Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Esquilax]

Therefore God could logically exists does follow unless you can prove a God-like intellect is incapable of existing or highly unlikely to exist. Therefore God could exist, just as life form 1.1 and 1.2 could exist.

Now explain to me why life form 1.1 can exist . but life form 10000000 can not. And if you can't explain it , then you have no logical basis for atheism.. You will eventually be forced to admit your atheism is based in 100% subjective faith

Is this seriously your conclusion? This wheedling, hand wringing "well, my god is logically possible..." crap? Really?

So, let me get this straight: first, you decide to "define true atheism," by telling us what we believe and demanding that we go with your definition and not our own or the dictionary's. Essentially, you strawman us. Then, instead of just giving evidence for the existence of your god, you go for this weaksauce deistic "ooh, my god might possibly exist!" nonsense, patting yourself on the back because the bland, nothing of a god you've managed to come up with- really? "Has intelligence that is godlike" is your criteria for a god? Nothing else? - isn't obviously contradictory. Congratulations, jackass, you managed to define a- possibly fictional!- concept that doesn't collapse in on itself.

And then to cap it, the sun-drenched monument to your ignorance at the top of the summit of ineffective argumentation you've thus far provided, is blatant special pleading and a shifting of the burden of proof: "I don't need to provide any positive evidence for my god, but unless you can provide comprehensive evidence that my god does not exist, your position is irrational!"

But let me ask you this, genius: wouldn't it logically follow that if my position is irrational because I can't provide evidence against your argument, that yours is irrational because you haven't provided any evidence for it?

Because let me be absolutely clear: "It's logically possible!" is nowhere near "it exists." Possible gods are not extant gods, and moreover, it's only possible if our only criteria for possible is "not logically inconsistent," because you've got no indication that it's physically possible, or that it did happen, just that intelligence might grow to that threshold because we've seen intelligence.

You've given us nothing, and then berated us for not breaking with the rules of logic- the same ones you're abusing to come to your conclusion- and allowing you to shift the burden of proof by demanding we disprove your vague, amorphous argument.

Congratulations: you're an asshole.