Can any atheists explain this--see details?

Question

The other day I asked atheists on this forum whether God could exist. The general consensus was a "no". Yet when someone asks atheists to prove God doesn't exist, atheists claim you can't prove a negative. But if a person is completely sure God couldn't possibly exist, then he must also be sure God doesn't exist. If a person is even reasonably sure God couldn't possibly exist, then he must be at least reasonably sure God doesn't exist.

Therefore, when someone asks an atheist to show that God doesn't exist, that's the same as saying "Give me your reasons why you think God couldn't possibly exist."

So why do atheists give inconsistent answers based on the way the question is worded? Are atheists inherently irrational? Are they intellectually dishonest? Are they brainwashed and they don't know how to respond if a question doesn't match the list of talking points they downloaded from an atheist website? What's the deal?

Sorry, Scott C, but neither your name nor your icon is familiar to me. I looked through the first ten pages of answers you have given here on YA and I didn't see my icon apart from this question. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else.

No, Lunagirl, it's not the same argument over and over again. I am NOT asking atheists to prove the existence of God. I am asking them to explain why their answers are irrational. If an atheist is sure that God couldn't possibly exist, he most have some reason for his assurance. Right? Then why can't any atheist rationally explain their reasoning behind their comclusion thag God couldn't possibly exist?

Let's say I assert that cats don't exist.

You ask me to prove cats don't exist.

I say, I can't. I say it's impossible to prove cats don't exist.

So you ask me if cats are possible.

I say nope, cats are impossible.

But here's the problem: the reasoning I used to assert that the existence of cats is impossible IS a proof that cats don't exist.

If cats are impossible, by definition they can't exist. Get it?

Nope, Madkins, that's not an answer to my question because no one has argued yet that gremlins couldn't possibly exist.

If I say gremlins might exist, but I haven't seen any evidence of them. That is rational. That's NOT what the majority on YA R&S are saying.

What they are saying is that gremlins couldn't possibly exist. Why not? Because they haven't seen any evidence. The problem with that approach is that once you close your mind to the possibility of gremlins, you won't recognize the evidence when you see it. For example, here is a piece of evidence that gremlins do exist, just that they are not what you naively expected a gremlin to be: http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/bv/images/gremlin.jpg

Answer 1

You can't prove a negetive. Therefor, you presume the negetive to be correct until proven otherwise.

Cats don't exist. Oh no, wait, there's a cat. Therefor, they must exist.

Unicorns don't exist. ... .... ...... Still not seeing unicorns.... helloooo unicorn.... here unicorn unicorn unicorn.... Nope, doesn't exist.
Until you find me a unicorn, it's safe to preusme it doesn't exist. GHell, find me a unicorn hoofprint. Something that proves beyond a doubt a unicorn was ehre.

Burdon of proof is always n the positive claim.
Cats exist. See. Cat.
Unicorns exist. I've never seen one, but I FEEL it....

You cannot prove a negetive. It's not possible. Simple as. You can DISPROVE a negetive. So until disproven, it is considered to be true. Most things are quite simple to prove. Some are more complex. But always, for a positive, proof is required. Maybe the proof can later be disproved, but that's not the same thing.

It is not inconsistant. Your understanding is inconsistant. You don't understand what burdon of proof means or the logical impossiblity. If there is no positive evidence, negetive is presumed. That's enough reason. That's what theyre saying. And the evidence so far presented is nonsence and bullshit.

It's kinda simple. But not for simple minds.



... still no unicorn....

Answer 2

Maybe didfferent people are answering the questions different ways.

If you ask me, "does god exist", and I answer "no", that doesn't mean I can prove the nonexistence of gods, it merely means I don't find the case in favor of the existence of gods in any way compelling. It's a rational judgement based on lack of evidence, not a mathematical proof, much like a court decision.

The fact is, you can't prove the nonexistence of something that doesn't exist, UNLESS, that something is defined in an inconsistent way, or if the existence of that something would result necessitate observables that are not observed.

Is this the case for ALL gods? No. That's why a general disproof of gods is not possible. Is it the case for SOME gods? Yes, and for those gods we can disprove their existence.

The god in question is probably the omni^3 creator god of the dominant monotheistic religions of the world?

We can disprove the existence of that god by showing it is inconsistently defined, and by showing it is inconsistent with observations.

Set theory has been used to prove the inconsistency of 'omnipotence'. Therefor there is no omnipotent god. The vernacular demonstration of this is the 'can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it'. The same thing can be done for omniscience and omnipresence.

We can also prove that the concept of creation is inconsistent by simply observing that creation is an act. An act implies a minimum of two nosimultaneous states, namely nonexistence FOLLOWED by existence. But this requires the pre-existence of time, which is part of what's being created; i.e. it requires the simultaneous existence and nonexistence of time, which is a contradiction. So, it's impossible for the universe to have been created, and thus there is no creator.

Observationally, we observe conservation of energy, which means energy is never created nor destroyed. It's irrational to conclude that energy once did not exist based on this observation.

Answer 3

There are multiple logical problems with belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving that allows all the evil and suffering in the world. And that is only the start of the arguments that God (as the Christians/Muslims/Jews believe in a God).

Also, if God created the world, who created God. This is a good argument I think because theists argue a lot that ordered complexity like we see in the world can only arise though 'intellegent design'. But since God would have to be the most advanced and complex creature imaginable, where did God come from?

I'm sure someone can take some natural thing that obviously exists and call that 'god' but that does not count . . .

Answer 4

When someone states that Odin, Kukulkan, Ra or Apollo don't exist, I don't see people (including christians) to go through a set of evidences and arguments to prove the non-existence of such deities, I don't see anyone claiming to be an "agnostic" when it comes to such deities, even if they don't have "all the knowledge of the universe" to state such claim absolute certainty. All you need is sufficient evidence (or lack of it) to state an opinion with certainty. For an atheist, it's exactly the same case for the judeo-christian god or any mythological chimera.

When someone uses the "lack of proof of the nonexistence" to prove that god does exists, this person is falling in the "negative proof" fallacy. You might know this fallacy pretty well and apparently this is not your question. Even though, some people use the "there is no god on Alaska" analogy, which is a false analogy as well, since the analogs objects of the fallacy (gold and god) aren’t analogs at all, that is to say, people pretend to use a well defined and verifiable object like gold as the analog of god, which we are trying to prove it’s well defined and verifiable. The gold statement could be verified as true or false, the god statement can’t be.

Now take a few concepts of the definition of the christian god: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, all loving, interventionist god, send signs and answers, judge people, punish people, created the universe and everything in it, does miracles. Is there evidence of such things? No. Does Odin exist? No. Does Zeus exist? No. Does the judeo-christian god exist? No. And that’s the reasonable answer using the very definiton of god proposed by the bible (here is when apologetics come in), I don’t see any “reasonable” answer to state god does exist apart from faith. Do you claim there are evidences apart from faith? Show them.

Do you believe cerberus is guarding the gates of hell? Does Phlegyas take people's soul to Hades? Does valkyries bring the great warriors to Valhalla? Do you really need to prove the non-existence of this to state a big "NO"? Or are you continuously entertaining such questions?

Answer 5

"Absence of evidence is evidence of absence"

let's change the statement: "Do gremlins exist?"

Can we prove they DO exist? Nope.

Can we prove they don't? Nope.

How then should we act? Should we all go out and buy Gremlin Repellent? Pray over machines to appease the Gremlins and keep them at bay?

Which makes more sense with no proof... living like there are gremlins, or as if there were none? Which requires taking actions, making changes, and just plain doing stuff- in the face of no evidence?

(By the way, I DO believe in God- I just understand why they don't.)

Answer 6

The "deal" is that you proceed from a false assumption.
If something does not exist (like god) the burden of proof is NOT on the person that rejects the notion, but on the person that says the object or pixie in question does exist.
For instance, if I were to tell you that I have a magic orange squirrel in my yard that eats glass and spits out diamonds, would you believe me? No, of course not, only the fundamentally stupid or retarded would believe me without proof. You, being a reasonable person (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here) would require some sort of proof. And until that proof is given, (and handing you a diamond is not proof, diamonds come from many different places) the squirrel simply does not exist.
See the difference? Good.

Answer 7

I've personally corrected your erroneous interpretation of "you can't prove a negative" and referenced explicit/strong atheist sources for arguments demonstrating the impossibility of god. Yet here you are, same old babbling nonsense. Why do you refuse - at the very least - to understand the point of view of other people?

www.infidels.org Now read it this time, the WHOLE THING!

Answer 8

its the same as saying god does exist,im not an athiest,but honestly,youve never met god personally,he has never come before you and introduced himself,i still believe in him,but never met him,theres alot of rubbish in the bible,like with noah,i refuse to believe im a child of incest,if it was noah his 3 sons and theyre wives,they repopulated the world right,that means incest,no matter how you cut it its incest,you cant say because the bible says god existed that he did,because steven hawkings proved the existance of black holes and such,my question is how do we know god didnt create us to evolve,so all the dinasaur bones and other findings are fake then,seems like someone was going far out of theyre way to plant the bones in those places,and if thats the case whos to say the religious people didnt do the same you know?and also dont forget the bible was written many many years after jesus,so words can be doctored we didnt know the men who wrote it so we cant judge theyre character,im just a fair person who looks at both sides not just my PERSONAL beliefs,either way peace to all

Answer 9

Let's call a spade a spade, not just any god, you're wanting to know about your christian god. And using logic, your christian god cannot exist.

One canot be omniscient and still provide "free will". It is a logical impossibility.

Guess the scribes didn't figure out that our brains would progress past that of goat herders huh?

Also, the burden of proof is on your behalf. You must prove god exists, athiests do not prove that he/she doesn't.

Answer 10

At least we know how to spell DENIAL.

Well, see, what youve done here is a circular arguement. Telll you what - Ill prove God doesnt exist the moment you prove that god DOES exist. Sound fair??? Another analogy - you and I both know unicorns and faeiries dont exist, Santa doesnt exist and the tooth fairy doesnt exist. But CAN YOU PROVE IT??? Didnt think so...

So, your arguement is inherrantly flawed. And remember - youre the one who has been brainwashed to beleive the same dogmatic crap that your fathers and mothers beleived.