Bad Apologetics (Part 2)

"I can't prove the existence of my god, but hey! Why will I bother myself with all that shit! Let me pass the ball to the nonbelievers."

Very typical.

Most amateur apologists like Mr. Rene Jun Alameda loves to play basketball. They love to throw the burden of proof to the other player - which is easier that giving a defense, right? 

You always find amateur apologists ranting "Atheists claims god doesn't exists so they have  a lot of explaining to do and..." 

Wait?

They started the debate saying their god exists, so why is it now my job to do the explaining?

Anyways, there are methods to prove the nonexistence of something - a logical contradiction will work - I am sure 100% that married bachelors don't exist.   How about some incompatible divine attributes of Rene Jun Alameda's god-like omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omniscience vs. existence of evil. By the way, Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god is considered omnipotent, right? Since the paradox of the stone shows that an omnipotent being cannot exist well, we can use it. How about Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's own statement that an absolute infinite cannot exist - Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god is considered an absolute infinite, therefore...  

Now, these are just logical or should I say, analytical examples of how to prove god doesn't exist - Logic, yes logic is really all about playing with words and statements. 

How about using synthetic distinction? Can we prove nonexistence using synthetic distinction? Sure we can! In a box containing all white marbles, I can say that there are no black, or red, or blue marbles in the box, right? 

So we can ask if a disembodied mind exist? Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god is a disembodied mind right? Well? Can Mr. Rene Jun Alameda prove the existence of a disembodied mind that feels love, jealousy, and anger floating between me and the computer monitor right now? 

But why should we make it hard huh? Most apologetics have already been rebutted and frankly, there are no new arguments - most are just recycled stuff. As philosopher Michael Scriven said, "if we take arguments for the existence of something to include all the evidence which supports the existence claim to any significant degree, i.e. makes it at all probable, then the absence of such evidence means there is no likelihood of the existence of the entity. And this,  of course, is a complete justification for the claim that the entity does not exist, provided that the entity is not one which might leave no traces and provide we have comprehensively examined the area where evidence would appear if there were any."

In other words, if theists like Mr. Rene Jun Alameda failed miserable to justify the existence of his god, then you already got your 100% data that prove Mr. Rene Jun Alameda's god doesn't exist.