A good case against God

[Fidel_Castronaut]

[quote='Fidel_Castronaut' pid='305703' dateline='1341419581']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.

Yes you have; you claim it with every post you make (your title). Let's not try and ignore the elephant in the room when it comes to your own beliefs. You believe god is true, and I have to assume that you have your reasons for beleiving. Unless you can bracket out your faith depending on the thread...

I came into this thread and saw Taq claim that it's impossible to provide a shred of evidence that God exists. Since I'm interested in whether this claim is true, I wanted to see some support for it--reasons to believe that it's true.

But that's the point; you can already means test the claim by simply providing evidence. Like I posited in my previous post; if we reduce the whole debate to its logical origin, it's the old "god exists" - "prove it" debate. The reason Taq has posited the above is because we've been asking for evidence for as long as there has been a god to (dis)prove.

Instead, people started shouting at me to prove him wrong by providing the evidence he was talking about. But my inability to provide evidence doesn't tell me whether his claim is true; maybe it is possible to provide evidence, but I just don't have it.[/quote

I, for one, am not 'shouting at you' about anything at all; im merely pointing out that, regardless of the virtue/vice of taq's statement, there is still the little problem of the premise (ie god) still being unproved, unevidenced, undefined, and hence unbelievable (at least from my/our perspective).

[quote='CliveStaples' pid='305706' dateline='1341419742']If you're going to claim that something is impossible, you need to explain why or how it is impossible. Otherwise, you're just making a bald assertion. And any asshole can do that. It's exactly what is supposedly so frustrating to you guys about theists.

Indeed. But, again and again and again, the base claim of the entire debate at hand is still god(s). The OP was demonstrably wrong in its assertion as it is shifting the burden of proof. That's the real root of the debate.

In fact, let me come at this from an altnernatively angle. Without any judgement on the possible answer; can you provide evidence for your god or gods? I mean, do you think it's possible for you to provide evidence?