Christians how will you prove God does not exist if you are an atheist?

Question

Imagine you are an atheist. You know fully well that evolution and Big Bang is true. You know that God does not exist and bible is a semi-fiction. Then how will you prove God does not exist? If you are unable to prove it will you believe God exists with you knowing evolution and Big Bang is true
This is a hypothetical question

Answer 1

Hypothetically I know There is no God. I don't care to prove it. Those fools who believe in the fantasy should be the ones to prove it if anyone. BB Boop Oop A Doop!

Answer 2

Semi-fiction? Which bit is the fiction? Anyway....God exists. And people thing the big bang was just that - a big bang and suddenly all the planets were in place and came to a stop to spin on their axis and the suns became stationary; like a pause button was pressed...thebig bang took eons to happen...and it all happened by HIM. Has it occurred to you that time is relatively a human concept? what is time to an eternal being? What we call days might be seconds to him.
Interesting hypothetical question but utterly irrelevant.

Answer 3

Is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, here are many more proves that He exists than he doesn't. Remember that time is nothing to God and what took years for us as evolution and big bang for him was just the blink of an eye. Perhaps if Big Bang and evolution are so powerful, Can we understand that's just part of the big power our God has and that he use in the creation of what we call universe? Nothing out there that you may point will deny that God exists, it will reinforce it instead. Are you doubting about you believes? Show me one prove that God doesn't exist and we'll show thousands showing why he does exist.

Why atheist waste so much energy trying to convince people that God doesn't exist? Christians don't go to your house and you don't see them in here spreading the existence of God, that's what the churches are for, if you want to hear about God, go to the church. You just try to convince many people as possible about something you doubt your self just to feel that you're right, but a lie that's believed among many doesn't become a the truth.

Answer 4

But evolution (Darwin was always careful to say natural selection) and the big bang theory, as steeped in evidence as they are, are subject to being overcome by better data or by better interpretation. And it must be said that reality is far more a mystery than it is given credit for being, and that science is pretty crude at any stage of history including now. I would just say that, apart from the noisy and tiresome current clash between know-nothing religionists and know-not-very-much-more atheists, agnostic applies basically in both matters of religion and science. As Bush and his ignoramous ilk are fond of saying -- the jury is still out (it is certainly still out on matters of religion and even the historicity of religious figures such as Jesus). Besides this whole thing was hashed out by much more knowledgeable and much more expert arguers (deciders?) right after Darwin published Origin and Descent. I just say this as my opinion from a life of consideration. What it boils down to for me is Pascal's wager -- if one does not and cannot know whether there is a God, wouldn't one bet on the happier choice? Bet equals having faith. To me, after bruising personal examination in my early twenties, this is the finally comforting principle. Seems meagre, but it isn't. Our sure knowledge of God or of the science of things, and for that matter of who Jesus was and what he really said and did, we have only the barest of hints. But like Jesus is likely to have said, knowing him in the fullest context in which we can today, he would not have told us if it were not so. You kinda gotta take somebody like Jesus at his word. And like many scientific experts, and they will tell you exactly what and why they are (temporarily) concluding, you kinda gotta take them at their word.

Answer 5

It's impossible to disprove the existence of a god that is described as invisible, inaudible, and completely undetectable.

The burden of proof, of course, is on the believers.

Can you prove Russell's teapot doesn't exist?

---

, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?," commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell said the following:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In his book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Answer 6

I don't understand why everyone spends so much wasted energy trying to provoke religious people when they could use this negative and make it a positive,go help someone that needs it.Dedicate a few hours at the VA hospital or nursing home.Man we will all find out when we die right now we should be busy living.

Answer 7

I am a christian, and If I were an Atheist how would i prove that 'God doesn't exist'.
Um... I wouldn't be able to prove it,
because i would look around and creation would tell me he does.

Answer 8

I'd be too terrified to imagine I was an athiest thinking if I died satan would win and I wouldn't see my parents best friend family light hope joy and happiness forevermore.

PS Welcome 07 New Years anti-xtian or just one of the gang

Answer 9

No one can use the scientific method to either prove or disprove God's existence, it is an impossibility.

Answer 10

well no one knows exactly if whats in the bible really true. who knows maybe it was just a gossip paper. it just was never ending. im sure people are still going to be "finding" new testaments. and then again tom cruise might be right.