By the time anyone reads this, Roger, our single Christian troll, could be long gone. While he is laughable, he’s also a good example of a failed apologetic tactic. I haven’t come up with a good name for it, although I am certainly open to suggestions. Essentially, the tactic is to continually ask for more and more and more evidence for a claim and when, inevitably, no more evidence can be given, the theist simply declares that because science can’t prove their claims, they don’t even have to try. The fact remains that science has given a ton of evidence and religion has given absolutely none.
And yes, Roger, if you’re reading this, we’ve all known that you’re engaging in fallacious debate tactics all along. You’re not fooling anyone.
It’s obvious that these apologists don’t actually have any evidence, or even understand what evidence is, they’re just trying to get away with not backing up their claims for as long as they possibly can. Their standard response is “but you haven’t proven…” and when it’s pointed out that they haven’t done a damn thing, they’ll say “yes, I presented this!” Of course, what they claim to have presented has been totally falsified and discredited but they’re not that interested because they think that holding out against the overwhelming mountains of evidence on the science side and refusing to accept that it proves it’s case somehow makes their entire lack of evidence justified.
But here’s the reality. Even if science doesn’t prove it’s case, that doesn’t mean that religion is any more justified. If science can’t prove, to your satisfaction, that the Big Bang happened, that doesn’t provide any more validation for creationism at all. The only way the religious case gets made is to actually make it and back it up with objective evidence. In that, this fallacy falls close to the “false dichotomy”.
The whole concept of “prove it to me! Prove it to me! Prove it to me! I’m not convinced, therefore I have no need to prove anything to you, I win!” is absurd but it’s also common among Christian apologists. We see it all the time and that’s one reason Christian apologetics are so absurd on their face. They pretend that they want fair treatment and equal time, yet they can’t bring equal evidence to the table. They can’t bring anything to the table other than blind faith and logical fallacy, yet they expect that to be enough and they’re wrong.
I think it all goes back to my 30-second debate technique. We can prove that nature exists. When are the theists going to prove that the supernatural exists? Hey Roger, if you want me to prove nature is real, come on over here and I’ll beat you over the head with a baseball bat until you either admit nature exists in the form of that bat, or you lose consciousness due to blunt force trauma. I can prove reality, now you prove the supernatural, using any technique of your liking that produces comparable results. Let us know when you can do that because until then, we’re not going to take your religious blabbering seriously.
And you shouldn’t take it seriously either, but we know you’ve got some problems upstairs.