False. IF god were actually REAL?<quoted text>
True. Objective proof isn't possible and that's why you use that qualifier.
There would be all SORTS of OBJECTIVE FACTS to back his "realness".
Is that the case? Nope.
False. I, for one, would be DELIGHTED if there were a god who gives a cat's meow about humans.No person who argues for or against the existence of God is objective.
Seriously-- I would love for that to be true.
My bias is on record as being positive, therefore.
Alas-- there remains NO REASON TO THINK THIS IS THE CASE.
Your nice wall-o-words goes unread-- because your initial premise is demonstratively false.But bias alone doesn't work as an argument against the truth of any claim. Consider the following logic.
If there are two propositions that we identify as "X" and "-X" respectively, one of which is true, and the other false; and if there are two proponents we identify as "Y" and "Z" and "Y" has a bias in favor of "X" and "Z" has a bias in favor of "-X" then one of them is still correct regardless of bias. This is how the objectivity qualifier fails as an argument against the existence of God or in favor of atheism as a default position or philosophy.
And as such? No argument will convince someone that a yellow, sour lemon is really a chocolate bar.....