the ignotist and Occam arguments

[Griggsy]

Thus here we can perforce "prove" a universal negative: God cannot exist! Incoherent,contradictory attributes for Him and no referents as Creator and so forth give evidence for His non-existence.
Again, by analysis,not a priori or by dogma this rules!
The real query remains how to get believers to take off their blinders to face reality. No, we naturalists already face reality. Advanced theologians and apologists acknowledge problems but still cannot discern why their arguments forever fail. They arrogantly whine that why, gnu atheists just don't fathom modern theologies. We however do and find them silly.
We naturalists just have to answer anew their old arguments in new suits. Patience, that virtue, remains our duty to perform. We do fathom how theists do have concerns and so we will address them.
As a fallibilist, I acknowledge that I certainly can err,but no one can ever square that circle!

[shunyadragon]

Thus here we can perforce "prove" a universal negative: God cannot exist! Incoherent,contradictory attributes for Him and no referents as Creator and so forth give evidence for His non-existence.
Again, by analysis,not a priori or by dogma this rules!
The real query remains how to get believers to take off their blinders to face reality. No, we naturalists already face reality. Advanced theologians and apologists acknowledge problems but still cannot discern why their arguments forever fail. They arrogantly whine that why, gnu atheists just don't fathom modern theologies. We however do and find them silly.
We naturalists just have to answer anew their old arguments in new suits. Patience, that virtue, remains our duty to perform. We do fathom how theists do have concerns and so we will address them.
As a fallibilist, I acknowledge that I certainly can err,but no one can ever square that circle!

I believe any attempt to prove any negative is futile and illogical. I consider the existence of the ancient God(s) of Judaism and Christianity very unlikely, and the traditional logical arguments are like trying to drive square pegs into round holes, but the existence of a 'Source' some call God(s) has not been effectively addressed in the debates and dialogue yet.

[Griggsy]

No, not only does this argument makes this universal negative. Each argument for Him fails so that they together make that negative! Richard Carrier @ Internet Infidels [FRDB] makes the case for this.That site alone eviscerates theism-that superstition.
Oh,pray to me for the same results as praying to Him,but I acknowledge my no can do whilst theists rationalize about His!
I've already shown how His attributes are incoherent and contradictory!
Spirit is a place holder for the argument from ignorance!

[Griggsy]

As noted @ arguments about God, one argument alone dispels the idea that the term God has substance other than being an interjection- the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth the teleonomic argument that notes as science finds no divine intent, then without that intent He cannote be Himself, thereby lacking all referents in which intent moves such as Creator, Designer and so forth. Without those referents, He has no substance and thus cannot exist.
This is where I differ from Alfred Jules Ayer and Theodore Drange as I show the appearance of vacuity in that argument and others so that as cacuous ,He cannot exist.
The traditional case if that of finding His attributes contradictory and incoherent. The problem of evil alone shatters Him! Omniceince, omnibenevolence and omnipotence would abolish unrequired evils as the thread the definitive refutation of the free will argument so reverberates.
The Star Trek argument is that were He perfect, He'd only have created perfection but as Hume's dysteological argument notes, we find innumerable imperfections to which Alvin Plantinga's absurd argument that omni-God can make flourishes - imperfections- whilst limited God would have to make perfections.
Can God see the future without our having free will. That conflicts with reality. Perhaps, some other entity makes for His knowing the future in detail without His interference with our putative free will What ever, to know our futures violates physics -no clairvoyance.
He cannot be transcendent and omnipresent, as transcendence precludes the other.
See arguments about God to see why He cannot be transcendent anyway!
We rationalists allow for the sake of argument that He cannot do the logically impossiible ,so,no, that He could create a stone so heavy that He couldn't lift it fails to count against Him.
So, this ignostic argument is no mere parody!