A good case against God

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

What's a god? You haven't even bothered to describe what it is that you are demanding a rebuttal of! And you are too fucking stupid to see how preposterous what you are doing is. You might as well wander into here and demand, "Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of Brufarian Fershniblets that can stand up to scrutiny?".

Have you no idea at all how stupid what you are doing is?

You are making a positive claim.

INCORRECT. I am challenging your positive claim. YOU, on the other hand, are attempting to shift your burden of proof.

Namely, you are saying that God less plausible to exist than Brufarian Freshetc… by the standard of evidence of seemingly all the atheists here, this requires evidence.

I am pointing out that you (plural) have provided no more evidence for your positive claim of your gawd-figure than anyone has of Brufarian Fershniblets, an imaginary placeholder that I made up for the purposes of this discussion.

I am not trying to fight with you, I just think your comparison of God with Mr. Freshetc is misleading, and if such claims were removed, your point would not stand up to scrutiny.

My use of this imaginary placeholder is no different from the popular Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, teapot in Space, etc. All are examples of Reductio Ad Absurdum.

I also defined God in one of my previous posts to this current one, so I would refer you to that at this point.

Which one? I just went through this thread and couldn't find it. I was reminded, however, of the full scope of your disingenuousness here.

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.

They seem like decent arguments, and they use evidence.

NO, they don't.

For example, for the Kalaam, the evidence would be the scientific evidence for an absolute beginning of the universe.

Meaning the existence of theories that speculate about its origins. That's not evidence.

And I think you are mistaken that these are absurd arguments which cannot be defended, or have somehow been debunked. I don't think this is what the scholarly literature shows,

Your standard for what qualifies as "scholarly literature" seems quite low, what with your endorsement of Craig and his flim-flam kalaam.

while popular literature and internet sites might say something else

Exactly what is this reference being made to? I smell straw burning.

You are making all sorts of positive claims here, even from your first of a non-defined "gawd"-thing. The onus of proof is yours.

I am quite sure that there is wide agreement among philosophers that properly basic beliefs must be assumed and cannot be argued for. And it seems quite evident that it would be impossible to show that the past didn't pop into being five minutes ago with the appearance of age (the atheist Bertrand Russel's example), as it would look exactly the same as it does now if it did. The same thing with the reality of the external world.
Likewise there is the, I believe, unsolved problem of induction the atheist David Hume which means that casuality itself cannot be proven. How do we know things like this happen then? I submit it is intuition. It is surely possible that the way we know these most important beliefs could be the way we know God exists as well.

Retreating behind a wall of textual word salad is not going to absolve you of your burden of proof (meaning extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim), or shift your burden of proof onto us. This entire thread has been an exercise in your disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty. You of course have a right to reject intellectual honesty, genuousness, rationality and reason. When you do do -- and you have -- no one is under any obligation to take you or your harangues seriously, ot to treat you politely.

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.

---

I really have spent a lot of time looking at the evidence myself.

WHAT evidence? Present it, and make believers of us all.

My own rigorous adherence to following reason where it led which I learned from reading the Dialogues of Plato eventually caused me to lose my atheism as I found that I had been convinced that there was no God by faulty reasons. I still constantly question my faith and subject it to every objection I can think of to the point of almost an unhealthy obsession. I try to do this with all of my beliefs.

Reason and evidence go hand in hand. I don't believe your testimony to your supposed intellectual honesty. Your actions here betray you.

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.

Certianly there are threads on the internet where theists can present evidence for the existence of God. This is not one of them.

Yes, and the funny thing about them is that they can go hundreds of pages with various forays by theists, and not a single shred of evidence has yet been presented. Funny that.

Here's one of them. Have a go at it with the evidence you just claimed you have: http://www.atheistforums.com/viewtopic.p...d610de7c73

But I caution you that the folks there aren't nearly as tolerant of intellectual dishonesty and bullshit as they are here. Good luck. Heh.

This is the atheist's chance to do likewise,

The atheist's chance to do WHAT? To buy into your attempt to shift your burden of proof onto us. Step right up, folks...

and I have tried to defend with reason that even if there is no demonstrable evidence for God it does not justify atheism.

That is a positive claim, and one which you have provided no support for. Of course, you have every right to be irrational and unreasonable. But you forfeit your right to be taken seriously or to call your semantic prestidigitation here "reason".

Go ahead and be agnostic if you want, but if you refuse to give any argument against God or belief in God that can stand up to scrutiny, I contend that your atheism is unjustified.

Which argument is just another flim-flam attempt to shift your burden of proof. And we have been through this already. You don't believe in Crumple-Horned Snorkacks, do you? And again, you have not defined this "god" that you are demanding we provide arguments against. How very fuckind convenient for you. You are playing a semantic shell game and cheating at it.

So really in this thread I am not arguing that God exists.

What you are doing, in reality, is trying to weasel your way out of your responsibility to the burden of proof.

I am arguing that the absence of demonstrable evidence for God doesn't justify atheism.

And you have failed miserably in your efforts.

I am also asking atheists to give good reasons to think there is no God, and I can't say that I think I have seen any.

Fallacy: Appeal to Personal Incredulity.

And that one shouldn't rule out God simply because of the apparent absence of evidence.

Yours is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. You don't even have a little bit of evidence. And again what you are really arguing is the rejection of reason and rationality. Again, your right to do, but you forfeit other rights.

If there are any agnostics here I would invite you to join me.

Nice try at building a troll army. that's not going to work for you either.

I have been reading and answering the posts in the order I have received them. Unfortunately I don't have time to do this faster than I am. I simply can't respond to the 14th page of them by now and hold a social life as well… though maybe I will do things differently like only respond to the most relevant comments since people are insulting me about not noticing things on pages that I haven't seen yet. (though just now I looked at the most recent replies) Thanks everyone for participating though.

People are insulting you because you are insulting our intelligence by attempting to run this disingenuous little con game of yours on us. You get what you give, cupcake.

---

A good case against the existence of which God? The deist God? The Christian God? Is the God you're referring to omniscient and omnipotent? Does it have perfectly free will? Is it omnibenevolent? Does it condemn people to hell? There are a lot of Gods, would you be more specific, please? I can tell you that the God of Theodicy doesn't exist: an omniscient being can't do anything it does not foresee and an omnipotent being can do anything. Omniscience also contradicts free will.

Eh, bad definition of "omnipotence", I think. "Omnipotence" is self-contradictory; you'd have to be able to do things that you can't do--and do impossible things, like draw a square circle, or create a married bachelor, or give an example of a non-commutative group of order 2.

I think a better definition is something like, "Everything willed can be actualized", and you just say that you can't will to do impossible things.

And just saying "omniscience contradicts free will" isn't giving a reason. It's just stating a conclusion, without any reason to think that it's true. How do you know that the Molinists are wrong?

We aren't the ones making the claims of omnipotence, omniscience, etc., you idiots are. Your equivocating those terms only destroys your own god-claims even more, just like every other bit of semantic prestidigitation you have tried to float here does.