Atheists: What proof do you have that there is for sure absolutely no God?

Question

And let's not forget that this goes both ways, because you could just as easily ask me what proof I have there is a God and I could easily tell you my proof. But, this question is for you..so, what proof do you have? (Being serious here, so serious answers only.)

Answer 1

it seems quite obvious to me that there's no god

Answer 2

Absolute, complete, and utter lack of any evidence.

Technically, it's not up to an atheist to prove that there is no God. The person making the claim that there IS something out there based on no evidence is the one with the burden of proof. If I were to tell you there was such a thing as mermaids, and you didn't believe me, would it be YOUR responsibility to prove to ME that there AREN'T mermaids? No, I'm the one making the outrageous claim, so the burden of proof would be on me.

And if there was anything even RESEMBLING proof of a God, then there would be no atheists. Bible quotes are not proof. "Feelings" are not proof. Beliefs are not proof. Physical reactions to emotions are not proof.

Answer 3

Positive atheism: "I believe that God does not exist."
Negative atheism: "I am without a belief that God exists."

The former requires proof of God's non-existence. The latter merely requires refutation of proof that God exists.

Most thinking atheists are the latter, and focus on reasons why they have not been covinced by theists of God's existence, because they are not in need of proving God does not exist. That's not even what they are saying. All they are saying is they are unconvinced.

But for positive atheist's argument, let's try this one:

If our notion of God neccessarily implies a being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, etc. then God is impossible by definition.

All-powerful requires being able to do anything and being not less powerful than anything else, which is an illogical possibility, because an all powerful being would be able to create a being of even greater power than itself, which would simultaneously render itself as not all-powerful. The notion is self-contradictory, because if God couldn't create this more powerful being, God wouldn't be all-powerful (be able to do anything), and if God could create this more powerful being, he wouldn' be all powerful (becoming quantitatively less powerful than something else, and thus not infinite).

The concept is definitionally impossible, and if this concept is neccessary to imply God exists, then God does not exist.

Answer 4

Take the two (or more) hypotheses, compare the known data against them, and see which is a better fit.

(NOT, "adopt a hypothesis, and see if you can make the data fit it.".. Anyone can do that to almost any framework. There are some impressive rationalisations out there.)

If God exists as an entity, what would the world look like? (People, nature , beliefs, society...)
If God exists as a social construct only, what would would the world look like?
It took me years, including fifteen years as an adult Christian to address that in depth, but I'm as convinced as I can be that the second view is a better fit.
I suppose the first hint for me as a Christian was studying the bible seriously, and seeing that it was not what it was held out to be.

Answer 5

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive assertion.

I don't have to "prove" that unicorns with pink and purple spots, the tooth fairy, vampires, and/or the fountain of youth don't exist; if someone were to claim that any or all of these things DO exist then that person would be expected to provide facts that clearly back their outrageous claims or be thought a mental case.

Christians assert that somewhere there is an omnipotent being who is very interested in the detiails of my sex life and whether or not I eat meat on Fridays and if I do not follow this being's strict and pleasureless rules regarding the above behaviors I risk being sent to a place where I will suffer unimaginable torment for all eternity.

I say: "Prove it, a**h*le!"

Answer 6

There is no proof to disprove God, but like you said, there is also no proof for the existence of God. Nonbelievers are not the ones in the position to show any proof, only believers are.

Answer 7

How many times does this dead horse have to be beaten?

For the umpteenth time, the burden of proof is NOT upon atheists to present evidence proving the nonexistence of God (as if that were even possible).

The burden of proof is ALWAYS upon the affirmative proponent of an assertion to present evidence supporting that assertion. Until that happens, NO REBUTTAL IS NECESSARY.

So until you as a believer present some objective evidence supporting the existence of God, atheists don't have to prove ANYTHING. The burden of proof is on YOU, not them. And it doesn't shift until YOU meet YOUR burden.

That's like me asking you to prove pink unicorns don't exist. You can't, can you? OMG THAT MUST MEAN THAT IT'S JUST AS LIKELY THAT PINK UNICORNS EXIST AS THAT THEY DON'T!

I STRONGLY suggest that you consider taking a basic course in logic or debate.

Answer 8

back, the load of evidence lies with the man making the declare for existance. i do not trust in god because there is not any evidence that he's something except a made up invisible sky wizard. that's no longer vanity that's instantly ahead sense. If there's a unicorn like creature obtainable someplace it nonetheless isn't a unicorn. If there's a god like being that's nonetheless no longer god, and a sturdy element too. he's somewhat a bast@rd. till we locate evidence of both they're imaginary similar to the god biblical god. No veriviable piece of evidence of the existance of any god has ever been produced. Ever. no longer one. The universe receives alongside in basic terms wonderful without them.

Answer 9

Believers have evidences like "apparent design" indicating a Designer and Creator and Source of the Universe. Atheists have the "problem of Pain" and the "Silence of God" which are not proofs of the nonexistence of God.

Answer 10

No proof - just an overwhelming lack of evidence that there is a god. On balance the lack of evidence would tend to support the no-god assertion over the god assertion, wouldn't it?

Answer 11

Faith is not based on proof. Neither is the lack of faith.
Faith as defined by Webster's II New College Dictionary
"Belief not based on logical proof or material evidence"
It is personal choice, and that personal choice is based on life experience, not proof.