A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Most people who believe there is an external world do so on the basis of foundationalism. Presuppositions like "I exist" and "my senses are sometimes accurate" are both necessary to make cognitive decisions in the world. Otherwise you fall into radical skepticism and inevidably nihilism.

How are those basic presuppositions justified? By argument?

Here, you can disprove this supposition any time you like. I'll lend you my shotgun (You need to make arrangements for it to be sent back to me after this demonstration, though), and you load it up with double-ought buck, flick off the safety (I will of course provide instructions on how to operate it), stick both barrels in your mouth (it is critical that you point it in the proper direction, so that you do not become what is known as a "Flincher" (see:***** (NSFW)), and pull both triggers.

In the event that our presuppositions are unjustified, you can post to the forum and tell us all about it.

Goblins aren't analogous to God, as they aren't of the same constitution. How does the fact that intelligent men who happen to believe in God discard goblins as myth strengthen your case? What you have constructed is an appeal to authority with a faulty analogy thrown in. Two fallacies in one argument.

I explained my intention in my last post.

Your intention is irrelevant to the fact that your arguments (which are in any case not evidence) are fatally flawed.

Goblins can be eventually defined as an unrestricted negative. An unrestricted negative is, by definition, unproveable.

Can you please define what an unrestricted negative is? And do you mean "unfalsifiable?" (instead of unprovable) I don't think God is by definition unprovable.

GREAT! So prove your version of whatever this gawd-thang is exists, and quit tap-dancing around with all this silly burden-of-proof-shifting. No need at all to move the goalposts, since you can kick the winning goal right here and now with your evidence. You DO have evidence, right?

Russell's teapot and infinite other examples of indefinite things fall into this category. What I find is that the religious fall into this odd cycle of "prove to me this unrestricted negative"- what I have never heard before is the OP's odd idea that lack of evidence shouldn't equal lack of belief.
Since when?
Lack of evidence necesitates lack of belief. If you want to contest that then I would feel fine destroying your argument

Because we have no evidence that there are extraterrestrials, does it follow from our lack of evidence that there are no extraterrestrials?

We have the evidence of our own existence, and evidence that there are other solar systems and planets that might have similar conditions in which similar forms of life might also arise.

Little green men in space ships, not so much.

But far more than that of any sort of gawd-thing, which by the way you still have failed to describe or define.

---

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...

The God one would show wouldn't be a deist or a Christian God, it would just be general attributes of God that would be shared by both. And given that I believe the experience of God is the best way to know the Christian God exists, I don't think it would be a huge problem for people to believe in Him after experiencing Him.

OH, Goodie: The "experience of Gawd". Tell us what THAT looks like. Can you send him over to my house for a visit? Should I order something fancy, or just throw something on the grill? Does he prefer baby back ribs made from real babies?