How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

And yet Acro is also willing to concede that a god which was or commands evil...would be wrong.

God is not good. His god is a good god.

There is a standard of goodness apart from the standard of god-ness. That standard, is all that an atheist would require for realist, or objective, morality.

[Belacqua]

There's no ad hominem in saying that the arguments made by theologians can be quite ridiculous. 

Thank you, this is what I've been saying. 

It's not ad hominem if you address the arguments. It is ad hominem if you say the argument is bad because the motivation of the speaker is bad.

Also, never said motivations are necessarily bad. Why must motivations be bad in order for strong biases to play a role?

True, everything we do is motivated in some way. 

And strong biases are everywhere in evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

As a functional description, Acro’s arguments literally are bad because of his particular motivations. They wouldn’t have to be, otherwise.

He could run with it, and say that good is whatever god is. That there is no objective criteria for good, only the divine criteria. It’s his motivation to assert such a situation while retaining the conceptual crutch of “objectivity” that compelled him to screw the pooch.

[Rahn127]

Would you be convinced of the existence of Bigfoot by an argument ?

Is there any argument, no matter how sound, that would convince you that Bigfoot exists ?

Would the "take it on faith" phrases that Bigfoot exists sway you at all ?

Now instead of Earth, let's say that people believed Bigfoot existed on another planet. Lots of planets in the universe. It would seem that maybe some kind of creature might exist out there somewhere that would resemble our Bigfoot.

So arguments come into play when NO evidence can be presented.

And if no evidence can be presented, why would you believe ?

[GrandizerII]

There's no ad hominem in saying that the arguments made by theologians can be quite ridiculous. 

Thank you, this is what I've been saying. 

It's not ad hominem if you address the arguments. It is ad hominem if you say the argument is bad because the motivation of the speaker is bad.

Also, never said motivations are necessarily bad. Why must motivations be bad in order for strong biases to play a role?

True, everything we do is motivated in some way. 

And strong biases are everywhere in evidence.

I'm not following you Belaqua. How is observing some arguments made by a group of Xs and judging that these arguments are really bad an ad hominem?

And theology, at least the revelatory one, does presuppose God and makes certain assumptions about it. This isn't reading psychically people's mind. You brought up natural theology to counter that, but as far as I'm concerned (and this is suggested in some of the philosophical articles as well) it's a field of its own separate from theology (which is usually interchangeable with the revelatory theology, or whatever it's called).

[Belacqua]

I'm not following you Belaqua. How is observing some arguments made by a group of Xs and judging that these arguments are really bad an ad hominem?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

It is NOT an ad hominem to analyze arguments and say they are bad. 

It is an ad hominem if you address the person rather than his argument. "This man is a white supremacist, and he said it's Sunday, so it must not be Sunday." or "This person has bad motivations, and he said Trump is stupid, so Trump must be smart." 

as far as I'm concerned (and this is suggested in some of the philosophical articles as well) it's a field of its own separate from theology (which is usually interchangeable with the revelatory theology, or whatever it's called).

Well, OK. I'm not invested in deciding the boundaries about what is real theology and what isn't. 

I would like to say, though, that my day is made better by the fact that you comfortable and casually use "its" and "it's" correctly in a sentence. Bless you.

[GrandizerII]

I'm not following you Belaqua. How is observing some arguments made by a group of Xs and judging that these arguments are really bad an ad hominem?

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

It is NOT an ad hominem to analyze arguments and say they are bad. 

It is an ad hominem if you address the person rather than his argument. "This man is a white supremacist, and he said it's Sunday, so it must not be Sunday." or "This person has bad motivations, and he said Trump is stupid, so Trump must be smart." 

as far as I'm concerned (and this is suggested in some of the philosophical articles as well) it's a field of its own separate from theology (which is usually interchangeable with the revelatory theology, or whatever it's called).

Well, OK. I'm not invested in deciding the boundaries about what is real theology and what isn't. 

I would like to say, though, that my day is made better by the fact that you comfortable and casually use "its" and "it's" correctly in a sentence. Bless you.

lol, it's second nature for me. Never really understood why it's so difficult for some otherwise intelligent people to see that it's is short for it is, and its is the possessive pronoun. But everyone has their flaws so can't really complain.

[Sal]

Would you be convinced of the existence of Bigfoot by an argument ?

Is there any argument, no matter how sound, that would convince you that Bigfoot exists ?

Would the "take it on faith" phrases that Bigfoot exists sway you at all ?

Now instead of Earth, let's say that people believed Bigfoot existed on another planet. Lots of planets in the universe. It would seem that maybe some kind of creature might exist out there somewhere that would resemble our Bigfoot.

So arguments come into play when NO evidence can be presented.

And if no evidence can be presented, why would you believe ?

The same reason I don't believe in Bigfoot, is the same reason I don't believe in a deity.

It's the lack of evidence. Theists use special pleading for their god.

[snowtracks]

Abductive reasoning is reasoning that attempts to arrive at the best explanation for an event or series of facts. Diagnosticians use this form of reasoning to move from facts or data or events to a coherent, plausible explanation. Examples:
Detectives - evidence to theory;
Scientists - data to hypothesis;
Physicians - symptoms to diagnosis

An example of applying abductive reasoning to the first 2 verses of the Bible to modern science.
Genesis 1:1 - Universe began. 
Genesis 1:2* - Earth started covered with water. ref: Liquid Water At Earth's Surface 4.3 Billion Years Ago, Scientists Discover
*And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Since the Bible stated these scientific facts some 4000 years before modern science, the abductive reasoning conclusion (best explanation) is that these first 2 verses originate from a supernatural source.

All the subsequent verses of the first chapter of Genesis can likewise be validated to agree with modern science when applicable to that category.

[downbeatplumb]

Abductive reasoning is reasoning that attempts to arrive at the best explanation for an event or series of facts. Diagnosticians use this form of reasoning to move from facts or data or events to a coherent, plausible explanation. Examples:
Detectives - evidence to theory;
Scientists - data to hypothesis;
Physicians - symptoms to diagnosis

An example of applying abductive reasoning to the first 2 verses of the Bible to modern science.
Genesis 1:1 - Universe began. 
Genesis 1:2* - Earth started covered with water. ref: Liquid Water At Earth's Surface 4.3 Billion Years Ago, Scientists Discover
*And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Since the Bible stated these scientific facts some 4000 years before modern science, the abductive reasoning conclusion (best explanation) is that these first 2 verses originate from a supernatural source.

All the subsequent verses of the first chapter of Genesis can likewise be validated to agree with modern science when applicable to that category.

Can you see the problem with the bible?

Can you see how light on detail it is the universe began it says, it doesn't say how does it! it does nothing but say there is a universe the same for the rest.

And as nothing has ever been shown to be supernatural you have to show the supernatural is even a thing BEFORE you can show that a god is even a possibility and then you'd have tp show that the particular god you believe in is the culprit. So you aren't even at step 1 of "proving god".