There is no evidence because… what evidence would they leave? ‘Skittles’ for droppings?

… to cheer him after the but whoopin’ He got from Swarn Gill the last couple of days. 

No evidence, but True nonetheless 

Pink fluffy unicorns created the universe while dancing on multicolored Rainbows of pure joy. The evidence is all around you, your conscience knows it is True but you “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” in order hold on to your Sin.

(((Suplimented by a comment I left on another BLOG post today, 9-18-16. Another John was making the equally bad argument that there is no evidence ‘because what evidence would there be?’ Then later denying he has any responsibility to produce any. To which I replied… of course I did…)))

This post should be titled “there ain’t no evidence because there ain’t no evidence, but the god of the Bible is real anyways. Just believe”
It could also, just as circularly be titled “there ain’t no evidence because ain’t no evidence, but the pink fluffy unicorn exists anyways. Just believe.”
What a strange argument for someone who is charged with ‘giving an answer to any man for the hope that lies within’
Even worse than “I won’t give you an answer because you wouldn’t accept it anyways”

How would you go about proving me wrong?



83 thoughts on “There is no evidence because… what evidence would they leave? ‘Skittles’ for droppings?

    • Sorry cs, again… Not an atheist. And it’s not anyone “not permitting” the biblical God to exist. It’s that the bible can be demonstrated to be a group of cultural myths and fictional history. The God it presents does not exist.
      There may in face be a God or gods. I no longer believe we would ever know it if there were. But the God of the bible has no evidence whatever to his existence in reality.
      But on a more comical note, how can you say that the Pink FU doesn’t exist somewhere in the vast universe? He revealed himself to me in the video. The Pink FU is obvious. Life and all there is, is the evidence.
      It’s YOU who have become boring by denying him his existence in the universe he created and sustains. -kia

      Liked by 1 person

    • Have to agree with KIA there. You are the one who is the heathen when it comes to pink fluffy unicorns. I mean the onus is on you to prove that they don’t exist. I mean have YOU ever traveled the entire length of the rainbow? I know refracted light normally doesn’t have substance, but we are talking about a magical creature here. They can do anything.

      Seriously CS. I’ll permit God anything he/she wants…but I simply require evidence beyond the ruminations of people 2000 years ago who didn’t have the slightest clue why it rained or why people got sick. In fact it’s quite a reasonable explanation, given how little we understand about the very beginning of the universe that there is a supernatural creator. That of course in no way implies that it is a personal God who responds to prayer and who changes the laws of physics just to please a few of his favorite followers. I’ll follow anything whose actual Word doesn’t contradict everything we know about the world today. Who actually demonstrates omniscience and doesn’t write a book that seems completely oblivious to the fact that there were people living in Australia, and the Americas. If there is a God, the Bible is a great injustice the greatness of someone who created such a vast universe and all the amazing physical laws that govern it. The creation of the universe is but a solid couple chapters in the book of Genesis. Seems a bit short for 13.8 billion years, and then spends most of the time talking about petty conflicts, wars, and dealings with different people. Where is the homage to the true glory that is creation. There is so little about the actual glory of the physical universe. As far as we know 99.999 (ad as many 9’s as you want) % of this universe has nothing to do with us at all, and it’s amazing. Compared to a God who could create an entire universe man is not much greater than a microbe, and yet it’s all about man. That’s a level of conceit beyond comparison. And so what creator could such a being create? Well one that needs worship 24/7 in order to feel special. The Christian God is nothing more than a reflection of human conceit. You are the one that worships the arrogance of humanity. So no one knows arrogance like the Judeo-Christian zealot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You travel great lengths gill in your attempt to unseat God. Hilarious really.

        But u should ask yourself THIS question. What evidence would satisfy you of His being, out side of life itself?

        What evidence will make you run quickly from the clutches of a world where there are no absolutes, no arithmetic, no medicine, and no life?

        What evidence will arouse your brain to the degree than u can say: ‘yes! God made it all?’

        Waiting patiently, as any answer will condemn you.


            • You can say it for the 100th time, it still doesn’t change the fact that you don’t get it.

              1. First you must prove that there is a God. You haven’t done that yet.
              2. Then you must prove that the Bible is actually God’s word.
              3. Then you must explain why we should take any God seriously who has arguments with ants.

              Liked by 2 people

              • Swarm I admire your persistence. In my case I have long since given up having a sensible conversation with our friend CS.

                I do at times wonder whether CS really believes what he says or whether he is on some sort of epic trolling exercise. I say this because we have all consistently demonstrated that the Bible text has some real issues with it. Indeed CS admits that he is aware of the problems with the ending of Mark’s Gospel and the story of the Women caught in adultery from John’s Gospel. CS appears to acknowledge that the evidence says these were later additions to the Bible.

                …And Yet….

                CS continues to argue that there is only one version of the Bible which is set forever in heaven.

                Likewise, time and time again we have shown to CS clear evidence that shows evolution to be true and yet he denies it.

                I am now convinced that the issue with people of faith like CS can’t be evidence. No amount of evidence seems to move them. It seems they have reached a conclusion and then only accept evidence that validates that conclusion. Contrary evidence is just dismissed with a proverbial wave of the hand.

                As someone who seems to have a keen understanding of psychology, perhaps you can explain to me what appears be going on in CS’ head.

                Liked by 3 people

              • Yeah it doesn’t take long to figure out that CS is playing a game over and above being sincere in his beliefs. Because there is signs of cleverness, but is a terrible apologist. In talk a lot with Victoria I do concur that he seems most likely more of a huckster of sorts. He definitely likes attention though and perhaps that’s all he’s in it for is the attention, because he responds in a way that constantly gives you something to respond to by not actually arguing any points, just constantly changing the subject. If you can’t tell I have given up in trying to convince him of anything, just having a bit of fun. He seems to ask for the abuse almost enjoy it. And I am kind of enjoying capitulating. lol

                More important it’s what fluffy unicorns dancing on rainbows would want me to do. 🙂

                Liked by 2 people

              • Should ants at all be able to ask the question of their origin, I’m pretty sure it goes no further back than the queen ant of their hive. And for all I know they may argue with her, although I would think there argument skills be limited. You’ve once again demonstrated that if there is one person who should not be narrating a documentary about animals it’s you.

                It’s also pretty awesome that you ignored #1 and #2, and decided to comment about #3 which was just put in as a joke. You always have zero to say when it comes to actual making a substantive argument for your position. Have you considered a career in politics?

                Liked by 2 people

              • True. But such politicians seem to popular when it comes election time. He’s just not a very good apologist, because he doesn’t actually defend his positions in any substantive way…so that’s why I thought politics might be better, because at least you can just say shit and people get impressed by it. lol

                Liked by 1 person

              • Very true. The propaganda effect is the same. It’s really all about getting others to believe and accept what you say, true or not. At least politicians have a small bit of accountability every 2 or 4 yrs. Apologists have none whatever.
                Cs pretends at apologetics, but it’s really just spewing stuff and not caring whether it’s actually true or not

                Liked by 2 people

              • He’s just following the Bible’s lead. “In the beginning God…”
                It doesn’t explain, doesn’t demonstrate, doesn’t establish. It just assumes and all the rest is built on not asking for support of that assertion.

                Liked by 1 person

              • That’s why he comes off as more of a huckster because he seems smart enough to not be such a follower. But I guess that’s also good politician stuff. Stay on topic, don’t get side tracked by having to explain a lot of important stuff. He reminds a bit of Trump just saying he’s going to build a wall about 20 times in an interview and that’s all people will remember. Not the fact that you made absolutely no sense anywhere in between. lol

                Liked by 1 person

              • At the end of the day, apologetics is declaration with a shitstorm of whatever they have to say that convinces people to believe, whether that reflects reality or not. It’s not really about reality. It’s about the declaration

                Liked by 1 person

              • I would never buy anything cs sells on a car lot. The only reason anyone ‘buys’ what Apologists sell is that they are forbidden or punished for asking for the ‘car fax’

                Liked by 1 person

              • Gill-


                The reason 1. and 2. were not answered? Seriously?

                Don’t blame me for your stubbornness.

                If you need other people to convince you of God’s being, I suggest a course on honesty and how we lie to ourselves.

                (And the rally cries of your kin here is equally amusing)

                It’s like watching a fish on a hook trying to wiggle out of the rod of truth.

                The truth of God always makes the lies of men uncomfortable.

                ‘Whose image is on the coin…………..?’

                The image of God is much easier to see……………….life has that effect.


              • Your life seems to be full of things you assume to be true but not actually true. You see I’ve gone down all the avenues before, and thought long and hard about the subject, worked hard to understand logic and how to evaluate evidence. It is the reason my views on the divine are what they are.

                If you don’t want to take the time to provide any substance for your assertions, I don’t really care, but my concern is that what you’ve revealed so far shows you to be a person whose beliefs are without substance. Someone who decided I am going to make this one book the authority on everything and just go with it and evidence and logic be damned. You only assert and never defend your assertion and so your arguments carry no weight. You like to use analogies. They consist of submarines, peashooters, ants, and dogs that don’t talk but all of that is just a restatement of what you assert to be true rather than a defense of why what you assert is true. That’s a big difference that you fail to grasp. And again the burden of proof is on you. You are the one making the assertion that an invisible being exists and has all these characteristics, not me. If we are to use only the book in which these ideas originate in as evidence for your claim, then all books that claim the existence of such invisible agents and their characteristics must also be equally true. If we are to use then anecdotal evidence to support the claims of these books, then we also must put all belief systems on equal footing since there are many people in each religion who believe as wholeheartedly in the truth of their scriptures. This is why Appeal to Authority and Anecdotal Evidence fail as logical defenses of a position. The Christian Truth, Islamic Truth, or whatever religious proof you want, must also provable without those books at all. I don’t need the second law of thermodynamics to be written down in a book…I can go out and prove it again. If all religions and memories of them disappeared today I have no doubt religions would crop up again, but they’d be different and composed of different stories. Given what we know of the universe today, different events and actions would be ascribable to God, the creation story would be different. And once again the nature of God would be a reflection of man.

                The fact that we have cognitive biases as a function of our evolution, the fact that we tend to find patterns where none exist, the fact that we apply intentionality to things that have no intention, the fact that we tend to fear things we don’t understand, the fact that we feel great despair and feel helpless are facts of life. It is our biology. There is no mystical reason why religion is here. Religion is quite explainable through evolution and neuroscience.

                You have suggested a course in how we lie to ourselves…that’s funny. You know I’d love to know any religion to be true, because then life would be easy and certain. However life is hard and uncertain because things change. I suggest you take a course in willful ignorance, psychology, logic, how science works, history, archaeology, and biology, because there is really whole wealth of information that you see to ignore. But I’d start with the willful ignorance course first because then you can determine whether you are willfully choosing to be ignorant of all the things that strip away your ideas to be nothing more than a conjured idea resting entirely on faith, or whether you are just ignorant and move from there.


              • Seriously gill?

                I suggest you go into the lab, grab your friends, and using nothing, create the human brain. Good luck with that. This is where your atheism and godless evolution is ripped to shreds..

                I have enough sense to recognize that ‘things made……………’ require a Maker.

                Or perhaps the chair you are sitting on was put together by an accidental tornado………….

                Further. You make the mistake by asserting God cannot be seen. That’s your problem not mine.

                In addition, you incorrectly place Islam in the same sentence with Christianity, which demands no one to blow themselves up. What a lame point you make, and it proves your insincerity.

                Once more, your problem not mine.

                Finally, answer two questions from God that probe your conscience:

                1. Where are you?
                2. Where were you when the heavens and the earth were created?

                See ya.


              • LOL…Two questions from God? God isn’t asking me any questions, you are. Unless….well…are you God? Is that why you have chosen a lion as your gravitar? Hmmm… I have to walk outside soon and I’d love to have the humidity reduced and the temperature cooled down. I promise to believe in you CS if you can do that.

                So things that are made require a maker. Who made God then? Then who made that maker, and so on?

                Wait I know your answer. God was never made he just always was? Something to that effect right? In that case how do we know that the universe wasn’t always here, just in a different shape, from a single point to the expanded mess we have now. We don’t know that the universe was made, so again with your loaded questions fallacy.

                But even if I were to take this unverifiable assumption seriously and say that only an omnipotent God could have made the universe, once again it does not prove that it was the Christian God. It does not prove that there were two Gods or 3 or 4. We can have lots of Gods. There is nothing implicit about your assertion that God is one.

                Actually YOU make the mistake of not taking a photograph if God can be seen. And if you are going to give me some garbage about having lots of photographs of life and that’s your proof, that is not proof of God, I can explain life without God. (please don’t make me explain the birds and the bees to you…although I’m guessing you don’t know much about how birds and bees work).

                Finally you’ve just revealed your knowledge of the very book you say you hold as truth to be lacking. The violence in the bible very literally does make the Koran look like a religion of peace in comparison. I am very glad there are few Christians making martyrs of themselves anymore I am all for more subtle ways to make one’s point.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Hey gill:

                Just one word. Do you own the copyrights and trademarks to the conscience? The design of the heart? The composition of the blood? The difference between male and female, man and woman? You are in no position to sit in judgment of One who is perfect. God is not on trial, you are. Man is.

                And perhaps you should do a life study on He who brought grace and truth. Just sayin.

                Your repetition of borrowed excuses are as old as time. (and to you in the bleachers, this bud’s for you)


              • I am not judging God. I know of know such entity to pass judgment on. But if we were to play hypothetically, then I am endowed with a mind to reason, and thus I am quite free to judge God. I may be wrong in my judgement, but I do have the ability to judge. Such is the consequence of making people in your image. It’s true just as John Zande, if there were a God I would not see Him as benevolent in any way shape or form. But I in no way hold any anger in my heart for things that I don’t believe exist…and I refuse to live in hypothetical fantasy world as you do, except in the case of just an intellectual exercise of thought.


              • My oh my gill.

                By the way, in case you are not aware, the TWO questions I asked were in fact questions asked by God.

                Look them up, they will be more valuable to you if I do not spoon feed them to you.

                (But you may want to consider where oh where came the idea by a man to kill his brother.being he was not hungry………….) 😉

                Clue: It wasn’t God’s suggestion. And evolution had no part. And science had no part. There is this little three lettered word: sin…….

                Deny it all you want to your intellectual demise.

                And to mike: wake up.


              • Were you there when they were asked by God?

                Sin is only a valid argument if there is divine law. There is no proof of such a thing so scaring me with the word sin is meaningless. You subscribe to fiction, plain and simple. I’m sorry but I refuse to take anything you say seriously unless you can verify the premises to which your logic rests which you have not done in any way that isn’t logically fallacious.


              • Can you prove the divine origins of the ‘law’ of light and death? These things exist and are part of life and reality. However your interpretation of them as ‘divine law’ is just that. An interpretation based on your belief in their origins from the god of the Bible. Please demonstrate… not from the bible…please demonstrate the proof that these ‘laws’ are divine in origin.


              • Cs, what you don’t seem to realize is that every time you simply assert these things with no evidence or demonstration that they are in fact and reality True… you are the one, by way of your own analogy, promulgating the idea that 2 plus 2 equals 5


              • DEATH IS DIVINE LAW.
                DAYLIGHT IS DIVINE LAW.

                You not believing this hardly makes it not true.

                But babble? Ha. You wish.You will never win an argument against God or scripture.

                Now then, as to being mopped up……………

                Please stop. Your recalcitrance overflowing the banks of blogsville.


              • Oh thank goodness you put it in all capital letters… It just be true. I can’t possibly ignore the intelligence of an argument put in all capital letters. You know no one took Einstein seriously until he put E=mc^2 all in capital letters. True story.

                I know it’s hard for you to understand that belief is not what makes things true. See for instance I don’t have to believe that you are unfamiliar with how we come to understand how things work. I can conclude this based on your inability to provide logic and evidence behind your assertions. Call me crazy but I like to have empirical evidence before I determine what the truth might be. And even then I don’t just assume it’s true. I mean in your next response you might say something reasonable. Then I’ll think okay the higher reasoning center in the brain of CS DOES work! I’ll be excited because then we might have the basis for a debate!

                And you used your appeal to authority logical fallacy again… But I already have that one marked on my bingo card.


              • Debate gill?
                No man has ever won a debate against the word of God. Period. Don’t flatter yourself.

                There is however Christ Himself. His name is called the Word of God.

                Can you hear the thunder in the distance…………..yep, truth is always nearby.


              • Well it seems past data was the best predictor of your response. Absolutely hopeless again. You seem to somehow think that everything written in that violent book of yours is true without question. As it turns out questioning authority is really important. Because you find out all sorts of things. For instance I’m sure you understand how questioning the authority of the Koran is helpful in letting you discount that belief system as valid. Well as it turns out you can also question the bible in the same way. As it turns out it seems to be as full of shit as the Koran. Now I suggest you Google cognitive dissonance and ponder the meaning of that for a little while.


        • “There are no absolutes” I agree. This might be the first sensible thing you’ve said thus far. Here I got the impression that you thought the Word was the absolute truth. So at least some part of you accepts that there is no certainty, and for that I agree. Perhaps we just disagree on what we consider less certain then others.

          “No arithmetic”???? Not even sure what that means. There is definitely arithmetic. I use it often. Math is logic. We’ve already determined that you don’t use it very well. Of course math must be applied for it to have value. Of course where logic has no application such ideas should be treated dubiously.

          “No medicine”. Took some for my allergies yesterday, made me feel great.

          “No life”? Can’t even begin to guess what you mean here. There is lots of life…at least on Earth…although in the universe life seems to be rare.

          To answer your question, which is a good one, and for which I have a very simple answer. In fact I don’t even care about the omnipotent part all that much…it’s hard thing to prove, although I suppose conjuring a thunderstorm in the Antarctic winter would be a good show of proof. So is he shows up. Teleports me to the Antarctic in winter and creates a thunderstorm, I will be adequately impressed with the that entity’s power. As far omniscience such a being should have amazing predictive powers. To prove omniscience I would like detailed prediction of events that have not happened. Detailed in both space and time. Such a being who can convince me that they can bend the laws of physics to their will, and have a great enough understanding of the laws of physics to predict events before they happen will make me a believer in God.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Gill, gill, gill, you are a sloppy reader on this one.

            The world of no absolutes is from the point of view of an atheist: You.

            There are absolutes. 2 plus 2 equals four, get it?

            Scripture is true, and God is absolutely. You read carelessly, and thus do you come to careless conclusions.

            You have just assigned something to me not implied, intended, nor is any where in the context.

            Of course there are absolutes, ever heard of sin and death? Ever heard of the rebellious heart of man? The 2nd law of thermo?

            Sure you have. It is absolutely true. And once more: God has never lost an argument to ants.

            And as you discount math as a mere formality, I challenge you to study the reality of the truth of math; its very dna is thanks to the Creator. God is exact after all.


            • Yes, I read carelessly…or you write carelessly. Difficult to say. You know if you had a history of saying sensible things people would misinterpret your words less.

              Actually we don’t know for sure that death is absolute…I mean one form of you dies sure, but what if we could one day preserve consciousness, reverse aging…things that seem absolute in the present may not be so. And even the second law of thermodynamics may in time be proven to not be absolute. We do not know.

              “God is absolutely”. You see…your grammar error makes your statements confusing.

              Math is metaphysical, unless applied it has no value in of itself…it is once those ideas are applied that uncertainty creeps in for everything we apply it to is based on our perspective, and we are imperfect. There likely are absolutes, but whether we actually know any of them, we cannot say. What we can say is that what we know through science represents the best working model of the universe at any one time.

              DNA can be explained by science rather well, and yes it does seem to conform to binary code very well. There is no question that there is a logic embedded into the nature of the universe. Again none of it implies a creator, only the possibility of one. Actually it could be multiple gods, who knows. It also doesn’t imply the Christian God or a personal God. But DNA is not perfect, we know many conditions that result from DNA defects. We DNA mutates randomly, and not perfectly because many mutations do not lead to evolutionary advantage. So God doesn’t seem to have the details worked out yet.

              But if math and God are aligned, none of your arguments for God follow that logic. You make logical errors constantly. Why should the existence of the creator lie in proofs that require faith and not math. You say scripture is true and yet so much of scripture is unverified, disproven, and written by the imperfect hand of man. Logic would dictate that God’s very existence should be provable at any point in time. I answered your question which you completely ignored, because you know that no such proof exists as there is no such God. Such requirements are not unreasonable as proof. The Bible is a poorly written and vague historical text written about a small populated region of the earth during a small historical period in time. Many of the stories come from older religions, and nothing written in that book proves that there is an omnipotent and omniscient personal God. Don’t lecture me about mathematics and logic until you can apply it to your Bible.

              Liked by 1 person

    • Wow, Storm!
      Your very own feature on Pastor Mike’s blog?
      I’m jealous!
      We’ve been spinning the God-deniers in circles at The Comedy Sojourn for months now. But we have two rules: the conversation stays THERE. (We have a church already, and refuse to attend the heathen one, thanks.) AND we require Atheists (and non-non-theists-who-won’t-call-themselves-Atheists) to provide a few answers before they’ll get any more from us…

      Weirdly, none of them have gone back to their own blogs to brag about their conquests since then. I suspect they know whose “butt” has been getting “a whopping,” and it’s not any of the Theists. 😉

      You’re welcome to pop in any time.
      (Edit: link removed per Kia.)


      • @MrsM
        Pastor mike? Now that is pure comedy. But truth be told, I am a regular target of the knowitall’s place; and this recent toast with the cadre of godless disciples is just more proof that God’s word is completely true.

        My commentary tends to excite the multitudes, \o/) and the sight of people trying to stamp out daylight is somewhat hilarious.

        Did ya hear the joke about the atheist who said he could design the human body better than God?

        Yeah, no joke, and these people think their arguments make God disappear.

        Comedy gold. Imagine the shaking fists aimed at heaven telling God the moon is not quite right, or that the sun could be improved upon.

        Foolishness pays so little and demands so much.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hi there and thx for popping in.
        Correction though, I’m not and never have been a pastor, perse. But was a Christian for 34 years and a minister/missionary for 25.
        I did youth pastor for awhile as well as disciple men, but I was never a vocational pastor.
        Second note… You are perhaps the rudest most arrogant woman I’ve ever had the displeasure of communicating with. Toodles. -ka

        Liked by 1 person

  1. LOL!! That’s the sort of song that’s going to get stuck in my head and have me believing in unicorns in no time! I think that was a big problem for me as a teenager into music, that Christianity never really had much good music. I might have stayed Christian if I was black and went to black church. Those choirs no how to lift spirits through the power of music…even if it isn’t the power of Jesus!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Having read a recent post on CS’s blog, I take it that this is ‘the Den of Thieves’ to which he is referring.

    Though to be fair I think Den of Iniquity would be a better term if he is looking to take a cheap shot.

    My term for CS’ place would be ‘Fantasyland’.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Hey mike,

    No one needs to prove you wrong. Your rebellion to what is obvious tightens your own noose.
    Some day you will give up the old, dry, and stale goods of a world without God, and come to your sense. In that day you will reconsider the rainbow and maybe wake up from your stupor.

    And while I’m here, God has never lost an argument to ants, bless them little creatures. (lots of ant scurrying in these parts)


      • Well then, it would appear the issue is more on your end in that case……….to be so interested in one so mentally ill equipped…….

        ………but of course truth be told, far greater minds have been accused of far greater things……….

        As a matter of fact, the Word Himself was said to have a devil; Paul a madman, and the apostles ignorant and unlearned. But this delightful truth eludes you.

        Tkx though for the undeserved compliment.


      • Why guess? Why not be evaluated by a professional (psychiatrist, neuroscientist, etc) as see what the verdict is?
        I think this is the first time I have ever heard someone being referred to as insane and calling it an undeserved compliment.
        It really is true with the religious. You NEVER know what they’re gonna say next!

        Liked by 2 people

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s