A good case against God

[Jeffonthenet]

How are those basic presuppositions justified? By argument?

They are necessary presuppositions. You made them because you are having a discussion with me, and I presume you believe you exist and your senses aren't failing you as you attempt to post on this thread…

I assume then you have no good argument or verbalizable reason to think that they are true. It seems to me that you know them by intuition or experience, the same way many people know God exists.

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.

An unrestricted negative is a negative position that is definitionally past human measurement empiracally. We cannot test it in any way. God is (typically) defined as atemporal and amaterial, so he falls neatly into this category. This category is also home to anything you want to define into it. You could, for instance, have a timeless, spaceless, immeasureable cosmic crab king that couldn't be disproven.

God's existence is falsifiable. People in the past have thought they falsified it by using the problem of evil or finding an incoherence in the attributes of God. However, I think such attempts have failed. As for being immaterial etc… I would remind you that these are not ad-hoc properties of God as the result of modern science, they have been around long before that.

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

Because we have no evidence there are extraterrestrials, it follows that we shouldn't believe there are such beings.

Does it follow that you should also believe that there are no extra-terrestrials in the universe? I don't think so. I also do not accept that there is no evidence, I just think that the evidence is experiential and intuitive rather than demonstrable.