A good case against God

[CliveStaples]

Again, asshole: "You -plural".

When you direct "You -plural" at me, it includes me, dumbass.

And like I said: You see his lips moving.

Well, all the times I saw him talking, he was either talking about morality or citing the existence of suffering as an argument against God's existence. Neither of which has any obvious, direct connection to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument (though the argument from evil has an indirect connection, insofar as if the argument from evil succeeds, it shows that the KCA has a false conclusion).

Yes, it was simply you playing armchair asshole philosopher, trying to make yourself look not as fucking dumb as you are. Lot of good that did you.

You're doing a pretty bang-up job of making me look smart all on your own.

You -- plural.

Which includes me -- singular.

Yhat would be "christian" in your vernacular. All three apply to you.

"The insult that I just said about you...applies to you." Sick burn.

Nice wishful thinking there, Miss Priss.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Are you still failing?

In other words, yes you are.

Yes, yes you are.

Wishful thinking.

Proof's in the pudding. Where's the support? Notice that you've cut back on the swearing, too. Smart move, Snooki; better to use it more selectively.

Still the fucking backward idiot child I see.

Still making unsupported claims then insisting that everyone else has to disprove it, I see.

NO you don't. I said the first. the second is your own straw man.

I literally copy and pasted the sentence where you say, "...you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not." Did you miss that part? I only put it in bold and italics. Probably should have Google translated it to High School Dropout so that you could understand it better.

Not at all.

Yes, actually. Bringing up irrelevant things in a debate is a red herring.

Okay:

Here is my argument: Your god is a superstitious fucking fairy tale, and you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not.

Show me where I said "impossible"

You didn't say the word "impossible". You said that something cannot be done, which is the fucking same as saying that it's impossible. They mean exactly the same thing.

That is not necessarily so, bitch. Perhaps in some future time you might come to be able to, for example.

Which would have made sense if you said, "...you can produce absolutely no evidence at all at this time to prove that it is not"

But you didn't.

You said, "...you can produce absolutely no evidence at all to prove that it is not."

Or, in other words (but with identical meaning), "The sentence 'You can produce any evidence at all to prove that it is not' is false."

I'm not holding my breath, mind you, since you assholes haven't in the last two or three thousand years.

Again: you have been wanking away at a straw man of your own making. What an asshole.

Well, just retract your claim that it's impossible to provide such evidence--or, alternatively but will never fucking happen, support it--and I can just put this one in the 'W' column.