Can it be proven that a creator (god) does not exist

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
Why would you need to

Why would you need to disprove a claim for which absolutely no objective evidence can be demonstrated?

Something that always strike me about this attempt to reverse the burden of proof as well, is what does evidence for a non-existent thing look like?

LostLocke's picture
Good point, I keep forgetting

Good point, I keep forgetting about that.
If something doesn't exist, it can't leave behind evidence of its non-existence.

Sheldon's picture
Precisely, what is the 'proof

Precisely, what is the 'proof' that unicorns don't exist? Bearing in mind religious apologists are forever dishonestly claiming absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, one assumes they have proof that unicorns don't exist that goes beyond there being no evidence for them.

Sheldon's picture
One more salient point,

One more salient point, absence of evidence is absolutely evidence of absence, it may not necessarily be unequivocal proof, but this is just another dishonest misrepresentation religious apologists use. Do they consider the complete lack of evidence for mermaids to be evidence that mermaids don't exist? One would assume so, so why the double standard.

mykcob4's picture
Well, Breezy has gone down

Well, Breezy has gone down that road again of "I don't see why you can't disprove something." What a bunch of shit Breezy. I could ask you to disprove anything and demand that if you don't that it is real, just because there may be a sliver of a possibility that it is real and YOU couldn't fucking disprove it. Ridiculous! Really really adolescent and fucking stupid John.
Prove that there isn't an invisible purple cow behind the sun controlling everything. You can't do it so it must be real! Moron!

Sky Pilot's picture


"Prove that there isn't an invisible purple cow behind the sun controlling everything. You can't do it so it must be real!"

It's a damn green cow that controls everything and I have the picture to prove it.

LogicFTW's picture
@Ali original post

@Ali original post

Actually I can quite easily prove a particular god idea does not exist. I do not even need real evidence, simple reasoning and logic take aparts any god story to date quite easily.

I repeat myself a lot on this, but look up the definition of god.

Words like supreme being, worship, superhuman being, etc. The very definition of the "god" word, disproves itself simple reasoning and logic and critical thinking easily points out the word definitions is an impossible contradiction of itself.

Some sort of creator idea, is a bit harder. When you say something as broad as a creator, that can really mean anything, you can not really disprove it because the meaning is so broad. Kind of like saying "you cannot prove monsters do not exist." I could point to hitler and say, most people would agree he was a monster, I think he was a monster, therefore monsters are real!

It comes back to a great quote that I am probably going to butcher trying to go from memory:
"Any great claim presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
And this quote simply highlights a basic skill everyone has, but should continue to develop and apply to all aspects in their lives. If you consider every claim made w/o any evidence, you are frozen considering every possibility, (of which there is an infinite amount) that the possibility does not have evidence for.

Simply because other people, possibly of authority, (parents, teachers, religious leaders) tell you something, that is not evidence, thats a fallacy known by many names: appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum.

Abdul Wahhab's picture
Only a Physical entity can be

Only a Physical entity can be proved physically. But God is not tangible or physical, HE is the Light that guides this Universe. Human brain is Finite and God is infinite and an infinite thing can not be contained in an infinite thing. God lives in a believers heart He guides his follower by showing signs and that is the prove for the existence of God.
Human conscience provides the proof. All people agree that they feel more at peace
with goodness than with evil. Our inner self warns us about bad and diverts us towards
what is good. All religions are unanimous that God teaches goodness.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Believer - infinite

Believer - infinite thing can not be contained in an infinite thing.

Well that is clearly false. The simple counterexample would ℕ⊂ℝ.

sodette's picture


When you say "God is not tangible or physical" what you are saying is that god really doesn't exist.

You said - "...HE is the light that guides the universe..." Uhm, prove that. You can BELIEVE that, sure, but you cannot prove it because it's just religious bullshit that makes you feel good in your ignorance, really.

You said - "God lives in a believers heart, blah, blah, blah..." and, you are correct because a fiction can only live in the imagination and cannot exist in any other place. This is not proof a god exists, in fact, its proof a god does not exist anywhere but in the imagination of those who want god to exist.

You said "... All people agree that they feel more at peace with goodness than with evil..." what an ignorant thing to say as a justification for any god. I could say "All people feel more alive when they breath oxygen than when they breath poison gas..." but that doesn't prove the existence of a god. Also, define goodness? Fact is, the earth and life is not kind, not easy, not full of goodness and kindness but instead is a dangerous place full of risks and liabilities, things that can hurt or kill you. Your heaven is a fiction and that is the only place in existence where only good things happen all the time. Of course, nothing fun ever happens there either - frankly, it all sounds pretty boring to me but I digress.

You said "All religions are unanimous that god teaches goodness..." sure, and they all fail to show an application of goodness but, in observational truth, just the opposite even two followers of any religion cannot agree on any one thing without getting angry at each other.

I think you should stick to talking with religious people who do not think and who simply accept your preaching with a haughty "Amen, brother!" because you won't be able to sell much of that shit here, it simply doesn't hold water.

mykcob4's picture
You are just proselytizing

You are just proselytizing Believer and that doesn't prove shit other than you are an ignorant ass. Prove your fucking god. You can't do it. There is no god and muhammed was just a thief and a warlord nothing more.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Myk

@ Myk
"muhammed was just a thief and a warlord nothing more."

You forgot the child rapist part...

Sheldon's picture
"Only a Physical entity can

"Only a Physical entity can be proved physically. But God is not tangible or physical, "

You proved this how exactly? You can't even master basic grammar.

Sheldon's picture
"All people agree that they

"All people agree that they feel more at peace
with goodness than with evil. "

What an unbelievably stupid piece of vapid nonsense.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "All people agree that

Re: "All people agree that they feel more at peace with goodness than with evil."

Odd.... But I have been around some "good" people/things before that have made me feel very ill at ease. Couldn't wait to get away from them. Yet, I have also been around some fairly "evil" people/things that did not bother me in the slightest. Some were almost fascinating, actually.

The all-time winner for making me feel uncomfortable and definitely non-peaceful, however, have been those Christian/religious folks who wear the masquerade smile and put on their public acts of feigned kindness and moral righteousness. Because looking behind the scenes in their lives reveals an entirely different story.

Sapporo's picture
Eternally torturing people

Eternally torturing people for not believing in something which cannot be proved is the very definition of evil.

LogicFTW's picture
I am honestly impressed

I am honestly impressed "believer" that you could fit so many blatant and obvious falsehoods in 2 short paragraphs.

Speaking of proving, I cannot prove you are just trolling and "I came, I saw, I conquered." And simply here to elicit response.
But with each posting you make, the evidence mounts. I feel you only believe in stirring up lots of replies. Of which I am only adding to. Oh well.

LostLocke's picture
The fun part here is that you

The fun part here is that you just keep saying "God". "God" is a catch-all and a get out of jail free card.
When you say God you obviously mean Allah. If I say I feel Ra in my heart, that would be just as much evidence for the existence of Ra as it would for Allah.
If you say, "Well, you're really just feeling Allah and misinterpreting it as Ra." I can respond, "No, you're really feeling Ra and misinterpreting it as Allah." And right there we'd both be on equal footing, since we can't use any physical evidence for either god.

watchman's picture
@Belieber ....

@Belieber ....

And just which deity is it that you think you follow...?

Does it have a name ..... ?

Kataclismic's picture
Only atheism is falsifiable.

Only atheism is falsifiable. God only needs to show himself in order to prove all atheists wrong. No amount of complete absence of something will ever prove it doesn't exist.

CyberLN's picture
I disagree. Atheism is not

I disagree. Atheism is not falsifiable since it makes no assertions. What you described isn’t, in my estimation, atheism. Saying there is no god can indeed be falsified, but that’s not what atheism is for me, and probably for most folks identified as atheist.

Kataclismic's picture
If I don't believe in


Kataclismic's picture
...and the concept that this


Kataclismic's picture
It fascinates me when an

It fascinates me when an atheist disagrees with fact but it doesn't make it any less factual.

Kataclismic's picture
The answer to the question is


Kataclismic's picture
I disagree; you do make an

I disagree; you do make an assertion. Every time a believer talks about their slavemaster you make the assertion that they've found delirium as opposed to deity.

That's how atheism works.

Mutorc S'yriah's picture
One cannot prove that "God"

One cannot prove that "God" doesn't exist, if by "God" you are laying on a blanket statement. Basically that's what you did, Ali, by saying that the god is a creator. You didn't say what it is this god is supposed to have created. I guess that the god to which you refer is the one I mean when I type it out as ===> "God" <===, ie. the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In order to disprove "God", or any gods, you need a test, SOMETHING which makes the god falsifiable. Is there ANYTHING, (property, ability etc.), which if that ANYTHING were to exist or not exist, would disprove the god?

Suppose one were to CLAIM that if you say the words . . .
===> Shizumba my lord, come unto us <=== ,
. . . then the god WILL do the following, (is guaranteed to): transport the news cameras of 101 of the world's most reputable TV and movie news companies to the spot, to record the event going on in front of me, as the god did appear in the form of a green, fire-breathing dragon, with pink spots on its body, and blue stripy legs, and then before my eyes turn into an elephant, and rise into the sky, disappearing into outer space, and if I did say the words, and the god did NOT appear, then that would disprove the god.

But that would only disprove any god or gods for whom the claim of appearance to the words above, was made. So one must determine what property, phenomenon etc. is claimed for a god, which can test for the existence of the god. The claim I outlined above is supposed to be something which I doubt could ever happen, but if it was claimed, guaranteed to work, yet failed, then it would disprove the god.

As a set of steps it goes:-
ie. IF the test is passed then maybe god exists, but IF the test is failed then god does not exist.

If the test were passed, that may still not be a proof of "God", because it could be something else producing the result. It is a necessary part of the test that it be a falsification test, so the test must be GUARANTEED to work, if "God" exists. Failure means "God" does not exist.

But "God", (the one of supposed Abrahamic theology), seems to have no testable qualities. I have heard that the orderliness in nature, the existence of trees, animals, waterfalls etc. proves "God". But that does not prove "God". It could just as easily have been produced entirely naturally, (and I, as an atheist I am happy with that). Nature is sufficient, "God" is unnecessary.

Besides, the existence of trees and birds is not a test, it is just the state of the world. For it to be a 'test', it would have to be the case that the trees and birds etc. could not exist without "God". But then you would need to prove that the trees and birds etc. could only exist WITH "God".

It is not good enough to say that the trees and birds etc. could not exist without "God", therefore "God" exists. If we are talking PROOF, and the theist says: ===> the trees and birds etc. could not exist without "God" <=== , then the next step is for them to PROVE that, otherwise it's circular logic, which is a fallacy.

The problem is that as an example, the Abrahamic god seems to be hidden from us, which makes it indistinguishable from it not existing. "God" is claimed to answer prayers, but when put to the test, PRAYER HAS BEEN SHOWN TO FAIL*. Much of what is said by theists to prove "God" is either is not a test to apply, that would falsify "God", or the evidence and reasons given can be explained in other ways, such as misinterpretation, delusion, hallucination etc. Theists will tell us that "God" may not be put to the test. In that case, again, it makes "God" indistinguishable from it not existing. At other times, they might say that no answer is the answer, and again, it makes "God" indistinguishable from it not existing.

At other times, some theists might say that they have had personal experiences which prove "God" to them. Well, good for them, but it is of no value to any of the rest of us. Their personal experience, from my point of view, is indistinguishable from misinterpretation, delusion, hallucination etc. This is NOT to say that the person is not genuine in their belief that they had a personal experience of "God", but they CAN sincerely hold such a belief, and still be wrong. The rest of us can't tell.

Finally, I object to rules, laws etc., made to govern my behaviour, rights, freedoms and so on, when those rules, laws etc., are made in supposed obedience to a deity that is hidden, untestable, unfalsifiable and thus indistinguishable from FICTITIOUS.
* Links to websites on studies of prayers.

Power of prayer flunks unusual test :-

Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

Studies on intercessory prayer

Cheers, Mu.

chimp3's picture
Yes, a god could be

Yes, a god could be disproved if this god was defined in a way that could be falsified. Nebulous deep-i-ties are not adequate for testing.

Sheldon's picture
Ali "no one can truly

Ali "no one can truly physically​ prove or disprove the existence of a creator."

This would depend how define creator, if you are careful to make your definition unfalsifiable as religions so often do, then yes that's probably correct, but as in science when something can't be falsified it's claimed to be "not even wrong". In science this term is used to describe a completely useless claim, that we can learn nothing from. Why religions boast about their beliefs in this way is unclear, perhaps they're unaware of what it really means?

dogalmighty's picture
By calling him THE creator,

By calling him THE creator, you set god up for non-existence. When we unequivocally find out how our universe was created, and it was not a that point he will not exist as THE creator. It does not disprove a god does not exist, it just makes his existence much much less likely. At what point does likeliness become so small that a god does not exist? What is important, is we have any reason to believe a god as defined by said doctrine, exists? IMHO we have reached that point already.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.