A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

INCORRECT. I am pointing out your abject failure to meet your burden of proof.

Having made no claims, I have no burden of proof. You have claimed "X is true", where X = "It is impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." You have so far refused to support this claim.

You haven't? Then take that "Protestant x-tard" off your title. But you have attempted to defend the preposterous kalaam argument, which is a claim of your sky fairy. Your "pragmatism" claim coming back to bite you in the ass, you know. And I have said "you" in the plural, meaning ALL of you idiots who claim a sky fairy have failed to present a shred of evidence to support it.

If that's the style of argument that's promoted here, then I could merely claim "It is possible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists." And my claim would have just as much support as yours does.[/quoet]

You cannot claim to have provided a shred of evidence.

[quiote]

I point out that you have failed to meet your burden of proof, to wit, you have not provided a shred of evidence. That is a "black swan" argument that you can destroy by providing a single bit of evidence. Now trot your fairy tale monster over to CNN and show the world, or shut the fuck up.

I haven't made any claims. In particular, I haven't made any claims that require evidence. You're asking me to support claims that I have never made; I'm asking you to support claims that you've made in this very thread.

"YOU" = You fucktard xturds. NO more shell games, Miss Priss.

Far better than you, little girl.

You're the one with an unsupported claim, Nancy.

I have pointed out that you xtards have failed to meet your burden of proof.

We know a hysterical with nothing else to argue but "The adults are swearing, boo hoo!!!!" when we see one.

Uh, I give zero fucks about swearing. In fact, I love it. You're just bad at it.

Are you REALLY still squealing about that, Miss Priss?

Yes, it means whatever you make it up to be. That is because it is the product of every x-tard's pathological lying.

Well, in the context of theism generally, I use it to mean "An omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good entity", or in a specifically Christian context, I use it to mean the God of the Bible.

For which you xtards have provided not a shred of evidence.

"You cannot provide a shred of EVIDENCE to support your claim of the existence of your fairy tale monster".

Yes, this is the claim that has zero support.

You haven't in the course of human history. Go on, then, trot out your big Nasty.

Ironic that a bunch of atheists are insisting that their claim is true because the theist can't prove it to be false. Well, well, well, how the turntables...turn.

Your extraordinary claim of a big Sky Daddy required extraordinary evidence. Of which you have not provided a shred in the entire course of human history.

---

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.

Uh, nope, I haven't claimed that God exists. I came into this thread and saw Taq claim that it's impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists.

Fucking liar. Cite where I said "impossible". I said you assholes have not provided any evidence. All of this bullshit is simply you squirming to dodge your burden of proof.