do atheists have proof god doesn't exist?

Answer 1

Google "Burden of Proof".
Read carefully.
Never post this nonsense again.

Answer 2

Lion of Judah, with a twist...

Sometimes christians assert that there is proof that God exists. The only problem is that a christian cannot logically make that claim.


In order to state that there is proof for God's existence, the christian would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is proof for God's existence.


At best, a christian can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say that he believes there are proofs for God's existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there are no proof or proofs out there and that he simply has not yet encountered one.


Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's non existence, would the christian be able to accept it given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the non existence of God? In other words, given that the christian has a presuppositional base that there is a God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's non existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the christian. Therefore, a christian is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's non existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

Answer 3

No. We don't need one either. The burden of proof is on those who put forward a claim, such as the claim that there is a god. You can't prove a negative (or can you prove that unicorns don't exist?). Us atheists just assume that if there is no evidence of the existence of something it doesn't exist.

Answer 4

No, they don't. But they'll claim (as we see above) it's because it's not up to them to prove he doesn't exist. Unfortunately, they're being hypocritical. From wikipedia:

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it.

The athiests who say that God doesn't exist are under just as much of a burden of proof as the Christian. From another wikipedia entry:

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".

Answer 5

The burden of proof falls on the claimant. Atheists don't have to prove god doesn't exist. Theists need to prove that god does.

Answer 6

An atheist professor once tried to prove that God does not exist. he asked a Christian student three questions:
1) Have you ever seen your God with your own eyes?
2) Have you ever physically touched your God?
3) Have you ever heard your God...audibly?

The answer to these question was, of course, no. The prfessor then said, "Then, based on the lack of any solid evidence to the contrary, I have no choice but to conclude that your God does not exist."

The student then stood up and asked the class three questions:
1) Have you ever seen our professor's brain with your own eyes?
2) Have you ever physically touched our professor's brain?
3) Have you ever heard our professor's brain speak...not our professor, our professor's brain?

The answer to these questions was, of course, no. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.



Another professor, another time, stood in front of his class and said, "If God is completely good, then where did evil come from? If He created everything, then He had to have created evil, as well, which He could not have created if He were completely good...once again I have proved the Christian religion to be nothing but a myth."

A student looked up at the professor and said, "Would you say darkness exists?"
The professor answered, "Of course it exists. Go turn the lights off and see what happens."
And the student said, "But darkness does not exist. It is simply a word that man created to describe the absence of light." he then continued, "Would you say cold exists?"
The professor answered again, "Of course cold exists. Go outside, it's below freezing!"
And again the student said, "But you're wrong again. Cold does not exist in its own right. It is, like darkness, simply a word created to describe the absence of heat.
"Evil is the same way. It is not a force unto itself, but simply the absence of God--and thus did not have to be created."

Don't misunderstand--I am not saying evil people do not exist, nor am I saying that Satan does not exist. The evil in them is simply the absence of God's righteousness.

Answer 7

Sometimes atheists assert that there is no proof that God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim.


In order to state that there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence.


At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say that he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that he simply has not yet encountered one.


Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

Answer 8

Mature persons understand it is very difficult to prove a negative. It is the problem of those who believe in god/gods to prove that he/they exist.

Answer 9

It is impossible to prove a negative, so the burden of proof is upon those making the positive claim. IOW it is those who claim there is a God who need to prove their claim, not I.

Answer 10

You can't prove a negative. Therefore it is up to the believers to prove that God exists. The same way it is up to scientists to prove that evolution happened.

The way I see it is there's no evidence for God but lots for Evolution.

Answer 11

The burden of proof is on the believer. I don't have to prove anything.