Scientific evidence of God (by an atheist)

[SGOS]

Hmmm..........I don't see it.  Or do you mean the comics?

Nothing follows.  It has the appearance of a syllogism that is going somewhere, except none of the parts have a connection to each other.  Nothing follows, least of all, the conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

"Often, in fact, 'non sequitur' is used when an irrelevancy is showing up in the conclusion."

[Mike Cl]

Nothing follows.  It has the appearance of a syllogism that is going somewhere, except none of the parts have a connection to each other.  Nothing follows, least of all, the conclusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Actually, I prefer the comics.  Since the Far Side and Calvin wend down, I rely on Non Sequitur for my chuckles.

[Cavebear]

Actually, I prefer the comics.  Since the Far Side and Calvin wend down, I rely on Non Sequitur for my chuckles.

I depend on Dilbert mostly.  But then I WAS an office type for 35 years...

[Cavebear]

I can refute the first two premises.

You used the plural "gods".  Unless all gods are equally perfect then one is more perfect than another.  This is not possible since there is nothing better than perfect.  A perfect being would by necessity be one-of-a-kind (<<this is the part where I start arbitrarily making shit up).  Therefore gods cannot be perfect.

And the for second premise I have just three words.  Whale pattern baldness.

The 2 perfect deities are clones...  In fact, that is how the previous deities made them to keep the pattern.  As clones, they are logically only one deity and never argue with themself.

Well, I tried...

[Unbeliever]

Mammals have perfect fur.

A sasquatch also has fur:


A sasquatch with fleas in his fur
Scratched so fast that his hands were a blur
He had hair when he started
But soon it departed
Then it was obvious - he was a her.