A good case against God

[Skepsis]

Most people who believe there is an external world do so on the basis of foundationalism. Presuppositions like "I exist" and "my senses are sometimes accurate" are both necessary to make cognitive decisions in the world. Otherwise you fall into radical skepticism and inevidably nihilism.
Goblins aren't analogous to God, as they aren't of the same constitution. How does the fact that intelligent men who happen to believe in God discard goblins as myth strengthen your case? What you have constructed is an appeal to authority with a faulty analogy thrown in. Two fallacies in one argument.
Goblins can be eventually defined as an unrestricted negative. An unrestricted negative is, by definition, unprovable. Russell's teapot and infinite other examples of indefinite things fall into this category. What I find is that the religious fall into this odd cycle of "prove to me this unrestricted negative"- what I have never heard before is the OP's odd idea that lack of evidence shouldn't equal lack of belief.
Since when?
Lack of evidence necesitates lack of belief. If you want to contest that then I would feel fine destroying your argument

[FallentoReason]

I think from pure reasoning alone all an atheist could ever do is demonstrate why holy book X's god(s) doesn't/don't exist. I can't think of any argument from reason alone that would discard the possibility of a god. So I guess at most the theist could push for a Deist god but that's about it. Given that you call yourself a Christian though I think we might have some problems with the claims you want to attach to this plausible Deist god...

[Jeffonthenet]

So what?

It suggests that when we consider God and when we consider goblins we find ourselves in a very different epistemic situation. There are things, such as I mentioned, that suggest that God cannot be written off simply apriori as if it was self-evidently a children's fable. Darwin didn't believe in children's fables and neither did Einstein.

In fact, I can reason as follows,

1. Darwin and Einstein would not seriously believe a children's fable is true
2. Darwin and Einstein seriously believed God existed
3. Therefore God is not a children's fable

Yes, one is an obviously fictional creation of man and the other can be found in Halloween decorations.

Please show that this is the case.

[FallentoReason]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Albert-Ein...n.Einstein

A bit of research can sometimes go a long way.

Also, one man's belief doesn't prove anything. Your line of argumentation is a non sequitur.

1. Adolf Hitler thought killing 6 million Jews was right.
2. It is right to kill Jews.

[downbeatplumb]

Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny?

If you can't find any evidence for something and all he things that are attributed to said thing have other, provable and more logical answers then chances are that thing does not exist.

There is no evidence FOR god.
All things attributed to god have proved to have other testable explanations.

Basically the idea of gods is silly and belongs to the infancy of our species.

Time to move on now

[Jeffonthenet]

Most people who believe there is an external world do so on the basis of foundationalism. Presuppositions like "I exist" and "my senses are sometimes accurate" are both necessary to make cognitive decisions in the world. Otherwise you fall into radical skepticism and inevidably nihilism.

How are those basic presuppositions justified? By argument?

Goblins aren't analogous to God, as they aren't of the same constitution. How does the fact that intelligent men who happen to believe in God discard goblins as myth strengthen your case? What you have constructed is an appeal to authority with a faulty analogy thrown in. Two fallacies in one argument.

I explained my intention in my last post.

Goblins can be eventually defined as an unrestricted negative. An unrestricted negative is, by definition, unproveable.

Can you please define what an unrestricted negative is? And do you mean "unfalsifiable?" (instead of unprovable) I don't think God is by definition unprovable.

Russell's teapot and infinite other examples of indefinite things fall into this category. What I find is that the religious fall into this odd cycle of "prove to me this unrestricted negative"- what I have never heard before is the OP's odd idea that lack of evidence shouldn't equal lack of belief.
Since when?
Lack of evidence necesitates lack of belief. If you want to contest that then I would feel fine destroying your argument

Because we have no evidence that there are extraterrestrials, does it follow from our lack of evidence that there are no extraterrestrials?

[downbeatplumb]

So what?

It suggests that when we consider God and when we consider goblins we find ourselves in a very different epistemic situation. There are things, such as I mentioned, that suggest that God cannot be written off simply apriori as if it was self-evidently a children's fable. Darwin didn't believe in children's fables and neither did Einstein.

In fact, I can reason as follows,

1. Darwin and Einstein would not seriously believe a children's fable is true
2. Darwin and Einstein seriously believed God existed
3. Therefore God is not a children's fable

Yes, one is an obviously fictional creation of man and the other can be found in Halloween decorations.

Please show that this is the case.

It is just nuts to believe in something that has no evidence for it.

The idea of god has nothing going for it either.

By being dogmatic and immovable,religions and theistic thinking tend to stagnate the countries that they infect. Look at the more religious countries of he middle east and some of the more jerk wad regions of america to see what I mean.

[Jackalope]

1. Darwin and Einstein would not seriously believe a children's fable is true
2. Darwin and Einstein seriously believed God existed
3. Therefore God is not a children's fable

Nice fallacious appeal to authority.

Setting the fallacy aside for the moment, in order to reach conclusion (3), you're going to have to demonstrate that your premises are in fact correct. I'll be charitable and spot you (2). Good luck demonstrating (1).

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Can anyone give me a good case against the existence of God that can stand up to scrutiny?

You x-tards have presented absolutely not a shred of evidence at all to support your claim that such a being exists.

/thread

[downbeatplumb]

Because we have no evidence that there are extraterrestrials, does it follow from our lack of evidence that there are no extraterrestrials?

I do not believe that there are extraterrestrials, although I think it is likely because we have the example of ourselves.

However to establish a belief position on the subject I would want proof.

I like to have evidence for what I believe.

Theists seem to work in the reverse direction when it comes to their impossible delusion.

Their stance is "I will believe in this stupid unprovable thing until some one proves definitively that the great pumpkin will never visit the pumpkin patch"