You're using an anti-analogy, to make my logic seem ridiculous, good attempt though. When you make an argument, you have to make a conjection my the presence of something, not the absence of something. It is imposable to prove that God dosen't exsist, for if you could, would it have been done? (But there I go trying to prove something with an absence of something, I guess I myself fall into the same fallacies.)
I don't mean to "Rub you the wrong way", You have made some interesting points that I wanted to reply to; without going off topic in a thread. If I upset you please lets just stop it here, for I like to build bridges, not burn them. <3 =D