A good case against God

[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.