A good case against God

[The Theist]

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

That would depend upon the god. The term god is just a title that means mighty or venerated, so anything or anyone can be a god. I could name several that no sensible person would question the existence of. Moses, the Judges of Israel, Eric Clapton.

I could also name many gods that don't exist, but they are still gods.

[Jackalope]

Saying that you do not believe that there are extraterrestrials but you think it is likely that there are extraterrestrials seems like a contradiction to me.

I believe I posted this earlier, perhaps on this very thread.

Ponder the differences between these two statements.

1. I believe in the existence of X.
2. I believe that the existence of X is likely.

If you can understand the difference, perhaps you'll better understand what he was saying.

[The Theist]

There are no good cases against the existence of god, as there are no good cases against the existence of Santa Claus. But there are definitely good arguments against the existence of god, such as, the proof of the existence of god has never been observed, similar to the existence of Santa Claus has never been proved. That does not mean that god or Santa Claus does not exist; its only that the probability of their existence is almost negligible.

I think for either to be examined you have to first define what each of those, i.e. God and Santa Claus is. Then you have to look at the origins as well as the mythology.

You can't say there is no such thing as Santa Claus and pass 2 or 3 of them on the way to the mall to pick up your kid who has been talking to another one. All you are really saying is that you don't ascribe to the common mythology.

An atheist and a theist celebrating Easter or Christmas is about the same thing.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

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

/thread

I would refer you to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument presented by Dr. William Lane Craig.

And I am intimately familiar with William Lame-ass Craig's presentation of that argument. It was a piece of shit long before he got to it, and he didn't make it stink any less.

He tried to wag it at Sam Harris last April -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg -- and Sam ate him for lunch. the Kalaam is a fucking JOKE.

[quote] But regardless of this, I haven't seen, as far as I am aware, a single argument presented here to argue that God does not exist… and that is all I have been asking for.

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.

/fucking thread.

---

LOL I forgot that Craig opened up with the Hitler Card. I am sure he refuses to acknowledge that Hitler was a dyed-in-the-wool Catholic.

[Xyster]

HELLO...... JEFFONTHENET...... I'M FUCKN TALKING TO YOU McFLY. You seem to be answering everyone but me and as far as I see im the only one ready to give you a answer your looking for.... so far you have ...

How about the uncreated creator of the universe…or the all powerful creator of the universe, or the omnipotent omniscient creator of the universe?

Is he mortal? just? unjust? moral? immoral? omnibenevolent? is there a hell? is there freewill? Where is it?

I cant spoon feed it to you any better pick your god and ill get you your answer...........

[Skepsis]

I can think of two wrokable arguments against the Christian God as defined by the general populous.
If you're interested I could Google them and cut paste the syllogism, as to save you the time it would have taken for you to do it yourself. It would have been soooo much easier
if you had just found the arguments yourself against the God you wanted to be argued against, and then came here with your objections.
But alas...

[Ace Otana]

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

No good argument is required if there is no good argument for. Also my lack of belief isn't based on arguments against god, mainly it's based on the fact that there is no good argument for a god. I guess if you are looking for a good argument that there is no god, then it would be the fact that the universe may not need a creator to exist, if this is the case and that the universe does not require a creator at all, it removes the necessity for a creator.

[CliveStaples]

And I am intimately familiar with William Lame-ass Craig's presentation of that argument. It was a piece of shit long before he got to it, and he didn't make it stink any less.

He tried to wag it at Sam Harris last April -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg -- and Sam ate him for lunch. the Kalaam is a fucking JOKE.

Your evidence is a two hour youtube video of a debate about the foundations of objective morality? Can you at least least give a timecode for when Sam eats the Kalaam Cosmological Argument for lunch?

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.

/fucking thread.

...so your best argument is a quintessential appeal to ignorance ("x is true because you haven't demonstrated that it's false")? Excellent caliber of minds you guys have here.

[Jeffonthenet]

How are those basic presuppositions justified? By argument?

They are necessary presuppositions. You made them because you are having a discussion with me, and I presume you believe you exist and your senses aren't failing you as you attempt to post on this thread…

I assume then you have no good argument or verbalizable reason to think that they are true. It seems to me that you know them by intuition or experience, the same way many people know God exists.

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.

An unrestricted negative is a negative position that is definitionally past human measurement empiracally. We cannot test it in any way. God is (typically) defined as atemporal and amaterial, so he falls neatly into this category. This category is also home to anything you want to define into it. You could, for instance, have a timeless, spaceless, immeasureable cosmic crab king that couldn't be disproven.

God's existence is falsifiable. People in the past have thought they falsified it by using the problem of evil or finding an incoherence in the attributes of God. However, I think such attempts have failed. As for being immaterial etc… I would remind you that these are not ad-hoc properties of God as the result of modern science, they have been around long before that.

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

Because we have no evidence there are extraterrestrials, it follows that we shouldn't believe there are such beings.

Does it follow that you should also believe that there are no extra-terrestrials in the universe? I don't think so. I also do not accept that there is no evidence, I just think that the evidence is experiential and intuitive rather than demonstrable.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

And I am intimately familiar with William Lame-ass Craig's presentation of that argument. It was a piece of shit long before he got to it, and he didn't make it stink any less.

He tried to wag it at Sam Harris last April -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg -- and Sam ate him for lunch. the Kalaam is a fucking JOKE.

Your evidence is a two hour youtube video of a debate about the foundations of objective morality?

Excuse me, asshole? I didn't call that evidence. Blow it out your fucking ass.

Can you at least least give a timecode for when Sam eats the Kalaam Cosmological Argument for lunch?

Watch for when Harris' lips are moving.

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.

/fucking thread.

...so your best argument is a quintessential appeal to ignorance ("x is true because you haven't demonstrated that it's false")? Excellent caliber of minds you guys have here.
[/quote]

Nice straw man, fuckwit. My argument is that \you have not and cannot provide a shred of evidence to support x -- your silly ass superstitious fucking sky fairy story. And until you trot your fairy-tale-monster god-figure out in front of us in the flesh, you have nothing to refute it.

---

They are necessary presuppositions. You made them because you are having a discussion with me, and I presume you believe you exist and your senses aren't failing you as you attempt to post on this thread…

I assume then you have no good argument or verbalizable reason to think that they are true. It seems to me that you know them by intuition or experience, the same way many people know God exists.

Oh but there is that pesky little bit about you having absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and making a claim that you are still trying to dodge your burden of proof of. FAIL.

An unrestricted negative is a negative position that is definitionally past human measurement empiracally. We cannot test it in any way. God is (typically) defined as atemporal and amaterial, so he falls neatly into this category. This category is also home to anything you want to define into it. You could, for instance, have a timeless, spaceless, immeasureable cosmic crab king that couldn't be disproven.

God's existence is falsifiable.

Empirically?

People in the past have thought they falsified it by using the problem of evil or finding an incoherence in the attributes of God. However, I think such attempts have failed.

Fallacy Appeal to Personal Incredulity.

As for being immaterial etc… I would remind you that these are not ad-hoc properties of God as the result of modern science, they have been around long before that.

You have yet to define or describe your fairy tale creature. Whose properties and attributes you make up as you go along.

Because we have no evidence there are extraterrestrials, it follows that we shouldn't believe there are such beings.

Does it follow that you should also believe that there are no extra-terrestrials in the universe? I don't think so. I also do not accept that there is no evidence, I just think that the evidence is experiential and intuitive rather than demonstrable.

What evidence are you claiming is "experiential and intuitive"? Until you trot your fairy tale monster sky-daddy out in front of us, you have NOTHING.