So, basically, christianity's strongest argument: "you can't prove it doesn't exist"?

As a Christian apologist I can affirm that such a line of reasoning is not, repeat NOT representative of any mainstream line of thought, doctrine, or philosophy held by Christianity. It doesn't reflect any current form of scholarship or theology of Christian exegesis in any way or form. That being said, I can't say that I haven't heard a few people say something along these lines.

Sadly there are some who are misrepresenting such a line of thought as an authentic tenet of Christianity or claiming their views as authentic apologetics. As you've pointed out it is fundamentally fallacious. According to apologetics, a "first cause scenario" does not imply that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth was that very same One who is responsible for the first cause.

The two lines of thought are not interconnected. Christians believe that their God created everything in existence, true, but they did not arrive at their conclusions due to application of the above fallacy you quote. What this does imply, however, is that there was a "beginning."

Prior to the "Big Bang" model, science was content to teach that the universe was static and thus there was no first cause and thus no "Creator," as that would imply a beginning. When Catholic Msgr. Georges Lemaître developed the Big Bang model and Edwin Hubble verified its logistics, this called the static universe theory into serious question.

Today very few scientists believe in the static model anymore. Now while a "beginning" implies a source, and Christians believe that the source is the God they worship, again an implication is not a line of reasoning that can be used as a logical argument to "prove" a point. While the implications are there for the source, no identification can be made scientifically, and no direct confession of a connection with any specific scientific models exists in Christianity.

Also, apologetically speaking, one cannot "prove" God's existence without violating the scientific method and reason. Being that the God of Judeo/Christian and Islamic theology is a deity, and a deity should transcend our abilities and comprehension to qualify as such, to gather data from such a being would make it subject to testing. That which is subject to testing would not qualify as being transcendent and thus would not be a deity at all.

Therefore one cannot collect "objective data subject to independent testing" of that which cannot be made subject to lower forms of existence without creating this paradox. Therefore both the Christian who claims "proof" of God and the atheist who demands "proof" have both embraced the fallacy that their argument is workable in the first place when it is not.

Alright christianity is complete BULLSHIT...(Now a days). After the Dark Ages No one can rele ever know what was really written before the corruption of the church took over. And the fact that there is more than 1 version of christianity shows that they are all bullshit..............off topic a bit The garden of eden is between the euphrates and tigeris river, Home of the Sumerian empire.

(The first people of earth) The slave race.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.