Atheists, what is your evidence that there is no God?

Question

I read, as usual atheists stating as a fact there is no God, without citing their sources, as usual:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlFvqigcXCeN90X8tRGT3PXd7BR.?qid=20070802055225AAlS2Wg

You said it, so it must be true!

I'll try and help you not to embarrass yourselves further:

Hint: Your doubt isn't evidence, so saying, "Well what's your evidence?" doesn't cut it. If you want that questions answered spend your points, use a search engine or click the link below, but stop the question-dodging / arguing.

Once again, what is your evidence? Are you going to rehash the evidenceless theories of evolution and the big bang which no one has an excuse for doing? There is much evidence against those theories:

http://romans916.com/why-i-dont-believe.pdf

Let me guess, if you see "answersingenesis" mentioned at all it must mean nothing I say is true... cuz, you said so. Great science!

Once again (for the a.d.d. stricken): STATE YOUR EVIDENCE NOT "ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.

I accidentally said "as usual" twice and "questions" rather than "question" - I stay up for long hours and don't blink as much as I probably should.

Answer 1

Religion is the best evidence for the absence of God.

God, if he exists, represents truth. Religions (allegedly) represent God's authority.

It's common sense. There are many competing religions. How are we supposed to know which one to choose? Obviously they can't all be right. At BEST, only one can be right! Most likely, they're ALL wrong!!

If there were a God (the personal God most people associate with religion), why would he give us free choice -- only to confuse the choice of Creator? God is God, if he wanted us to know him -- we would. I mean, is this a difficult thing for God to accomplish? Or do you really think God wants us to guess at which religion represents him?

Common sense tells me that, if there is a God, he's a cosmic God, not a personal one; a creator, not a meddler.

If your question addresses the personal version of God, then I say common sense is plenty of evidence against God.

If you're speaking of the cosmic God, then we will probably never know.

They must find it difficult . . . those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority. ~Gerald Massey

U P D A T E :

Jeesh guy! I visited the URLs you put up. THIS is logical support for your position? lol You must be joking. Your bravado is your compensation for your lack of critical thinking.
.

Answer 2

Those claiming they have evidence haven't really shown evidence. The universe is not evidence. There is no connection between the premise "A universe exists" and the conclusion "therefore god exists." What it is, like many other "proofs" here, is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing the answer to a question is not proof that a "god" did it. If we relied on that sort of "logic" we would still be in the dark ages. I'm putting a cool link to a counter-apologetics site that theists and atheists alike should probably take a look at before entering any sort of debate concerning the existence of a god or gods.

Answer 3

First rule of logical affirmation: He who pretends that something exists must bring proof of it's existence.

People who say that somebody said that someone heard voices in their heads is not a proof.

You cannot say that God exists and then dare people to prove he does not exists. It would be like pretending that the Philosopher's stone exists then dare people to prove it doesn't by picking every rock in existence and show to you that they are not the Philosopher's stone.

Logically, it is not possible to prove that something which does not exist, does not exist. It is only possible to prove that something exists. Because proof requires tangible evidence.

In a way, God does exists. Except, the only proof that we have, is that God is a recurrent mythological theme found in monotheist religion's writings and oral myths.

There is, up to this day, no physical evidence of the existence of God. There is also no evidence of another "plan of existence" aside from a few incidents that can easily be explained by a disfonction of the brain.

There is no physical evidence that the world was created in 6 days; there are facts, mathematical proof and physical evidence that the universe was probably created about 15 billions of years ago.

There is no evidence of living creatures having being created in a flash and in a permanent state, neither is there proof of a major flood that would have devastated land-life between 4000 and 10 000 BC.

There is evidence that shows that life appeared in steps, starting from the unicellullar creature to the more evolved speacies, starting from marine life to ground and air life. There is incontestable proof that there is not enough water on Earth, now or at any time in the past, to submerge to totality of the solid surface. Evolution is the best logical theory, though it has its flaws, like any "theory". There are no fossils that show a state of direct evolution, simply because less than 0.000 000 000 1% of primitive life was fossilized. The odds of finding a specific fossil are almost nil.

The big bang, though the cause has yet to be discovered, had been proven through astrophysics, quantum physics and mathematical inverted models of universal expansion. Of course, it is extremely difficult for an average individual to understand all those numbers.

Also, science requires extended studies of a subject, while faith requires only a tale and people to believe it.

Religion is the opposite of logical processing:

Logical processing means: Facts. Hypothesis based on the facts. Confirmation of the hypothesis being true or false. New hypothesis if the previous was false, until all other possibilities are extinguished.

Religious processing means: Hypothesis. Facts. Adjustment of facts to confirm the hypothesis. Opposing the act of God should the facts be impossible to adjust.

Please show me the wrongness of my reasoning... I dare you.

Answer 4

A complete lack of evidence supporting the existence of any such thing... and Ockham's Razor.

They go remarkably well together.

You should probably realise afterall that "proof of non-existance" is an impossible and unfeasible concept. The closest one can get to that is a complete lack of evidence FOR the existence of something... and then Ockham's Razor comes into play... stating quite simply that the most likely explanation is generally the one with the least required assumptions.... i.e. no evidence = no god.

It isn't a 100% proof.... but it is as good as anyone can get. Given that christianity hasn't come up with anything solid to counter it yet (i.e. all attempted counter-arguments have themselves been countered), it still works better than any other option.

Answer 5

Since you use the word evidence, let's use that word, okay?
First, say this is a court of law. Since you can produce only one unsubstantiated book that says there is a christian god, it would be non-credible as evidence.
Then, here come the atheists with their evidence. Thousands upon thousands of scientific journals and publications. Observations that have been recorded throughout written history, from all around the world, published to enlighten instead of to control.
Who would win in a court of law?
Thank you

Answer 6

I can't prove that absolutely NO gods exists anymore than you can. I am about as capable of disproving all forms of god are non-existent throughout this vast universe as you are. I want you to think about that for a moment.... there are a lot of gods that people believe in, and your only evidence that they don't exist are the words written in some book that you hold true, just as they do with theirs. Think, hard... and please, try to take the blinders off before you do, they're limiting your vision.

Answer 7

Let's see, the complete absence of proof is telling. The fact that supernatural entities should be very obvious (especially omnipotent omniscient omnipresent ones) is telling. The lies in the bible (talking donkeys and a global flood that never happened) are telling. The many horrible acts of believers and nonbelievers alike, not to mention the horrible natural disasters. The fact that 66% of this planet does not believe in your god (they either believe in different gods or no gods at all) and according to your rules they would all go to hell is telling. The fact that we don't need gods in a natural explanation of the universe is telling. The fact that ignorant hicks will assign to the supernatural that which they can't explain by natural means is telling.

Answer 8

The evidence is the utter lack of any requirement for a supernatural agency in any aspect of the universe. Everything that exists can be shown to be entirely the result of natural and agentless processes.

You probably don't realise this, but then if you think that evolution has no evidence, your grip on reality is rather loose.

CD

Answer 9

Your premise isn't logical.

The burden of proof is on you, not atheists. Scientific research has shown that no supernatural explanations are required for... well... anything. So given that fact, why do some deists invoke such a preposterous idea as an all powerful being creating everything, without asking the question of where that being came from?

Answer 10

You'll try and help us to not embarrass ourselves further? Does your condescension come from your religion, or have you always been that way?

I have no evidence. However, my reasoning tells me the existence of god is the least probable explanation we have for how we got here. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Do I care? Not one bit! :)

Your faith isn't evidence either, by the way. Please get off your high-horse before you fall and hurt yourself.