A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

And I am intimately familiar with William Lame-ass Craig's presentation of that argument. It was a piece of shit long before he got to it, and he didn't make it stink any less.

He tried to wag it at Sam Harris last April -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg -- and Sam ate him for lunch. the Kalaam is a fucking JOKE.

Your evidence is a two hour youtube video of a debate about the foundations of objective morality?

Excuse me, asshole? I didn't call that evidence. Blow it out your fucking ass.

Can you at least least give a timecode for when Sam eats the Kalaam Cosmological Argument for lunch?

Watch for when Harris' lips are moving.

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.

/fucking thread.

...so your best argument is a quintessential appeal to ignorance ("x is true because you haven't demonstrated that it's false")? Excellent caliber of minds you guys have here.
[/quote]

Nice straw man, fuckwit. My argument is that \you have not and cannot provide a shred of evidence to support x -- your silly ass superstitious fucking sky fairy story. And until you trot your fairy-tale-monster god-figure out in front of us in the flesh, you have nothing to refute it.

---

They are necessary presuppositions. You made them because you are having a discussion with me, and I presume you believe you exist and your senses aren't failing you as you attempt to post on this thread…

I assume then you have no good argument or verbalizable reason to think that they are true. It seems to me that you know them by intuition or experience, the same way many people know God exists.

Oh but there is that pesky little bit about you having absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and making a claim that you are still trying to dodge your burden of proof of. FAIL.

An unrestricted negative is a negative position that is definitionally past human measurement empiracally. We cannot test it in any way. God is (typically) defined as atemporal and amaterial, so he falls neatly into this category. This category is also home to anything you want to define into it. You could, for instance, have a timeless, spaceless, immeasureable cosmic crab king that couldn't be disproven.

God's existence is falsifiable.

Empirically?

People in the past have thought they falsified it by using the problem of evil or finding an incoherence in the attributes of God. However, I think such attempts have failed.

Fallacy Appeal to Personal Incredulity.

As for being immaterial etc… I would remind you that these are not ad-hoc properties of God as the result of modern science, they have been around long before that.

You have yet to define or describe your fairy tale creature. Whose properties and attributes you make up as you go along.

Because we have no evidence there are extraterrestrials, it follows that we shouldn't believe there are such beings.

Does it follow that you should also believe that there are no extra-terrestrials in the universe? I don't think so. I also do not accept that there is no evidence, I just think that the evidence is experiential and intuitive rather than demonstrable.

What evidence are you claiming is "experiential and intuitive"? Until you trot your fairy tale monster sky-daddy out in front of us, you have NOTHING.