how so? These arguments seem distant, and the complexity involved in them seems to mean a huge logical jump to say that idealism, particularly that with a theological bend, is false, indeed even laughable.

their is no such thing as "ok" absolutely. Moral absolutes are impossible, in any situation you do as much bad as good.

you take the scientific community as a source of truth. This is an appeal to authority, who are abstract and undefined. It lends discrete if one believes them relevant to the truth of the proposed statement, but i do not believe that this abstract entity has any relevance to this argument. To be more clear, this scientific community has about as much possibility as god.

this does nothing to disprove the existence of a god. an explanation for why such a concept may have been created does not disprove the god.

of course he does, he is non-existing, therefore asking whether or not he exists is pointless. You cannot ask if an incorporeal thing exists, since by its definition, it does not.

They do not determine one another, pattern does not denote what will come, only what might.

walk with me, along an alley, dark, hidden by the smog of men from the light of the fates and the swirling sounds of happy dribbling voices. Pretend that we were to walk this alley a thousand times, a million. Would it be the same alley?

It is no worse or better than it has ever been or will be. ease of access does not guarantee , or does not have a causal relation to a increase in the percentage of cheating, across any meaning, taken to be breaking the rules of a contract. The decision has always been there, and morality, is in the good, or evil of people has never altered except by alterations of perspective. Who breaks the rules has not changed, only the number of rules, both their omnipresence and severity. As both increase, the only rise will be in population, not percentage. The changes do not denote any change in "moral fiber".

Not everyone can be rich, as rich, a state above equilibrium, an excess. in order for their to be riches, their must be a poverty, or state below equilibrium. Thus, only a certain number of people can be wealthy "rich" as in a state of scarcity, limitation, total excess for all is impossible, cause it disposes of the very meaning of rich. Anybody has the potentiality, taken abstractly, but in a concrete reality, only very few can, or a least less than everyone.