For those who don't believe in God.?

Question

Since people who say they don't believe in God also say they think logically and demand evidence of everything why not produce proof that God does not exist? What is your foundation of truth on the subject matter?

J.P would you rather have people love you simply because (like robots) they were created to love you or would you rather they'd use their free will to love you? Why should God be any different?

ZER0 C00L if the burden of proof is on believers then why can't belivers require the same from those who NEED proof? Believers of God have faith in Him. Faith is not tangible and cannot be dicected in a labe or placed on a table for all to see. But unbelivers seem to belive in theories that are supposed to be tangible yet have not conclusive base. So I belive that since Christians have admited that we have no tangible proof and do not require tangible proof;but believe in FAITH, it is up to the unbelivers to proove to us that God doesn't exist.

DAVID C, God has given man the free will to love each other or destroy each other, to take care of this world or destroy it, to sin or not sin. Why? Because He loves us! How can you say you love someone when you literally make them do as you say like slaves wether they want to or not. Abusive husbands, child molesters, and slave advocate across the world are hated because of how they torture people into doing what they want. God is not like that. He's given us a choice to follow Him to heaven or choose our own way, which for the most part leads to hell. Man commits sins and man has the power to stop it. We are left to wars because we have chosen to war with each other and so on. Do no blame God for man's folly!

Answer 1

What kind of proof would you find acceptable? Let's agree on the terms and I'll see what I can do. What will it take to convince you that God doesn't exist?

Answer 2

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.

So that's why I don't believe that God exists. And you know what? It's okay if you continue to believe God exists.

Answer 3

The proof that no god exists is simple. There is no evidence, never has been any evidence, and never will be any evidence that such a creature exists. In 2,000+ years of recorded history no evidence has been shown. I know, you'll claim the bible as evidence but it really isn't. At best, the bible is a collection of parables, not a history book of any kind. Stories intended to teach lessons much the same as ancient Greek or Roman mythology. So think of the bible as christian mythology.

Answer 4

Because there is no evidence either for or against the
existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic -only inductive reasoning.

If god was love, then he would not abandon us to war and hate

if god was happy with his creation, he wouldn't sit back and let us pollute it

if god was so powerful, he would have appeared to all peoples of the world, and promoted harmony, so we could live in peace

If god was half the powerful Deity you claim, he would smote the pedophiles, thieves and crooks who run his established churches.

If god was kind, he would stop old bigots from preventing human misery buy insisting on ridiculous religious rules.

If god were so great he would not have allowed his auto biography to contain so many different contradictions

and truth is a religious word, the word of choice for con men who want you to believe in a lie. Fact is the scientific word, and it is backed up by evidence.

Answer 5

No, I don't have to know every detail.

The existence of a deity would have numerous consequences. No meaningful deity would create a universe where free will is impossible. Thus, a meaninful deity has as its consequences the possibility of free will.

This is impossible in the universe we find ourselves in.

This can be expressed in formal logic:

IF [a meaningful deity exists] THEN [free will exists] (premise)
NOT [free will exists] (by Church-Turing Thesis)
THEREFORE NOT [a meaningful deity exists] (modus tollens).

-------------

My point is that there is no such thing as free will. It's entirely illusionary.

Free will cannot exist in the universe in which we find ourselves.

We ARE, in essence, computers with some nifty carbon-based peripherals.

Wet-ware robots, nothing more, nothing less.

Answer 6

You cant disprove something that is entirely supported by faith. No one can prove god exists, no one can prove god doesnt exist. But following straight logic, which shows that everything we know of falls under certain laws of nature, the chances that there is an entity out there who is exempt of those laws and has never been proven to exists are very very slim.

Answer 7

You don't know that the burden of proof is the responsibility of those who make the positive assertion? That would be the BELIEVERS. The skeptics only need to sit back and wait for the proof to be provided. Until then, they're standing on very firm philosophical ground.

Answer 8

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Atheists claim that all gods are myths. I expect you agree with us on that with the exception of one god defined by the Bible.

Apparently, you think that our claim that even the God of the Bible is a myth is an extraordinary claim. Am I correct?

I find that hard to understand, given that there is no objective evidence of God's existence, only the individual subjective claims of believers.

Answer 9

Okay.

For the millionth time:

It is not logically possibly to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Prove there is a god.

.

Answer 10

the light i see at night in the form of stars, is hundreds of millions of years old. this is a fact. the stones in the dirt under my feet are millions of years old ,this is a fact .the matter that makes up my body has always existed and unless the entire universe itself is obliterated that matter will continue to exist forever .these are facts. the story of a man that could walk on water ,and resurrect dead people.are nothing more than stories.found in only one book .they have never been proven as facts.