How can you make a legitimate statement that there is no God?

Answer 1

How can you make a legitamate statement that there is one?

The only defensible position is saying you don't know :-)

Answer 2

While you cannot state unequivocally that there is no God, one can state that the existence of God is improbably and unreasonable.

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).

So to begin with, 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 Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. 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 enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Because humans are always looking for reasons, when none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare the cause to be "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew 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.

Answer 3

Because the full statement:
"After many years believing in a God, I have studied and the vast preponderence of all the evidence I have considered points firmly towards the conclusion that there is no God."

Is too cumbersome to use regularly.

We all make simple statements all day, every day, which for strict logical and linguistic purposes should be hedged around with qualifications, stated assumptions and caveats. Life's too short to do that on a regular basis.
But yes, those qualifications are there, technically.

As they are for any individual who says "I know God exists." though they don't often formalise the limitiations of that statement either: "In my own mind", "unless I am deluded", "but subjective confidence may not accord with external reality"...

Answer 4

There is no God.
There, I've made a 'statement' and since I used 'good grammar and proper punctuation, the statement is 'legitimate' ... but I happen to believe in God ... and making the statement you 'asked for' doesn't prove there is no God any more than my saying 'There is a God.' proves there is one.

Answer 5

I can't. As an Athiest, I can only say "I have found no compelling reason to believe there is a god" In any case, the impossibility of proving a negative ALWAYS puts the onus for proof on the proponent of a thing, not the detractor.

Answer 6

There is no evidence that there is a god. It isn't rational or reasonable to believe in things without any evidence to back it up. You would be stuck with hundreds of thousands of gods and everything else that human imagination could come up with.

Not believing in god, is the same as not believing in Odin, Zeus, Ra, Hera, The Great Spirit, Osiris, The Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the others. I would be no less surprised of evidence of Odin was found than I would be if evidence of your god was.

Answer 7

No one says that. The godbots are the ones making the proposition, claiming that there is a "god".

Your feeble attempt to shift your burden of proof is unacceptable.

A person can only refute what has been proven to exist; when you finally stop wasting time and raise a dead body back to life in front of me, now in 2007, then you can make that statement.

But you and I both know _why_ you want to shift the burden of proof: because *you* know full well that you can't prove your mythical "god" exists.

The number of "gods" proven to exist are equal to the number of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay convicted of terrorism.


.

Answer 8

One can make a statement such as,"I don't believe in the existence of a god or gods." That is not the same as saying,"There is no god." I know very few atheists who would make such a statement.

As an atheist, I will say that there is almost certainly no such thing as god.

Answer 9

There are 3 types of people on this planet ! People who want the fruits,words,deeds of God, People who want the fruits,words,deeds of Satan, and the ones who do not believe in either ! The sciptures give mention of all 3! To make argument, i can not, and will not, i can say, "THERE IS A SPIRIT REALM", i can say, to know the spirit's and where they dwell, discernment must be used ! (the breakers of the TEN COMMANDMENTS)! How to reconize the spirit that dwells in mankind, by what comes out the mouth! By deeds done!

Answer 10

You need to strictly define what 'God' means to you, otherwise you are right, it's impossible.

For example, a proof that there is no bearded man in the sky would require a different proof then God emanating from all things (or whatever).

Answer 11

When someone can come forth and prove that there is a God who judges people, then it would be fair to say that everyone else was wrong. Until then, its your word against theirs. I'm sorry, but faith isn't proof. I'm not critisizing those who beleive in God, I'm just giving an honest answer.