A good case against God

[Jeffonthenet]

Arguments are not evidence, whelp. And the arguments you reference -- the kalam and the moral, along with hundreds of other similar abortions -- are long-debunked laughing stock. The fact that you consider them to be valid, along with the fact that you think any such arguments can replace evidence, tells us the level of self-delusion you are willing to inflict upon yourself in order to cling onto your silly superstitions.

The arguments I mentioned use evidence. It seems to me sort of like a prosecutor who argues that a person is guilty based on the evidence of the person being found with a gun, etc… I don't think they have been debunked, as you say. I believe they are still debated in professional philosophy journals.

Then why are they debated in professional philosophical journals by world class philosophers, some of them atheists, who take them seriously?

Because there are still plenty of idiots like you who cling to their superstitions and delusions so hard that, lackiog even a shred of evidence to support their fantastical assertions of any sort of deity, they convince themselves that those pieces of shit could be convincing.

---

They are debated between atheists and theists, not two theists.

To everyone who answered by saying that the burden of proof is on the theist, rather than repeating myself five more times, I would direct you to post #3 where I replied to this point.

That verbose bit of word salad does nothing to address your responsibility -- and your deceitful, dishonest, disingenuous attempt to shirk your responsibility -- to the burden of proof.

I am sorry you feel that way about me. I am really trying to respond to people's points with fairness, reason, and respect.