Why does the non-existence of God need to be proven?

Question

Why, when asked for a proof of God, does every religious person respond with "give me a proof that God doesn't exist" or "you can't prove he doesn't exist"?

Why do any of us need to disprove a belief in something imaginary given without any physical evidence? The burden of the proof is on those claiming fantastical fictional fallacies.

Does Santa Clause exist, just because you can't prove he doesn't?

EDIT: Please don't compare this to evolution, of which there is much evidence. Besides fossils (which some loonies think the Devil put there to confuse us - talk about rationalization with an agenda), one needs only look at the multitude strains of viruses and bacteria that have adapted to the cures we have created.

And ROY: My thoughts do have a physical counterpart. Neurons are firing in my brain as I think and different areas of my brain light up with activity when I am thinking about different things.

However, let me rephrase my original question:

What do you mean by "you can't prove god doesn't exist"? What else do I need other than the complete lack of proof that god does exist, for thousands of years?

It'd be like me claiming two invisible mini pink elephants sit on each of your shoulders and watch what everything you do, taking down notes. You don't need to prove that it's not real, because it's made up. If I want to claim it's real, I need to give you some proof.

EDIT2: Please don't compare this to electricity. We can measure electricity in many ways. It doesn't have to be physically seen for us to prove it is there, although, take a gander at lightning next time you're in a storm. There is no way to measure god at all. And, if you want to talk about the 'effects' of god, I point you to almost every war that's been waged.

Also, please don't use the argument "something must have created you". My parents did. And their parents created them. And on and on. Then you say "but who created the Universe?". Simple: it's always been here. It's much more logical to assume that the physical universe we can observe has always been here than to assume that something else invisible that has always been here created the universe that is now here.

Answer 1

Because fundies are generally of the intelligence and educational strata that views actual thinking as an exercise in futility. They don't have the education or intelligence to back up their faith in their fairy tale, and to look at it too closely would cause them to see that there is no god and their beliefs are invalid. So, rather that proving that something they believe in actually exists, they try to get you to prove non-existance, since that is impossible. It could also just be laziness on their part, or an inability to think and present in a rational debate.

Answer 2

It cannot be proved that God exists or that God doesn't exist. However, I believe that God is really only a concept which exists in ones own psyche.

It can be proved that the concept of God exists. That is all most people need to justify their faith.

For non-believers, they can understand the concept, but reject it as fallacious. That's okay. Just go with what you feel. Don't try to over analyze it.

*****Michael******: You may be falling into the following trap:

Please read this explanation closely. I found this on the internet after doing a google search on logic fallacies.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. Good science would then demand a plausible testable theory to explain how it vanished.

Of course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. [Fortean Times Number 82.]

Do a google search on "Argumentum ad ignorantiam". I think that you will find that your logic is flawed.

Answer 3

Have YOU asked every single religious person? I don't know why the person(s) concerned chose to respond that way...

As for a proof of GOD...well I don't have an answer right now but I'll say this: I need less proof of GOD's existence than I would need to even entertain the notion that evolution is a "reality" or "possibility".

It is easier for me to understand and accept (with a logical and rational mind too) that there is a god-creator (referred to as GOD or the Lord) than the idea that this wonderful, miracle-filled world is the result of an accident or non-directed evolutionary process...

Denial is not a river in Egypt (haha!)...

Answer 4

Is it not reasonable to present the burden of proof into terms equivocal to a fairness that respects the possibility of either/or?For example one who believes that God exists can weigh the evidence contrary to his beliefs and come to the conclusion that the evidence supports his belief. Why is it assumed that he is wrong in his conclusion if it does not meet with the approval of those who insist on the non-existence of God without examing the evidence that supports their premise of His non-existence?
As far as proving something in the methods of scientific inquiery that which is investigated must be reproducible. Since science cannot reproduce historical events then it lies outside their realm of study but that does not mean that a theory can neccessarily be said to be false by default. I cannot prove empirically to you that I jogged around the block this morning but that does not make the fact that I did a falsehood. The burden of proof for the event laying on the shoulders of the one who believes is no more fair than the burden of proof on the shoulders of one who does not. I can give you all the evidence for the existence of God but if you have it settled in your mind that you absolutely refuse to believe even if God Himself were to get in your face, where then can we go from there? The issue is not really that you do not believe but rather that you will not believe. God has given ample evidence both inwardly and externally of Himself but men love darkness rather than light. The existence of God puts accountability for right behavior in the lives of men and quite frankly people want the license they masquerade as freedom to prevail in ther lives. History supports this premise and personal experience shows that its just more fun to sin. Thats its attraction.

Answer 5

A) Proof of God's existence or lack thereof is impossible. For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who do NOT, no proof is sufficient.

B) And the original person on whom Santa Claus is based was indeed a real person. St. Nicholas, a bishop in the 6th century, noted for his generosity to the poor in his See.

Answer 6

You can't prove God doesn't exist. It would be fairly easy to prove Santa doesn't, I know how you feel, most religous people set my teeth on edge to say the least, especially christians. But I have learned that God exists, and unfortunately Satan does too. Anything that hurts wounds or degrades the human spirit is from Satan period. I dont care what guise people do it under its from Satan. If you try to make this world live or someones life better you serve God. Most people ( especially In America) don.t.

Answer 7

I guess we could answer this daily on YA.

"Proving" a belief is an oxymoron. If you could prove it, it would be a fact not a belief.

I believe that there is a God. You believe that there is no God. Neither "belief" can be proven.

By the way, to pick up on your silly Santa Claus analogy...I wonder why the no-God believers are not as offended when our culture inundates them with images and advertising about Santa Claus as they are when God's name comes up during Christmas? (or is that Xmas?)

What an empty life it would be to refuse to "believe" anything.

Answer 8

there is proof that santa claus doesnt exist. he doesnt bring presents and no one can find him. now if he did exist, then hes nothing special, hes just a normal man as he is unable to deliver all those damn packages, and so it is untrue that there exists a man who can do the stuff that santa can. God does exist. all the life in the universe doesnt just come from dirt. and the dirt doesnt just come from nothing. besides that, there have been miracles and such that are good evidence toward Gods existence, such as all those prophecies Jesus fulfilled. however, He doesnt want to give us cold hard proof because he wants us to have faith.

(if you stil dont believe, i cant force you, but ur gonna burn in Hell, believe it or not, so ur gonna have to square with that after you die. or you could become Christian and spare yourself. your choice.)

Answer 9

It doesnt need to be proven either way, but it would be nice to have some sort of proof. People who seek this are control freaks who cant stand people with other opinons. If you believe then you shouldnt need proof even though thats how stupid people come to be, and if you dont believe then so be it-just dont pop the childrends bubble for them.

Answer 10

'santa Claus' didnt do the impossible. of creating the earth and the universe and all living life on it. a randomized big bang (Which might i add couldn't come from nothing) could't make life and everything as we know it. its impossible without a creator. evelution itself, ignoring that fact, is also impossible, with how much complexity DNA and such is, theirs no way it could all be done without a creative hand. in fact, your better off comparing the big bang theory and evolution with Santa Claus.