Atheists, where is the proof that God doesn't exist?

Question

... and I thought Atheism was based on reason or logic *rolls eyes*

I'm agnostic - not Christian, ok?

Mad woman, you claimed that I argued that "lack of proof constitutes proof".

What the hell are you talking about? Nice strawman though.

Thats true, Elissa

"if something doesn't exist, there would be no evidence of it." - eelai000

There is no evidence that flying sauces exist despite the countless reports (albeit unauthenticated). So you're arguing that UFO's do not exist due to this lack of evidence. Lack of evidence does not translate to proof of their non-existence. Another case in point, hundreds of years ago, there was no evidence that the Earth was round and it was believed that it was flat. Using your logic, the lack of evidence that it was round = round earth doesn't exist. As you can see, this is fallacious since it was been proven that it is indeed round.

You're making what is called an ad ignorantiam fallacy. Logic 101, get a grasp of it, ya dolt!

I agree, Zen Pirate. It appears that we can only conclude on the balance of probabilities since it cannot neither be ascertained that things in question exist or not, whether that be fairies, leprechauns, etc.

I have noticed that a lot of these atheists have avoided the question by employing what is called an ignoratio elenchi fallacy in a pathetic attempt to feign taking the higher ground -- a tactic which is typically used to divert attention away from the question at hand by presenting an irrelevant argument (Burden of proof lies on me? I've already stated my position, being an agnostic, so stay on the topic and answer the damn question!)

Answer 1

Where is the proof faeries don't exist or the land of Oz doesn't exist in a parallel dimension to ours? Yet I bet you don't feel any hesitation to say that you don't believe they do or are darn skeptical at best. Same with God for me. I see no compelling evidence to believe God exists. I find none of the arguments I've heard so far convincing. When someone comes forward with some positive objective evidence I will consider it. Until then its filed with faeries, leprechauns, unicorns, UFOs, loch ness monster, etc... all of which I happily admit I can't absolutely prove don't exist.

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim if they expect others to believe it. So tell me, are you agnostic about leprechauns? Can you prove they don't exist? Are you illogical for not believing in everything you can't prove is true? Do people find you gullible? Is it logical to suspend holding a negative belief on everything until its proven beyond doubt to not exist?

Answer 2

Same place as the proof that the FSM doesn't exist. Or the Tooth Fairy. Or any other hypothesis.

Don't you get it? You CANNOT prove that something doesn't exist - whatever it is. But that doesn't constitute evidence that it does. There IS no evidence that God exists, either.

The fact that no evidence that God does exist is just one of the things that makes it extremely likely that he does. There are many other reason for sensible and logical people to take that stance that God is so unlikely that it's senseless to belive that he does.

CD

Answer 3

this is a paradox.

if something doesn't exist, there would be no evidence of it.

thus, the lack of evidence that god doesn't exist serves as the intangible proof that god doesn't exist.

that is why the burdon of proof lies on the person trying to demonstrate that a thing is, because, lack of evidence demonstrates that a thing is not.


in conclusion, you are either a dolt or an instigator. prove you are not.

Answer 4

permit's say we basically coined the information "aunicornists" as you seem to have achieved. permit's say we upload that observe to the dictionary. Does that make the existence of unicorns conceivable or greater in all possibility? Come on, semantics have not have been given any touching on certainty. they have a observe for phrenology too, that would not make it any much less loopy. What do you call a individual who would not have self belief in god and would not even properly known the possibility that gods exist? on account that - on your view - there is no observe for the form of individual does that make it impossible for the form of individual to exist? you're somewhat Orwellian on your use of semantics. you're making "concept crime" impossible by making it impossible to precise.

Answer 5

After getting my question removed, and deleted, I think that religionists, are the proof god doesn't exist.
''rolls eyes''
They are the ones that made him up in the first place. what better way to control the masses, than to make up a benevolent being, that '' loves you''. But only, as long as you do what you are told.
And if you don't, well, then, they made up some other guy to 'punish' you, for NOT, being good.

And last but not least, in answer to your question? It is YOUR question, so the burden of proof, is on YOU.
and my dear?, we have more than enough logic to spare for you, and anyone else who wants it. It is called the truth.
No pink unicorns, no tooth fairy, no Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny, >>>>>>and no god.

Answer 6

What proof is there that a man in a white suit zapped 2 ppl onto the earth and told them not to eat apples? Or that a giant not only walked the earth at one point, but it was killed by a pebble? Or that some guy made it rain frogs in Egypt and then parted an entire sea?

All you've got to go on is a book that just appeared one day, and that you assume is from a higher power.

Now I'm going to answer the question. Atheists don't actually have proof that GOD does not exist. Atheists are just going with the answer that seems most logical to them, just like you are. Nobody will ever know until they die whether or not God exists, so there is no use fighting about it. I say that we should just all learn to accept one another's' beliefs, even if there is little or no proof supporting any of them.

PS: I'm not atheist, I'm jewish. That doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution, or in science. I have my own personal way of believing. I am open to any body's beliefs, so long as they truly believe in them, and are not forced into it. It troubles me when I see ppl trying to get others to admit they were wrong about their religious views, when they are just trying to be true to themselves. Live, and let live.

Answer 7

It's not really our responsibility to disprove such a claim. If you're going to make a claim that something fantastical exists you're going to get requests to prove it, you can't just turn that around by saying "How about you disprove it?", it doesn't work like that.

Look at it this way, if I accused you of a crime I'd have to provide some sort of evidence to implicate you. A baseless accusation would fall on willingly-deaf ears, and with good reason. Nobody would take my accusation in good faith and ask you to prove your innocence.

Answer 8

Without evidence that God does exist, It is illogical to believe in him. It is that simple.

You must remember that "you can't prove he doesn't exist" applies to ALL gods, and ALL supernatural entities. That doesn't mean you should go around believing in leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns.

We apply that same logic to religion.

Answer 9

The burden of proof lies with the people who claim that God does not exist.

I pray to God that he will soften their hearts and open up to Jesus so he can show them the way. God Bless!

Answer 10

Where is your proof that Im not God?
Where is your proof that God does exist?
Why is it ok for you to claim faith and thus be exempt from proof, but not for us to cite lack of faith as reason not to have to disprove things?

Not being able to proof something false does not mean its true anymore than not being able to prove it means its false.

There is no burden of proof on either side until they try to convert people. If you try to convert someone you need proof, otherwise you should be able to have your faith and me have none without anyone making a fuss about it.