Whats the best piece of evidence that proves god doesn't exist?

Question

Please don't answer this question if you're a hardcore christian.
This is simply to settle a little bet between my brother and I.

Answer 1

None. Go outside and look around...it cannot be denied by an intelligent mind.

Answer 2

The only accurate answeris that there is NO evidence either that a "Divinity" exists or not. That's not a statement of belief--it's based on the basic principles of knowledge.

The reason is that evidence--or "proof" implies some empirical, testableobservation. And you can't (evenin theory) come up with such a test. Ultimately, belief--either way--is a matter of personal choice. Each person decides for him/herslelf--based on what seems most reasonable.

:) That hasn't stopped people from trying to "prove" or "disprove" God's existance, of course. And many have come up with plausible arguements one way or the other--but only from a philosophical standpoint. There is, however, one type of argueent against "the existance of God" that is invalid on the face of it. Thisis the sort of arguement that starts by pointing out that some statement in the Bible (or some other religious text) "contradicts" science--and so on to claim that the arguer has "disproved" religion. The problemwith this arguement istwofold--1) it assumes only Christianity is relevant--which is idiotic, since there are lots of other religions and 2) anyone reading religious texts, including the Bible, with a degree of insight realizes that they are largely presenting moral (and putatively spiritual) truths in terms of metaphors--thus the "scientific" validity is simply irrelevant.

BTW--you can also identify some pro-religious arguements as being invalid for essentially the same reasons, just coming from the opposite direction.

Answer 3

Forgive my modified cut-and-paste from my own blog. I wrote this several months ago as my best effort to describe why I don't believe a relevant god exists.

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that he intervenes to circumvent natural laws.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it is impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "it is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, since we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen), the scientific method works in this discovery. And the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions).

If God is less than these and/or does not intervene in our existence, then he is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun directly across from the earth's orbit. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes more sense to live your life as if there were not God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Because humans are always looking for reasons, when none are found, it was the natural inclination to declare the cause to be "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles and laws have been ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grows up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So that's why I decided that there's no reason to believe in God. It could be equally set forth as an argument for deism, but even deists don't see God as currently relevant in life.

Thanks for asking.

Answer 4

I hope you're referring to the Christian God. Okay, he is supposidly all knowing, all powerful, and all good. Why would a God who knew and could do something about it allow such extreme evil in the world? That shows that God can't be good if he's all knowing and all powerful.

The response to that is of course that we have freewill, and that experiencing suffering allows us to develop our characters.

Why so much suffering though? Why?
An all good god that intervened in the world would not allow it. And if he had the power to intervene and didn't even do so to prevent needless suffering, he wouldn't be good.

This doesn't disprove every god, just the concept of an all good, all powerful, all knowing one.

Answer 5

Here's the funny thing about the non-existence of god... When god does not exist the potential for god reaches a threshold that manifests god, and at that moment god exists...

It is impossibe for nothing to exist... that means that any state in which nothing is realized instantly changes state and makes everything exist.

But everything includes nothing, and when nothing manifests it cancels out its own existence by coming into existence which once more manifests everything; ad infinitum...

Answer 6

The best proof of a negative (god doesn't exist), is the lack of proof for a positive (god does exist). Just as the lack of evidence of life suggests that nothing lives on Venus, the lack of evidence to support theism is the best argument for atheism.

Answer 7

Evolution. There are those who say that evolution could be God's way of creating life. But evolution is so unremittingly brutal and uncaring that either God is brutal and uncaring, or it is a mechanism that works without god. Anyone who believes that Darwinian evolution is the work of god hasn't understood evolution. And evolution is verifiable.

Tell us who wins.

Answer 8

God would require a Godmaker.

I put it this way: If the universe is too extraordinary to simply exist, and the watch requires a watchmaker, then ... which is MORE extraordinary, God or a watch?

Answer 9

The fact that freewill is largely a false illusion. Circumstances dictate our actions. Like would Hitler become Hitler if his parents died and he was adopted by Americans and grew up in South Boston?

Answer 10

The non-existence of free will. Yes, we make choices, but they are computed by an electrochemical neural network, in essence, a wet, carbon based computer, one so complex that it is aware of its own existence... but a computer none the less.

Answer 11

The fact that believers of every theistic religion are 100% certain that all other beliefs are false and pity the poor deluded fools of other faiths, yet can't see the implications of this reasoning.