OK Athiests! Here's your chance!?

Question

I challenge you to present your proof that there is no God. Let's hear it. What reasonable and rational facts do you have that firmly establish that there is no God.

Don't try to tell me what you think, what your philosophy is, or what you believe. Give me just the facts please. Give me the cold, hard, proof.

And please don't use the worn out "If there's a God, why is there evil?" argument. Just give me the proof that there is no God.

Answer 1

Ok, after reading several posts to this question.....
I have another question.....

IF you realize you cant dis-prove the existence of a God......

Then why do you say there is NO God?

If you say it cant be proven that there is no God......

Then arent you REALLY agnostic?

Atheism is delusional :)

Answer 2

Lindy, atheists can not understand the things of God so you will probably not get an answer. They are what the bible calls the "natural" man. They have no spiritual awareness and can not "see" or "hear" spiritual things. Unless God opens their eyes and ears as Jesus said, they are spiritually blind and headed for an eternity without God and all alone in an eternity with the god of this world, the devil. It is very sad, however, that is the way it is.

Answer 3

Non-existent things don't leave proof of their non-existence. I am an athiest because I don't believe in your god or your arguments for them. We only prove things in math and logic, not in the real world. When you have evidence for your belief in god let me know. Until then you are just wasting my time.

And it seems there are a few on here who do not know the defintion of atheist. An Atheist is one who lacks belief in gods. That is it. You don't need any proof to be an atheist. All you need is not to be convinced there is one.

Answer 4

It is impossible to prove a negative. I could ask you to prove to me you have never stolen anything.... don't tell me that you believe you never have, or you that you have never been arrested, give me solid facts.

But if you why people doubt Gods existance, here are some common reasons:
1) They have never felt or had communication with something they feel to be a supreme power
2) They have never seen any effect that they believed could be explained without evoking a supernatural force.
3) They could be distrustful of the lack of tolerance of doubt within organised religion which they may also have seen harming or separating them from friends or family.
4) They have never seen any positive results from prayer.
5) They may not consider the stories of the old Bible relevant to them or their everyday life, especially with its requirement to believe 100 impossible things before breakfast - walking on water, people being raised from the dead, virgin birth, the universe being created in 1 week etc.

Answer 5

Basically, the defined God; biblical, religious god, is given contradictory traits. All-good, all knowing, powerful. With the state of the world, it's suffering and pain, this doesn't make logical sense. Free will is not an argument because the processes of the human brain have been found to be the deciding factors in the actions and behavior of a human being. The conscious is merely a window looking into these processes with the illusion of controling them.

Religion is based on myth, and has progessed though the years. Hinduism is the oldest religion, and created Gods to explain what they did not understand. As science became more evolved, God's part in our world dwindled away, eventually not having any place at all now that we understand how our world works.

Evoltution and other findings show that the biblical story doesn't not conicide with the actual history of our world/universe. The proof of evolution is too great to deny and it is more credible than the bible. If animals and human beings are the result of slow change over time, then the bible stories are incorrect.

The doctrines of the bible were created by man, and decided upon by popular vote. The bible has been changed over the years and altered. The bible has absurd impossible stories in it that defy reason and logic. Science and sense is against the existance of God for obvious reasons.

If you care to continue reading... This is from Wikipedia..

* The omnipotence paradox is one of many arguments which argue that the definitions or descriptions of a god are logically contradictory, demonstrating his non-existence. This paradox can be shown through questions such as: "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?" Some may argue that this paradox is resolved by the argument that such a rock is an impossibility of our reality rather than the result of an imperfect God.

* One simple argument that the existence of a god is self-contradictory goes as follows: If God is defined as omniscient and omnipotent, then God has absolute knowledge of all events that will occur in the future, including all of his future actions, due to his omniscience. However, his omnipotence implies he has the power to act in a different manner than he predicted, thus implying that God's predictions about the future are fallible. This implies that God is not really omniscient, at least when it comes to knowledge about future events. So a God defined as omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist. Theists may counter that God exists out of time and the premises for this argument are wrong.

* The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. If god has already planned the future, then humanity is destined to follow that plan and we do not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our freewill contradicts an omniscient god.

* The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on TANG, [7], seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.

* The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") states that if the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). A common response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is non-sensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.

* Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable and meaningless.

* It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an active creator. The argument suggests that the very act of creation is inconceivable and absurd beyond the restraints of time.



* The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.

* The problem of evil in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist. Already Epicure pointed out the contradiction, stating that if an omnipotent God existed, the evil in the world should be impossible. As there is evil in the world, the god must either not be omnipotent or he must not be omnibenevolent. If he is not omnipotent, he is not God; if he is not omnibenevolent, he is not God the All merciful, but an evil creature. Similar arguments have been performed by Schopenhauer.

* The argument from poor design contests the idea that a god created life, on the basis that lifeforms exhibit poor or malevolent design, which can be easily explained using evolution and naturalism.

* The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. This argument is contested by the claim that God wants to test humans to see who has the most faith. However, this assertion is dismissed by the argument surrounding the problem of evil.


# The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. Many people make claims that they have never seen God nor any evidence that God might exist.
# The conflicted religions argument where specific to religions give widely differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants. All the contridictory accounts cannot be correct, so many if not all religions must be incorrect.
# The Majority argument argues that despite the fact that people in all times and in different places have a similar belief, it is does not make it true

Answer 6

Give me proof that there *is*.

I have never seen god. No one has ever seen god. God cannot be quantified in any fashion. Absolutely no proof exists of god's existence. None.

If you take god by faith, fine! I have no objection. Believe what you will if it works for you. But do not try to tell me god's existence is fact.

Answer 7

The arguments for Gods existence are the 'miracles' that people couldn't/can't explain. The arguments for Gods nonexistence are the miracles that are now explained by science.
There will always be things that we won't know (so you'll always have something to throw into our faces) and as time passes we will find out more and more things that you thought were Gods miracles ( so we'll always have something to throw into your face in return).
In truth, there is no real evidence that God's real or not, just the point of view.

Answer 8

Why would you think that anyone has proof that there is no god?

We're atheists because there is no evidence that there is a god.

If you thought that your "challenge" was a clever response to atheism, you haven't thought about this nearly enough.

Answer 9

There is no god because there is no evidence that one exists. Shall I also provide evidence that I haven't got an invisible arm? The only reason one would conclude that I don't have the invisible arm is because there exists no evidence of it. Is the argument for god any different? Besides, if you were intelligent and well educated, you would know one cannot disprove a negative. Sorry, but I'm going to have to pity you on this one.

Answer 10

I'm not an atheist, but i have never seen God, heard God or for that fact ever met anyone in my entire life that has. And I know you have not either, nor anybody you know. Now you may "feel" god or some other b.s. answer, but it is a obvious faith based question. The main reason for most peoples belief is fear of death and the afterlife. Do what makes YOU feel better. I don't understand your need for reassurance?

Answer 11

There is no proof that there is no god. No such proof is possible.

If there is, would you kindly prove that there are no invisible lions in my back yard that find it great fun to pounce me and dress me in leather?

-----

drag0n:

You actually make a valid point, but one that can be addressed.

I am a strong atheist by agnosticism and occam's razor.

That is: There is no proof for or against the existence of god. There can be no such proof. However, I can conceive of the universe existing without a deity, and I can conceive of the universe existing with a deity. Occam's razor says to remove the hypothesis with the most assumptions or a priori agents. Without a deity, with a deity. One has an extra assumption.

Via occam's razor, the deific hypothesis is dismissed.

Only the atheistic belief remains.