A good case against God

[Jeffonthenet]

I think from pure reasoning alone all an atheist could ever do is demonstrate why holy book X's god(s) doesn't/don't exist. I can't think of any argument from reason alone that would discard the possibility of a god. So I guess at most the theist could push for a Deist god but that's about it. Given that you call yourself a Christian though I think we might have some problems with the claims you want to attach to this plausible Deist god...

The God one would show wouldn't be a deist or a Christian God, it would just be general attributes of God that would be shared by both. And given that I believe the experience of God is the best way to know the Christian God exists, I don't think it would be a huge problem for people to believe in Him after experiencing Him.

[downbeatplumb]

The God one would show wouldn't be a deist or a Christian God, it would just be general attributes of God that would be shared by both. And given that I believe the experience of God is the best way to know the Christian God exists, I don't think it would be a huge problem for people to believe in Him after experiencing Him.

Define "god"

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I don't make cases against things if there's no reason to believe them to begin with. There's plenty of good reasons not to accept popular arguments for gods though.

A statement that there is no reason to believe God exists is not an argument against God…

An "argument against gawd" presupposes that such a being actually exists.

You have not described or defined at all what a "god" is, nor have you shown any evidence whatsoever that such a being might exist. The burden of proof is yours. Your OP is precisely as preposterous as if I were to ask if anyone had any arguments against Crumple-Horned Snorkacks.

it is just a statement which is the reason many people say that they don't know if God exists or not.

Crumple. Horned. Snorkacks.

Even if there were no good arguments for God, which I don't think I need to grant given arguments such as the Kalaam Cosmological argument and the Moral Argument (from the existence of objective moral values to God) it would not follow that there is no God.

You really think those pieces of shit are "good arguments"? -- as if an argument were evidence...?

It may follow that, as theologians throughout history have maintained, that if we are to know God, we must know Him by personal experience or by intuition…

You would first have to present some sort of evidence that such a thing exists and in the form that you idiots claim that it does.

however, how does this show that there is no God?

LOLwut.

Lastly, if you accept the existence of the external world or other, what philosophers call properly basic beliefs, you believe some things apart from arguments, and so, if God exists it could be possible to know God in the same way, apart from argument. For all of these reasons, I don't think your reply stands up to scrutiny.

If such a being were to exist, it would be possible to know it in empirically, because it would be able to prove itself at any time by appearing before us and convincing us all of its existence, and it would be aware of the need for it to do so. That would be how it would be possible for us to know such a being "apart from argument".

---

Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny?

Many have said it, the burden of proof is on the believer. It seems many religionists completely twist this notion around. To me s as dishonest as throwing chalk powder to the eyes of the oponent in a boxing match.

^THIS. Intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, cowardly cheating.

[Skepsis]

How are those basic presuppositions justified? By argument?

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 explained my intention in my last post.

Your last post was a non sequitur about people's belief and goblins. What exactly, then, do you want?

Can you please define what an unrestricted negative is? And do you mean "unfalsifiable?" (instead of unprovable) I don't think God is by definition unprovable.

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.

Because we have no evidence that there are extraterrestrials, does it follow from our lack of evidence that there are no extraterrestrials?

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

Lack of evidence necesitates lack of belief. If you want to contest that then I would feel fine destroying your argument.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

The burden of proof lies firmly with the theist.
Atheists have merely reached the blank slate starting point, we don't need to prove our position, it is a position of neutrality.
Now, if you wish us to give any credibility to your fantastical claims of a god, you must provide the argument in favour. Good luck

This is not an argument against God. See the reasons I mentioned in my first reply.

[downbeatplumb]

They always ask for arguments and never for factsdont they.

[Jackalope]

Because we have no evidence that there are extraterrestrials, does it follow from our lack of evidence that there are no extraterrestrials?

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

Note also the distinction between these statements:

1. I believe X exists.
2. I believe X is likely to exist.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I'm not sure whether you understood the first sentence of my reply. It wasn't intended as an argument; it was, as you correctly identified, a statement.

In this thread, I am looking for a case against God. Cases require evidence and argument.

What's a god? You haven't even bothered to describe what it is that you are demanding a rebuttal of! And you are too fucking stupid to see how preposterous what you are doing is. You might as well wander into here and demand, "Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of Brufarian Fershniblets that can stand up to scrutiny?".

Have you no idea at all how stupid what you are doing is?

You're right. If there were no good arguments (or any arguments at all) it wouldn't follow that there are no gods, since arguments don't affect reality. It would follow, however, that there's no good reasons to believe there are gods. Just because there's no good reason to believe X it doesn't mean that X isn't true. Observing this fact doesn't strengthen a case for gods any more than it does for a tooth fairy.

It doesn't follow that if we have no good arguments for God, (which I have not accepted) then there is no good reason to believe God exists.

Arguments are not evidence, whelp. And the arguments you reference -- the kalam and the moral, along with hundreds of other similar abortions -- are long-debunked laughing stock. The fact that you consider them to be valid, along with the fact that you think any such arguments can replace evidence, tells us the level of self-delusion you are willing to inflict upon yourself in order to cling onto your silly superstitions.

There are no good non-circular arguments for the fact that there is a past or that the external world is real.

You are making all sorts of positive claims here, even from your first of a non-defined "gawd"-thing. The onus of proof is yours.

By the way, the Kalam and moral arguments suck, frankly. The former is like a child took a five minute crash course in philosophy and came up with it.

Then why are they debated in professional philosophical journals by world class philosophers, some of them atheists, who take them seriously?

Because there are still plenty of idiots like you who cling to their superstitions and delusions so hard that, lackiog even a shred of evidence to support their fantastical assertions of any sort of deity, they convince themselves that those pieces of shit could be convincing.

---

To everyone who answered by saying that the burden of proof is on the theist, rather than repeating myself five more times, I would direct you to post #3 where I replied to this point.

That verbose bit of word salad does nothing to address your responsibility -- and your deceitful, dishonest, disingenuous attempt to shirk your responsibility -- to the burden of proof.

[Thor]

It suggests that when we consider God and when we consider goblins we find ourselves in a very different epistemic situation.

Not really. Both are beings of the supernatural and neither can be proven to exist.

There are things, such as I mentioned, that suggest that God cannot be written off simply apriori as if it was self-evidently a children's fable.

You ever read some of the stories in the Babble? Noah's Ark, the Garden of Eden, Samson and Delilah, Jonah and the Whale.... the thing has stuff in it that belongs in a Hans Christian Andersen book.

Darwin didn't believe in children's fables and neither did Einstein.

I would agree. So.....?

In fact, I can reason as follows,

1. Darwin and Einstein would not seriously believe a children's fable is true
2. Darwin and Einstein seriously believed God existed
3. Therefore God is not a children's fable

Even if this path of logic holds water (it doesn't) all it proves is that "God" is not a children's fairy tale. It does nothing to prove that "God" is in any way real. Just like Roman mythology is not a children's fable, but it doesn't prove that Apollo is real.

Yes, one is an obviously fictional creation of man and the other can be found in Halloween decorations.

Please show that this is the case.

I was a making a point for comedic effect. But I guess I have to explain that to you.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of Goblins that can stand up to scrutiny?

Half of humanity believes that there is a God…[/qutoe]

Your source for this preposterous claim, which only amounts to a Bandwagon fallacy?

and this has included such brilliant minds as Charles Darwin (a deist), Aristotle, William of Occham, Einstein, etc…

Einstein, you really think so?

At any rate, a fallacious Appeal to Misleading Authority.

However, no one I am aware of who was nearly this intelligent believes in Goblins.

This should tell you something extremely important about your belief in whatever gawd-thing it is you believe in. We will return to this. But for now, can I add this to my sig line? I'll attribute it to you, I promise.

It is not the same thing.

What, because some asswipe on the internet asserts by fiat that it is not? Go on, then, tell us all about why you claim it is not the same thing.

Furthermore, if I start asking questions like "where do Goblins live," and "why have there not been any reports of them on the news?" I bet I could make a good case against their existence.

Go on, then, and while you are at it, show how this is any different from your claim of a gawd-thing.

---

However, no one I am aware of who was nearly this intelligent believes in Goblins.

Yeah, believing in goblins is silly, isn't it? (Cue the gong of irony).

---

I think from pure reasoning alone all an atheist could ever do is demonstrate why holy book X's god(s) doesn't/don't exist. I can't think of any argument from reason alone that would discard the possibility of a god. So I guess at most the theist could push for a Deist god but that's about it. Given that you call yourself a Christian though I think we might have some problems with the claims you want to attach to this plausible Deist god...

Which shows your woeful lack of understanding of reason. Reason answers to evidence, whelp.

---

[quote=Thor]So what?

It suggests that when we consider God and when we consider goblins we find ourselves in a very different epistemic situation.

You are going to support this preposterous assertion, right?

There are things, such as I mentioned, that suggest that God cannot be written off simply apriori as if it was self-evidently a children's fable.

And why are you not presenting those "things"?

Darwin didn't believe in children's fables

Fallacy Appeal to Authority. I do not hold Darwin's opinions on religion or other fairy tales as authoritative.

and neither did Einstein.

\

That's right, and here is a quote from him, replying to a letter asking him if it was true that a Jesuit priest had caused him to convert from atheism.: "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."

Sort of fucks up your whole fallacious appeal to authority, doesn't it?

In fact, I can reason as follows,

You call that reasoning?

1. Darwin and Einstein would not seriously believe a children's fable is true

Fallacy appeal to authority.

2. Darwin and Einstein seriously believed God existed

Outright lie in the case of Einstein.

3. Therefore God is not a children's fable

Non Sequitur.

Yes, one is an obviously fictional creation of man and the other can be found in Halloween decorations.

Please show that this is the case.

YOU have made the positive claim that the two are different. The burden of proof is upon you to show why, not us.