A good case against God

[FallentoReason]

How else do you suppose he would have an influence? Unless it's a Deist god.

We can't even always detect it when humans influence the world. What makes you think that we could detect it if God could, who might have access to even more subtle methods than humans?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

He's known to be fairly bold and wants to be found. You're dodging the bullet by suggesting he's 'subtle' in the way he goes about things. Reading the Bible should have made you see that.

---

How else do you suppose he would have an influence? Unless it's a Deist god.

Doesn't matter is it is a deist God. If a God has power over current affairs in the world, then he must necessarily interact with the physical world.

A Deist god by defenition is one that nothing can be known about it. In other words, it created the universe and fled the scene.

It isn't that there must be physical evidence, but rather that physical evidence could be acquired. Hell, it would even be likely that there would exist somewhere evidence for a God.

That's well worded. I agree completely.

[CliveStaples]

You haven't? Then take that "Protestant x-tard" off your title. But you have attempted to defend the preposterous kalaam argument, which is a claim of your sky fairy. Your "pragmatism" claim coming back to bite you in the ass, you know. And I have said "you" in the plural, meaning ALL of you idiots who claim a sky fairy have failed to present a shred of evidence to support it.

Just because I identify as Protestant doesn't mean that I'm advancing the claim that Protestant is true in this thread.

And I never defended the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. All I did was ask you where Harris addressed it, and apparently that was too challenging for you.

My "Pragmatism" claim was just a bit of trivia about what a Pragmatist might say about what it means to affirm or deny a belief. Since I'm not even a Pragmatist, I'm not sure how that can "bite me in the ass".

You cannot claim to have provided a shred of evidence.

True. But I have advanced no claims that require me to.

"YOU" = You fucktard xturds. NO more shell games, Miss Priss.

Not being a "fucktard xturd", I do not fall within the scope of your claim.

I have pointed out that you xtards have failed to meet your burden of proof.

Then it seems we're in the same unsupported-claim boat, since you have continued in your refusal to support your own assertions.

Are you REALLY still squealing about that, Miss Priss?

Are you still failing?

Note: that's rhetorical. You are still failing.

For which you xtards have provided not a shred of evidence.

A claim that I have not disputed. Why are you bringing it up to me? It's irrelevant to my argument.

You haven't in the course of human history. Go on, then, trot out your big Nasty.

"You have not done X" and "You cannot do X" are very different claims. Do I need to explain the difference?

Your extraordinary claim of a big Sky Daddy required extraordinary evidence. Of which you have not provided a shred in the entire course of human history.

Well, to be fair I've only been alive for a very small portion of that history. But again, this isn't a claim that I've disputed, and in fact this claim is irrelevant to my argument. So it's a red herring to bring it up.

Fucking liar. Cite where I said "impossible". I said you assholes have not provided any evidence. All of this bullshit is simply you squirming to dodge your burden of proof.

Okay:

Here is my argument: Your god is a superstitious fucking fairy tale, and you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not.

If I can't produce any evidence to prove that God isn't a "superstitious fucking fairy tale", then it is impossible for me to produce such evidence.

QED, bitch.

---

Doesn't matter is it is a deist God. If a God has power over current affairs in the world, then he must necessarily interact with the physical world.
It isn't that there must be physical evidence, but rather that physical evidence could be acquired. Hell, it would even be likely that there would exist somewhere evidence for a God.

That doesn't make any sense. You can only acquire physical evidence if there's physical evidence there to acquire--that is, if the physical evidence exists. So if you can acquire physical evidence, then physical evidence must exist.

And did you see my previous response? We can't even always detect it when humans interact with the physical universe--see, e.g., natural vs. artificial selection being genetically indistinguishable. When a human walks through a forest, we aren't necessarily going to find evidence there. How many humans have lived throughout history? Can we prove exactly where and when they died?

---

He's known to be fairly bold and wants to be found. You're dodging the bullet by suggesting he's 'subtle' in the way he goes about things. Reading the Bible should have made you see that.

Wow, a condescending atheist. What's next, cop eating a donut?

The question of the "hiddenness of God" is a common question in theology and the philosophy of religion. Look at how--in the Bible--God cites evidence of his existence. When the rich man was in Hell, and asked to be sent back to his family to warn them to be faithful to God, what was the response? "They have Moses and the prophets." Reading the Bible should have made you see that.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Lovely straw man. It goes up your ass too. I didn't say "PROOF". I said "EVIDENCE". figures you don't know what the fucking difference is.

You haven't supported your claim. You claimed that it is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists, and you haven't supported that claim

That is not my assertion. I have pointed out that you assholes have not provided any evidence to support your assertion of a god-figure.

That is not a bald assertion without support. That is pointing out that you and every other christard in the history of the world has failed to meet your burden of proof.

But that's not all you claimed. I'm not objecting to the portion where you claimed, "You have not provided a shred of evidence..." Rather, I objected to the portion where you went beyond the historical account of what has and hasn't been offered, and instead made a claim about what could even possibly be offered. Specifically, you claimed that it is impossible to provide a shred of proof that God exists.

Again, cite where I said "impossible.". Put up or shut up.

Looking back, I see where I was correcting your misrepresentation of "proof" to "EVIDENCE", but missed your misrepresentation "you cannot provide" -- which is not what I said, either -- when I copy-pasted it. that was an oversight on my part, and here you are for a couple of fucking pages hacking away at your own straw man.

Now, if this claim is true, it means that there can never be presentable evidence that theism is true. That seems like a big deal to me. I'd like to know how you know that it's the case. That is, what is your support? How do you know that it's true?

Shove the straw man up your ass.

And yet it gets your little panties all in a bunch anyway. Back to the Kiddie Pool, Miss Priss.

Now you're just going through the motions. It's pretty fuckin obvious to anyone that every here gives less than two shits about cussing.

Spoken like a True Christian™ LULZ

Go ahead, if you like. I note your attempt to dodge the inherent special pleading fallacy in the kalaam.

What special pleading are you talking about? Like I'm a fucking mind reader.

Nice talk, Christian. Well done. You set a fine example.

The special pleading that dodges the question of where your Gawd-thang came from and what created it. You didn't know? What a fucking retard.

I find it lovely. Again you have nothing else to argue with, so you cry like a scalded bitch over colorful language. How fucking puerile.

The guy who just started getting in to R-rated movies is calling me puerile. See, now you're being funny.

Still whining like a bitch, even when you swear. You are a piece of fucking work.

You christards HAVE NOT provided a shred of evidence to support your claim. We know all about logical fallacies. And we know a fucktard xtian trying to play a shell game and dodge its burden of proof when we see one.

NB: I didn't object to your claim that Christians "...have not provided a shred of evidence to support [the claim that God exists]." That's not what I'm talking about.

Then you have no fucking argument, asshole. That is the entirety of my claim, fucking moron.

Are you retarded? Do you have a learning disability? I wasn't aware that I was writing for a bunch of dyslexic aspies. I mean, I thought I was pretty clear about which claim I was objecting to--specifically, your claim that it is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists.

That is not my claim. Shove the wicker man up your ass.

But apparently you were too busy fisting your own asshole to bother parsing my posts, and now you're talking all about a completely different claim--specifically, that nobody has ever provided evidence that God exists.

Oh, the goodie two shoes prissy puss is mad now. So much for your precious christardianity.

What we are unwilling to do is to allow you to shift your burden of proof.

Uh, what? You made the claim. You have the burden. That's how claims work. The burden is not on me to disprove your claim.

You already admitted my claim. All you are doing now is playing a shell game with a straw man and making a public ass of yourself.

Look, asshole. You claim your sky fairy exists.

Nope. Didn't actually do that. Anywhere.

Actually you just did. And again, I say "you" in the plural. You xtian fucktards. Too fucking dumb to figure that out.

[quoet]

Show it to us and make believers of us Put The Fuck Up Or Shut The Fuck Up.

Oh, so the burden is now on me to disprove your claim? Bunch of fucking amateurs in here. Go to read about logic on fucking wikipedia and come back once you know how logical fallacies work.

Again -- straw man. You assholes make the positive claim of the existence of your sky fairy. And you asshole xtards have not provided a shred of evidence to support that claim. And you fucking idiot asshole have been waving a straw man at me for a couple of hours. Fucking idiot.

[quopte]

My assertion is that you have not provided any evidence whatsoever. Show me where you have and you shut me up for good.

Good luck with that.


Oh, yeah -- you already admitted you have no evidence.

/thread

I admit nothing. Nothing!

You already did right up here in this thread.

But you didn't only claim that I have not provided any evidence. You also claimed it would be impossible to do so. That's the claim that I'd like to see supported.

You misrepresented my rebuttal and I missed that part of your misrepresentation when I copied it to correct it. Go fuck yourself in the ass;. With a cactus. Wrapped in barbed wire.

[downbeatplumb]

That doesn't make any sense. You can only acquire physical evidence if there's physical evidence there to acquire--that is, if the physical evidence exists. So if you can acquire physical evidence, then physical evidence must exist.

And did you see my previous response? We can't even always detect it when humans interact with the physical universe--see, e.g., natural vs. artificial selection being genetically indistinguishable. When a human walks through a forest, we aren't necessarily going to find evidence there. How many humans have lived throughout history? Can we prove exactly where and when they died?

But you aren't positing the existence of ancient men for which we have plenty of evidence.

You posit the exitence of a god that plays an active role in the universe. A creator god, the big cheese, the head honcho but what do we find nada, zip, zero, nothing the god who wasnt there.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

[quote='Fidel_Castronaut' pid='305703' dateline='1341419581']Let's cut the shit, shall we? Like a simultaneous equation, we can eliminate the reduceable values and come to this:

You claim god exists.

We ask for evidence.

You may say "I've never once claimed the above" (Even though your 'title' claims otherwise), but your recent contributions on pragmatism eliminate that as an option; Your beliefs clearly influence your ideas/notions/beliefs on your god (or gods)

So the original claim that you believe your god exists holds true, which is the actual impasse of the situation as we're right back down to ZERO evidence again.

When claiming that a god or gods exist, yet not presenting evidence, it is reasonable to assume either:

1. That you do have evidence but are not presenting it, which precludes any notion of a reasonable discussion (and hence the motives for such participation can be called into doubt)
(or)
2. That you in fact do not have evidence to produce and so it can be deduced that, indeed, one does not have a "shred of proof" that a god or gods exist.

Now the only way you can combat this is by either presenting evidence or going down the whole argument of "this is evidence you just refuse to accept it as such"...and I don't think that will fly here for a second.

All this is an aside however. The OP is wrong straight from the outset. We need something defined, described, and indeed evidenced if we're to discuss and evaluate it; so far, none of this has been done.

Uh, nope, I haven't claimed that God exists.

Yes you have; you claim it with every post you make (your title). Let's not try and ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to your own beliefs. You believe god is true, and I have to assume that you have your reasons for beleiving. Unless you can bracket out your faith depending on the thread...

I came into this thread and saw Taq claim that it's impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists. Since I'm interested in whether this claim is true, I wanted to see some support for it--reasons to believe that it's true.

But that's the point; you can already means test the claim by simply providing evidence. Like I posited in my previous post; if we reduce the whole debate to its logical origin, it's the old "god exists" - "prove it" debate. The reason Taq has posited the above is because we've been asking for evidence for as long as there has been a god to (dis)prove.

Instead, people started shouting at me to prove him wrong by providing the evidence he was talking about. But my inability to provide evidence doesn't tell me whether his claim is true; maybe it is possible to provide evidence, but I just don't have it.[/quote

I, for one, am not 'shouting at you' about anything at all; im merely pointing out that, regardless of the virtue/vice of taq's statement, there is still the little problem of the premise (ie god) still being unproved, unevidenced, undefined, and hence unbelievable (at least from my/our perspective).

[quote='CliveStaples' pid='305706' dateline='1341419742']If you're going to claim that something is impossible, you need to explain why or how it is impossible. Otherwise, you're just making a bald assertion. And any asshole can do that. It's exactly what is supposedly so frustrating to you guys about theists.

Indeed. But, again and again and again, the base claim of the entire debate at hand is still god(s). The OP was demonstrably wrong in its assertion as it is shifting the burden of proof. That's the real root of the debate.

In fact, let me come at this from an altnernatively angle. Without any judgement on the possible answer; can you provide evidence for your god or gods? I mean, do you think it's possible for you to provide evidence?

[CliveStaples]

That is not my assertion. I have pointed out that you assholes have not provided any evidence to support your assertion of a god-figure.

Again, cite where I said "impossible.". Put up or shut up.

Looking back, I see where I was correcting your misrepresentation of "proof" to "EVIDENCE", but missed your misrepresentation "you cannot provide" -- which is not what I said, either -- when I copy-pasted it. that was an oversight on my part, and here you are for a couple of fucking pages hacking away at your own straw man.

Shove the straw man up your ass.

lol already showed where you made the impossibility claim

Spoken like a True Christian™ LULZ

Nice talk, Christian. Well done. You set a fine example.

Looks like you need some more tampons.

The special pleading that dodges the question of where your Gawd-thang came from and what created it. You didn't know? What a fucking retard.

I'm familiar with that particular attack on the KCA. I didn't want to assume that it was what you were referring to; there might have been a new line of attack that I hadn't seen before.

Still whining like a bitch, even when you swear. You are a piece of fucking work.

My sister recommends Kotex super absorbent.

Then you have no fucking argument, asshole. That is the entirety of my claim, fucking moron.


That is not my claim. Shove the wicker man up your ass.

lol already showed where you made the impossibility claim

Oh, the goodie two shoes prissy puss is mad now. So much for your precious christardianity.

Maybe two packs, family size.

You already admitted my claim. All you are doing now is playing a shell game with a straw man and making a public ass of yourself.


Again -- straw man. You assholes make the positive claim of the existence of your sky fairy. And you asshole xtards have not provided a shred of evidence to support that claim. And you fucking idiot asshole have been waving a straw man at me for a couple of hours. Fucking idiot.

I made no positive claims.

You misrepresented my rebuttal and I missed that part of your misrepresentation when I copied it to correct it. Go fuck yourself in the ass;. With a cactus. Wrapped in barbed wire.

lol I already showed where you made the impossibility claim.


...aaaaaaaaaaaand you still haven't supported your impossibility claim.

Or would you care to argue that "you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not" should not be interpreted to mean "you can't produce any evidence at all to prove that it is not"?

---

But you aren't positing the existence of ancient men for which we have plenty of evidence.

You posit the exitence of a god that plays an active role in the universe. A creator god, the big cheese, the head honcho but what do we find nada, zip, zero, nothing the god who wasnt there.

But that makes the evidence claim even less plausible; since there isn't always evidence of the effect that humans, which we know exist, have had on the world, how can you claim that there must certainly be gatherable evidence of God's effect on the world, when His effect could be even more subtle than any particular human's?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

You haven't? Then take that "Protestant x-tard" off your title. But you have attempted to defend the preposterous kalaam argument, which is a claim of your sky fairy. Your "pragmatism" claim coming back to bite you in the ass, you know. And I have said "you" in the plural, meaning ALL of you idiots who claim a sky fairy have failed to present a shred of evidence to support it.

Just because I identify as Protestant doesn't mean that I'm advancing the claim that Protestant is true in this thread.

Again, asshole: "You -plural".

And I never defended the Kalaam Cosmological Argument. All I did was ask you where Harris addressed it, and apparently that was too challenging for you.

And like I said: You see his lips moving.

[quoet]My "Pragmatism" claim was just a bit of trivia about what a Pragmatist might say about what it means to affirm or deny a belief. Since I'm not even a Pragmatist, I'm not sure how that can "bite me in the ass".[/quote]

Yes, it was simply you playing armchair asshole philosopher, trying to make yourself look not as fucking dumb as you are. Lot of good that did you.

You cannot claim to have provided a shred of evidence.

True. But I have advanced no claims that require me to.

You -- plural.

"YOU" = You fucktard xturds. NO more shell games, Miss Priss.

Not being a "fucktard xturd", I do not fall within the scope of your claim.

Yhat would be "christian" in your vernacular. All three apply to you.

I have pointed out that you xtards have failed to meet your burden of proof.

Then it seems we're in the same unsupported-claim boat, since you have continued in your refusal to support your own assertions.

Nice wishful thinking there, Miss Priss.

Are you REALLY still squealing about that, Miss Priss?

Are you still failing?

In other words, yes you are.

Note: that's rhetorical. You are still failing.

Wishful thinking.

For which you xtards have provided not a shred of evidence.

A claim that I have not disputed. Why are you bringing it up to me? It's irrelevant to my argument.

Still the fucking backward idiot child I see.

You haven't in the course of human history. Go on, then, trot out your big Nasty.

"You have not done X" and "You cannot do X" are very different claims. Do I need to explain the difference?

NO you don't. I said the first. the second is your own straw man.

Your extraordinary claim of a big Sky Daddy required extraordinary evidence. Of which you have not provided a shred in the entire course of human history.

Well, to be fair I've only been alive for a very small portion of that history. But again, this isn't a claim that I've disputed, and in fact this claim is irrelevant to my argument. So it's a red herring to bring it up.[/quoet]

Not at all.

Fucking liar. Cite where I said "impossible". I said you assholes have not provided any evidence. All of this bullshit is simply you squirming to dodge your burden of proof.

Okay:

Here is my argument: Your god is a superstitious fucking fairy tale, and you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not.

Show me where I said "impossible"

If I can't produce any evidence to prove that God isn't a "superstitious fucking fairy tale", then it is impossible for me to produce such evidence.

QED, bitch.

That is not necessarily so, bitch. Perhaps in some future time you might come to be able to, for example. I'm not holding my breath, mind you, since you assholes haven't in the last two or three thousand years.

Again: you have been wanking away at a straw man of your own making. What an asshole.

[CliveStaples]

Yes you have; you claim it with every post you make (your title). Let's not try and ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to your own beliefs. You believe god is true, and I have to assume that you have your reasons for beleiving. Unless you can bracket out your faith depending on the thread...

There is a difference between believing something and claiming that it is true in a debate. If you are honestly taking this approach, then any post--be it about abortion, mathematics, politics, etc.--made by me is also asserting the existence of God.

So if I were to, say, create a thread where I argued that capitalism is superior to communism, you could reply by claiming that God didn't exist and that I need to support my claim that He does. And under your theory, you would be on-topic.

Doesn't that seem ridiculous? Disclosing my belief and advancing an argument aren't the same thing. If someone asks me, "Hey, are you Christian?" and I say, "Yeah, I'm Protestant," that's not the same as me going up to that person and saying, "Protestantism is true."

Honestly, if that's how the religious disclosure is being interpreted, then I'll just change it. Because you guys are just using it as a distraction so that Taq can get away with an unsupported claim. Which is totally dishonest bullshit, coming from people so goddamn pious about their commitment to reason and logic.

But that's the point; you can already means test the claim by simply providing evidence. Like I posited in my previous post; if we reduce the whole debate to its logical origin, it's the old "god exists" - "prove it" debate. The reason Taq has posited the above is because we've been asking for evidence for as long as there has been a god to (dis)prove.

Sure, just like atheists can 'means-test' theist claims by providing evidence that God doesn't exist. But that's the fallacy of an argument from ignorance; I don't have the burden of disproving your assertions, or Taq's. If you claim something, support it or retract the claim.

This is precisely the same bullshit that supposedly irritates you guys about theists, and you're doing exactly the same thing. It's pretty hilarious--and shows exactly how committed you guys are to reason and logic.

I, for one, am not 'shouting at you' about anything at all; im merely pointing out that, regardless of the virtue/vice of taq's statement, there is still the little problem of the premise (ie god) still being unproved, unevidenced, undefined, and hence unbelievable (at least from my/our perspective).

Sure, it's unproved, whatever. I'm not disputing that. I was never disputing that. Anyone who read my argument would know that. Anyone who pretends my argument was about that is either fucking illiterate or playing dumb to cover Taq's ass.

Indeed. But, again and again and again, the base claim of the entire debate at hand is still god(s). The OP was demonstrably wrong in its assertion as it is shifting the burden of proof. That's the real root of the debate.

And you're shifting the burden now; you guys get to claim that something is impossible, and (according to your argument) the burden is on me to disprove it.

In fact, let me come at this from an altnernatively angle. Without any judgement on the possible answer; can you provide evidence for your god or gods? I mean, do you think it's possible for you to provide evidence?

Can I provide it? I don't think I have any now, other than perhaps an argument from morality. But that's not really evidence as such; more like an intuitive argument.

Is it possible to provide evidence that God exists? That is, evidence that demonstrates that God exists? Perhaps evidence that demonstrates to some degree of certainty that God exists? I don't know. Perhaps it's possible, perhaps it's impossible. I'm not convinced one way or the other. And without knowing really rigorously what is considered 'evidence', it's hard to even know what would count.

[Skepsis]

How can you say there is a God that intervenes in this plane of reality if you also say that there is no eivdence whatsoever that he does?
How much sense do you think you are making, on a scale of 1-10?
I'd give you a 3. 2 and 1 are saved for Creationists.

[CliveStaples]

Again, asshole: "You -plural".

When you direct "You -plural" at me, it includes me, dumbass.

And like I said: You see his lips moving.

Well, all the times I saw him talking, he was either talking about morality or citing the existence of suffering as an argument against God's existence. Neither of which has any obvious, direct connection to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (though the argument from evil has an indirect connection, insofar as if the argument from evil succeeds, it shows that the KCA has a false conclusion).

Yes, it was simply you playing armchair asshole philosopher, trying to make yourself look not as fucking dumb as you are. Lot of good that did you.

You're doing a pretty bang-up job of making me look smart all on your own.

You -- plural.

Which includes me -- singular.

Yhat would be "christian" in your vernacular. All three apply to you.

"The insult that I just said about you...applies to you." Sick burn.

Nice wishful thinking there, Miss Priss.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Are you still failing?

In other words, yes you are.

Yes, yes you are.

Wishful thinking.

Proof's in the pudding. Where's the support? Notice that you've cut back on the swearing, too. Smart move, Snooki; better to use it more selectively.

Still the fucking backward idiot child I see.

Still making unsupported claims then insisting that everyone else has to disprove it, I see.

NO you don't. I said the first. the second is your own straw man.

I literally copy and pasted the sentence where you say, "...you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not." Did you miss that part? I only put it in bold and italics. Probably should have Google translated it to High School Dropout so that you could understand it better.

Not at all.

Yes, actually. Bringing up irrelevant things in a debate is a red herring.

Okay:

Here is my argument: Your god is a superstitious fucking fairy tale, and you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not.

Show me where I said "impossible"

You didn't say the word "impossible". You said that something cannot be done, which is the fucking same as saying that it's impossible. They mean exactly the same thing.

That is not necessarily so, bitch. Perhaps in some future time you might come to be able to, for example.

Which would have made sense if you said, "...you can produce absolutely no evidence at all at this time to prove that it is not"

But you didn't.

You said, "...you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not."

Or, in other words (but with identical meaning), "The sentence 'You can produce any evidence at all to prove that it is not' is false."

I'm not holding my breath, mind you, since you assholes haven't in the last two or three thousand years.

Again: you have been wanking away at a straw man of your own making. What an asshole.

Well, just retract your claim that it's impossible to provide such evidence--or, alternatively but will never fucking happen, support it--and I can just put this one in the 'W' column.