The case against god

extract of what you can expect:

Mr. Jones: “An unie exists.”
Mr. White: “Prove it.”
Mr. Jones: “It has rained for three consecutive days—that is my proof.”

If this exchange is less than satisfactory, much of the blame rests with Mr. White: his demand for
proof is premature. Mr. Jones has not specified what an “unie” is; until and unless he does so,
“unie” is nothing but a meaningless sound, and Mr. Jones is uttering nonsense. Without some
description of an “unie,” the alleged proof for its existence is incoherent.

When confronted with the claim that a god exists, the person who immediately demands proof
commits the same error as does Mr. White. His first response should be, “What is it for which you are claiming existence?” The theist must present an intelligible description of god. Until he does so, “god” makes no more sense than “unie”