How does a person reason out that there is no god?

Question

For these types of people,
is it possible for anything to exist that
you have not personally encountered?

Answer 1

Same way you reason out that there are no leprechauns. Gods are just as silly and unnecessary.

Answer 2

Buildings have builders, Painting have Painters So Creation must also have a Creator


unless you know of any examples of things not having a cause?

ex. Pizza falls out of the sky... does a Atheist say?

o that pizza just fell out of thin air?

of course not then how can a Atheist say the big bang did not have a cause?


science teaches that time,space, and matter had a beginning, Atheist don't believe that the universe is eternal "ANYMORE"...

which means the universe is not eternal meaning that what ever the cause that created time,space and matter was a Un-caused cause, and was here before time. This doesn't prove the Christian God but it does give you rational to believe in a Creator.


Also I look around and I see intelligence, and beauty, and intelligence can not come from non-intelligence, ... also we are Rational creatures so then Who ever created us must also be Rational..

until the Atheist can prove that nothing plus nothing equals life then they can never prove evolution could even be possible...


If there is no God there is no Creator, if there is no Creator there is no Creation, If there is no Creation then why do you exist?

Answer 3

First, one examines all of the claims and evidence. As the claims are both contradictory and self-contradictory, and the evidence circumstantial at best, one can reason that these gods are either impossible or highly unlikely.

And certainly, I've not personally encountered a platypus, yet I havde no problem - given the overwhelming evidence, including photographs - that they exist.

Answer 4

It is possible for anything to exist that I have not personally encountered. That does not lead me to believe everything.

How was that?

Answer 5

By its very definition, theism posits the existence of a deity which has in some way, shape, or form revealed itself to the universe. For such a revelation to be of any significance, there must be self-aware structures capable of free will. That is, these self-aware structures must be capable of producing some action in violation of causation, or for which there is no anticedent. If self-aware structures exist, but do not have free will, then the revelation is irrelevant.

Thus, the existence of any theistic deity must naturally and of necessity have the consequence of free-willed self-aware structures.

For free-will to exist, the self-aware structure must have some cognitive component which is non-tangible, and not subject to the principles of physics. Any tangible component is subject to physics, and thus violates the principle of non-causation. This principle of non-tangibility is, in psychology and philosophy, refered to as 'dualism'.

However, various studies have shown that without exception, every component of the mind and consciousness arises from the actions of the nervous system. These studies, in various ways, all involve selectively disabling portions of the brain or preventing communication between them -- split brain studies (where the corpus collosum has been cut or damaged), stroke victim studies (localized or regionalized brain death), and partial brain anasthesia. This establishes with high confidence, beyond reasonable doubt, that the mind is in fact monistic, or entirely tangible.

As stated, a free-willed mind must have a non-tangible component. Since the human mind has no non-tangible component, it is incapable of free will.

Since free will is a requirement of theism, theism is provably impossible, beyond any reasonable doubt.

This method of proof by modus tollens can be summarized:

[A Theistic Deity Exists] THEN [Free Will Exists].
NOT [Free Will Exists].
THEREFORE NOT [A Theistic Deity Exists].

Assign these as follows:

A = "A theistic deity exists."
B = "Free will exists."

Then the standard format is:

A⇒B.
¬B.
∴¬A.

Answer 6

who's to say "pink unicorns don't exist",people are convinced there are aliens,and there are photographs and eyewitness accounts of them.
So if photography was available 1000s of years ago,it would be more viable that God does exist because he was in pictures?
I don't disregard scientific evidence,but non believers clutch at straws of "proof" more than believers.believers admit we have a sheppard and are as sheep,science hypocrites don't,even though they are saddled to the yoke of conjecture and proposed evidence.I yield that many non believers propose good viewpoints,I don't understand how with the lack of concrete evidence you can surely say God doesn't exist.I understand there would be a doubt,but an absolute decision,based on incomplete theories is puzzling to me.
It seems rather unscientific to come to such a definitive decision.

Answer 7

i dont reason out that there isnt a god-i just dont assume there is one-i dont assume there is a lot of things-my reason comes into play when evidence is presented-lots of things can exist that i havent encountered and almost every day i learn something new--makes for a wonderful life me not thinking that i already have the answers---just my thoughts---smile and enjoy the night
very good question

Answer 8

You said it... "reason".

There is no proof god exists.
Such an extreme claim,... that there exists a supreme creator of the universe, should have something more than a bunch of dusty, old books to back it up.

I have science to back me up.

Answer 9

Intelligence

Answer 10

Evidence...No one has encountered any god or gods - ever. It is purely mind trying to accept a belief. It is usually a belief of a belief or the desire to have a belief. It proves nothing. It never has. Playing mind games on oneself is delusional and dangerous.

Answer 11

I can believe in things which I have not encountered but somebody else has. But there are no credible reports of anyone having encountered any sort of god. See: