Evidence God Exists

[The Grand Nudger]

This proves God doesn't exist^, you must be kidding, right?

No, no, the thing that proves your god doesn't exist is our extremely detailed knowledge of his origins, combined with the invalidation of many, if not most of the claims made in his holy text as either factually inaccurate, or scientifically impossible. Savvy?

Here, let me lay it out for you in a very tidy package. Your god is a combination and refinement of the many tribal gods of the pagan hebrews, with a healthy dose of their neighbors superstitions thrown in for good measure. Their cosmology is borrowed largely from babylonion cosmology, itself flawed due to their lack of reliable instrumentation or information, again, with a healthy dose of other flawed cosmologies. Your god did not create anything in the manner which is described in genesis. He further did not slaughter the first born sons of Egypt and lead his chosen people to freedom with the help of his terrestrial agents. He did not, in fact impregnate a woman who traveled to bethlehem for a non-existent census, and of course failed to live up to the predictions made in revelation..as his kingdom never quite made it to earth did it? A man cannot live in the belly of a giant fish...burning bushes don't speak, human beings, once dead..have a tendency to remain that way, the orbit of the earth around the sun cannot be suspended without consequence to the earth....and to just put the cherry on it for you...If there WERE a way for these things to be possible, given the vast amounts of time we're talking about here..it is highly likely that they would have happened by chance alone, leaving us with a reality which would be hostile to life as we know it, making it very difficult if not impossible for anything resembling ourselves to exist. That we are here, able to have this conversation, says a great deal about our universe.

This is a concept which is not lost on the believer, who make cosmological arguments left, right, and center. The not-so-subtle difference, is that our model more closely matches reality than yours, is simpler, and makes predictions that can and have been used to invalidate our conclusions. If ones conclusions do not match with observed reality, it is not the fault of reality.

Our conclusions must match our observations or be invalidated, your observations are shoehorned to fit your premise, any conclusion reached through this sort of reasoning is meaningless. This is a terrible parody of the search for truth. In fact it is the very essence of my disagreement with you, and exactly the reason that I continue to antagonize you, and anyone for that matter, who would offer a similar opinion.