is insufficient.  That leaves your principle with no defense other than a litany of appeals to the stone.  That means that your principle about intangible forces, as it sits, is no better off than something you pulled from your ass.  It can be dismissed without support until and unless you provide some support for it.  Until you do so, you have given me just reason to dismiss your whole set of beliefs based upon parsimony and the fact that they are just speculation that is, from the point of evidence, no better off than the standard story.

You can either think up better support for this principle of yours, or keep making fallacious appeals to the stone in a vain attempt to deny your lost argument.

You can keep believing in magical/supernatural effects on matter. You'd fit in quite well with any group of medieval theologians.

I'll stick to believing a dynamic I can see with my own eyes and reproduce, called billiard-ball collisions.

The point is, there are more reasons to believe what I believe (parsimony, the emptiness of your analogies, appeals to stone and incredulity). That makes you stupid and irrational on account of rational argument, not boring name-calling.

You've put forward a belief in a God you can neither see nor touch, all the while complaining about things you cannot see or touch.