How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Acrobat]

I'm curious, when it comes to big foot, it's nit hard to imagine what such evidence would look like, such as foot prints, photos, etc...

But what would evidence of God look like? Would evidence pointing to us being a product of some created order, as ID proponents, and their like often try to make a case for, constitute as evidence for God?

I've seen that you read a lot of the same writers I do... (Zizek, John Gray, etc.)

Have you read the Terry Eagleton book where he describes the "Yeti theory of God"? I think the Bigfoot theory would be the American version. 

He uses it specifically to identify people who don't know anything about theology, but nonetheless want to say that religion is stupid.

Reason, Faith & Revolution? Yes, i credit Terry Eagleton for a lot, especially for introducing me to my favorite theologian, Herbert McCabe.

I think what many such unbelievers fail to recognize, is that most people live their religion, rather than develop an articulation of it. If my mother had to articulate a theology, it would have very little to do with the space in which her religion, faith, occupy in her life, it cuts deep within her. 

I think of this quote from Dostoevsky: "“the essence of religious feeling doesn’t fit in with any reasoning, with any crimes and trespasses, or with any atheisms; there’s something else here that’s not that, and it will eternally be not that; there’s something in it that atheisms will eternally glance off, and they will eternally be talking not about that.”

---

Basically, “god is good, and good is god.” And yet, we have no definition or explanation of either. What an incredibly useless basis for a moral system.

Goodness is a simple and undefinable property - G.E. Moore.

We can all recognize a variety of things that are good, like the 3 month old recognizes the a helping character is good. 

Or when I look at my daughter, and recognize her sweetness, her kindness, her innocence, purity as good, etc...

We can all recognize that someone who risked their lives to save Jews, or slaves, etc... did something good.

The recognition of Good is easy, the definition is not. There's a relationship between the meaning of Good in all these things. No Moral Theory is likely to articulate this meaning, with any justice at least.

---

Yes, the truth that killing/torturing/raping someone is bad for their well being is independent of what anyone thinks. I think well-being is a good and moral goal for any group of people, because it is based on the fact that some actions are objectively bad for an individual’s well-being. No god necessary. Could there hypothetically be a group of people who’s societal goal is to rape and/or kill women and children? Sure. But that wouldn’t change the fact that raping and killing women and children is bad for their well-being. It would also be a pretty self-destructive goal for the group itself.

Good are bad, are not some mere descriptions of the consequences of certain actions. Their meanings are normative not descriptive. If I told my daughter that what she did is wrong, I'm not merely restating what she did, but indicating that she ought not have done what she did. "The ought not do what she did" is just as much an expression of a truth, as any sort of descriptions of the consequences of her actions. If my daughter respond, "i don't subscribe to such a goal, I ought to do whatever I want to do, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.", she would be stating something that's not true, like holocaust denial, or 9/11 was an inside job. She would be lying to herself, and not just me.

What some atheists attempt to do when trying to squeeze a objective morality out, is try to remove the normative quality of moral statements, and brush that part under the rug. Render the meaning of good and bad, as disconnected from the meanings implied in the way it's used by everyone else.