A good case against God

[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.