When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[Esquilax]

There's a lot to say about the evidence, and how it's supposed to sit with Christian theism.

But here's a taste: https://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosop...uments.pdf

Okay, I'll bite, but I'll do it in installments, since I don't like the idea of being chained to a text window for twelve consecutive points at a time. It'll also allow me to go into better detail.

But before I do, I do need to point out that "I've seen no evidence for god," is not supposed to be, in itself, a thorough refutation of every theistic argument. You do know that, right? It's just a statement of fact: if you were to ask, I think you'd find we have actual explanations for why each and every piece of evidence you'd bring to bear fails, it's just that we don't see fit to repeat them all every time we're called upon to state our reason for not believing. Would you post a lengthy, tangentially related series of arguments to a simple question every time it's asked?

Also, if all you're going to do is insinuate incompetence rather than allowing us to speak our piece, that's really no different from "you're only an atheist because you're dumb!" It's childish, and frankly, it says a lot about your character that it and thoughts like it are essentially all you post here. The fact that you then berate us for not giving you intellectual content back is just the icing on the hypocritical cake.

Now then, on to the argument from intentionality... and really, do you seriously think this is any form of evidence for god? I mean, is that actually a thing you buy, or do you just say so because it aligns with what you already believe? Because there is not a shred of evidence anywhere to be seen in it, just a series of fiat assertions made without any justification, looping around to a conclusion that simply does not follow, even if we were to take the assertions as true for the sake of argument. Not a single shred of thought is given to why the author thinks that objects are dependent on minds thinking about them to exist, just that he finds the idea "tempting," but this means little to me. Why should I care that he just likes this fundamentally solipsistic concept?

I really don't even know how to respond to this in any further depth, because the concept itself is so nonsensical and poorly written- and doesn't seem to match up with other forms of the argument from intentionality I find online- that it's essentially akin to trying to refute the insane ramblings of a homeless man on a street corner. And this is what you link to to show that atheist rejection of your beliefs is based in incompetence?

Oh, and before you simply dismiss me out of hand, if you think I've misunderstood something, how about you actually explain it in your own words, rather than just braying about how dumb I am before fleeing? For someone so all about intellectual rigor and discussion, all you seem to do is lean on the words of others to do your arguing for you, and then prematurely claim victory.