A good case against God

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Nonsense. I'm talking directly to you.

Provide evidence that your god exists and we can move on from there. If you cannot provide evidence, that we all have as much reason to agree with Taq re: you being unable to provide evidence.

I say I can fly around the earth in 2 seconds akin to that of superman. I don't provide evidence for it, but we get into discussions about how you not being able to refute my claim leads you to have no argument against my proposition. Absurd, no?

I find it ironic that you would post a WIKI link on an argument from ignorance as well...

Bullshit. I'm not making an argument from ignorance.

Here's the argument I'm criticizing:

"You cannot provide a shred of proof to support the existence of God."

Here's my counter:

"How do you know that's true? What is your support for your claim?"

Here's your counter to my counter:

"Provide your proof and we'll know that his claim was false."

Let's cut the shit, shall we? Like a simultaneous equation, we can eliminate the reduceable values and come to this:

You claim god exists.

We ask for evidence.

You may say "I've never once claimed the above" (Even though your 'title' claims otherwise), but your recent contributions on pragmatism eliminate that as an option; Your beliefs clearly influence your ideas/notions/beliefs on your god (or gods)

So the original claim that you believe your god exists holds true, which is the actual impasse of the situation as we're right back down to ZERO evidence again.

When claiming that a god or gods exist, yet not presenting evidence, it is reasonable to assume either:

1. That you do have evidence but are not presenting it, which precludes any notion of a reasonable discussion (and hence the motives for such participation can be called into doubt)
(or)
2. That you in fact do not have evidence to produce and so it can be deduced that, indeed, one does not have a "shred of proof" that a god or gods exist.

Now the only way you can combat this is by either presenting evidence or going down the whole argument of "this is evidence you just refuse to accept it as such"...and I don't think that will fly here for a second.

All this is an aside however. The OP is wrong straight from the outset. We need something defined, described, and indeed evidenced if we're to discuss and evaluate it; so far, none of this has been done.