Do You Know How To Prove That There Is No God?

Question

Here is the correct answer to this one. Many Christian vs. Atheist arguments always go to proving that there is or isn't a God.

I have the proof that there is no God. That proof is simply for the fact that nobody can prove anything about God. How can you have an argument about something that you have no proof over? Until then the best answer to this one when a Christian tells you to prove that their is no God always answer with, "until you have the proof that there is a God then he doesn't exist."

Lets end this ridiculous argument now; no proof = no existence.

Answer 1

If you want scientific proof that science is only guess work, find a site that deals with the science of Mt. Saint
Helen's. For example: Newly formed rocks, by the eruption, carbon dated to be millions of years old, although they were only months old. Canyons formed by the flow of water and ash from the volcano appeared to be formed over thousands of years. When in reality, they were formed in 3 days. The examples go on and on.
What appears to be thousands and millions of years old were formed in minutes and days, during and after the eruption.
Imagine the kind of formations that could have occurred during Noah's flood, combined with volcanic activity.

Answer 2

That does not mean there is no God.

Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least supports his existence.

Therefore, it is possible that God exists.

If it is possible, then faith has its place.
If it is possible that God exists, then you should be an agnostic (an agnostic holds that God may exist but no proof can be had for His existence.)
It is possible that there is no evidence at all for God.

But this cannot be stated absolutely, since all evidence would need to be known to show there is no evidence.

Therefore, since all evidence cannot be known by any one person, it is possible that evidence exists that supports theism.
Then what kind of evidence would be acceptable?

If you have not decided what evidence would be sufficient and reasonable, then you cannot state that there is no evidence for God.
If you have decided what evidence is sufficient, what is it?

Does Christianity fit within that criteria?

If not, why not?
Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable?

Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example

Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory?

Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you?
How would you know?
Does your criteria put a requirement on logic that is not realistic?

Do you want him to make square circles, or some other self-contradictory phenomena or make a rock so big He cannot pick it up?
If God exists, the laws of logic would be a product of his nature since he is absolute, transcendent, and truth (logical absolutes are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent which reflect a logical, absolute, and transcendent mind). He did not create the laws of logic. We simply recognize them because God exists. Therefore, God cannot violate those laws because he would violate his own nature -- which he cannot do.
Are you objectively examining evidence that is presented?

Granted, objectivity is difficult for all people, but are you being as objective as you can?
But, do you have a presupposition that God does not exist or that the miraculous cannot occur?

If so, then you cannot objectively examine the evidence.

Therefore, the presuppositions you hold regarding the miraculous may prevent you from recognizing evidence for God's existence.

If so, then God becomes unknowable to you and you have forced yourself into an atheistic/agnostic position.
Do you define the miraculous out of existence?

If so, on what basis do you do this?
If you assume that science can explain all phenomena then there can be no miraculous evidence ever submitted as proof.

If you made that assumption, it is, after all, only an assumption.

Answer 3

The idea that there is no God is mathematically impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Emile Borel and Fred Hoyle are just two mathematicians who reject evolution on statistical grounds. The idea is a "Statistcal Immposibility". For example, it is theoretically possible that you could blow up a junk yard and all the flying pieces would land and form themselves into a Cadillac - that is possible. But the odds against it are so high that it constitutes a "Statistcal Immposibility". Same goes for evolution. That only leaves one possibility: God. There's your proof, mathematically arrived at.

Answer 4

You cannot ask a question and then answer it yourself. You are of course entitled to your own opinion.
Of course there is a God. Without God there would be no you, no me, no tree, no world.
Why is it so hard to accept that there is a higher power and that higher power is glorious and all powerful.
With God all things are possible.
I will pray for you.

Answer 5

Prove that Love exists.

Answer 6

Psalm 14:1 & 53:1 There is proof. your question proved his word so he exists

Answer 7

We give you proofs but you don't bellieve...

give me a proof that there is no god.

Answer 8

I respectfully disagree with your assertion.