A good case against 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.