Proof of God's non-existance

83 posts / 0 new
Last post
cvt3393's picture
1) If you said that “blind


1) If you said that “blind faith” is an excuse for not having evidence, I might be more inclined to agree with you. However, I would argue that all people exercise faith to a certain degree and when we do, it is usually some rational basis or evidence.

Take for example a difficult medical procedure where a successful outcome is 50/50 at best. Notwithstanding the uncertainty involved, the patient places their faith in their surgeon to successfully perform the procedure. This faith is likely based on factors such as the surgeon’s training and reputation. Not all faith should be considered blind or irrational. Even when we look at the field of science, inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Induction requires a certain level of faith as well, and yet it is used to help scientists confirm or discover scientific truths.

My main point here is, there is no good reason to believe that faith and evidence have to be antithetical to one another. They can and actually do work in conjunction with one another. This can be confirmed in our everyday experiences. With all the uncertainty that we face in life, Christians and atheists alike act in a way that assumes a certain outcome and I would argue that this requires faith, even if it is at an unconscious level.

2) I presume that you have already heard various apologetic arguments (e.g. the cosmological argument, the argument from design, etc.) that are commonly used. I believe that these arguments provide proof, or at least reason, for the existence of God. From a historical perspective, Christians look to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as an objective historical basis for their faith. These are examples of evidences that I would point to. I presume that you would reject these arguments and evidences and say that I have no objective basis for believing in the existence of God.

I would attribute these differing conclusions to our foundational assumptions and values that guide our beliefs, interpretation of evidence, and actions. I presuppose the existence of God, whereas you presuppose the non-existence of God and it is only natural that we interpret data and facts in a way that will confirm our pre-existing assumptions.

On the topic of proof, what is the type of evidence that you are looking for? Not all questions relating to the fact of existence are going to be answered in the same way. Consider that proving to you that you have a leak in the roof will look different from proving to you the existence of laws of logic or numbers.

3) Yes, I believe that God created the universe. Admittedly, I do not have all the answers, but I have no doubt of God’s role in creation. My faith in God, however, does not preclude the use of logic, reason, or even science to better understand the world we live in.

With that said, I believe in the concept of causality and I would argue that it supports what the Bible teaches about creation. If you hold that the “cause and effect” principle generally holds true, and I assume you do, wouldn’t it be reasonable to conclude that there must have been a cause for the universe to come into existence? Even if you don’t believe in God, is there any good reason to believe that a first cause was not necessary?

Under the Christian worldview, only God is without beginning and since I believe in causality, He necessarily has to be the first cause. If we trace the chain of causation all the way back to the beginning of the universe, there must be an end point if we want to avoid falling into an infinite regress. If I’m not mistaken, even atheist Stephen Hawking believes that there was a beginning of the universe, although he rejects the idea that God caused it.

4) As far as I can tell, you reject the view that God created the universe and profess that you do not know how the universe came to be. I respect the honesty in that statement. However, absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. At the end of the day, it seems you are making your own leap of faith in rejecting the Christian view of creation without any credible evidence or an alternative explanation. Contrary to what you might think, both of us have arrived at a certain conclusion (or truth) based on faith.

Regarding your claims of when the books of the Bible were written, I would encourage you to look into your sources and confirm whether it comports with general scholarly consensus. As far as I know, most scholars generally believe that the books of the New Testament were written during the 1st century, with some possibly written in the early part of the 2nd century. Also, I’m not sure what the relevance is about the limited knowledge of the human writers of the New Testament. Please elaborate.

As to your theory involving Constantine, I would reiterate what I stated in my earlier post about the First Council of Nicaea. Also, what historical evidence is there that the Bible was written to consolidate power to Constantine? What need did Constantine have to consolidate power in this way when he accomplished that same goal in 324 through military conquest?

I get that you have problems with both Christians and the Bible and to that I would say that most, if not all evangelical Christians would affirm that there is a great deal of problems with both Christians and non-Christians alike. That is precisely the reason we confess the need of a Savior. With respect to the Bible, while there may be some apparent problems with it, I do not believe there are any actual problems with it.

Finally, I do not believe that we can find truth without faith. Whether it is faith in our own abilities, a certain theory or belief, or in a person or deity, faith is being exercised to help us reach conclusions that we hold to be true. However, I would argue that without faith or belief in God, there is no rational basis for believing we can arrive at truth or that life is even meaningful. To be clear, I am not saying that non-Christians are unable to reason or to arrive at truth. Both the Bible and experience would suggest otherwise. However, what I am saying is that their worldview is inadequate to help them make proper sense of their experiences on a consistent basis.

For instance, as we are having this dialogue through an internet forum, I believe this is only possible because God has given us the abilities to reason and communicate. How would you account for the ability to reason and communicate? How would you account for morality or even the order in the universe? If God does not exist, how would you account for these things?

Sheldon's picture
"the patient places their

"the patient places their faith in their surgeon to successfully perform the procedure. This faith is likely based on factors such as the surgeon’s training and reputation. "

Sorry but if you have evidence that the surgeon has a 50 percent success rate then you're making a choice based on the best evidence not faith at all. It's a false dichotomy to suggest that anything that isn't certain involves faith. 100% certainty is epistemologically impossible anyway, that's the nature of human existence. Do you believe the when the earth revolves tomorrow morning the sun will come into view? I do and no faith is needed as I have overwhelming evidence, but I can't be certain.

I realise some will labour this semantics, but it really isn't, if we're talking about faith being championed as better than evidence, as religions have done for centuries, the power of faith, have faith and all shall be revealed etc etc, then your scenario is different. Medical science gauges a prognosis on the available evidence, not on faith. I think confidence in the evidence and what it tells us is a better description.

"My main point here is, there is no good reason to believe that faith and evidence have to be antithetical to one another."

Well again this would depend on how you are defining faith. Given this forum is to discuss atheism and by extension religious belief I think this statement is flawed. Though of course human language is flawed, but we can be more accurate. I need no faith to believe a scientific theory because I am aware of the methodology and rigorous scrutiny involved before an idea reaches the pinnacle of scientific thought and becomes a scientific theory.

"For instance, as we are having this dialogue through an internet forum, I believe this is only possible because God has given us the abilities to reason and communicate. How would you account for the ability to reason and communicate? How would you account for morality or even the order in the universe? If God does not exist, how would you account for these things?"

That's just a claim, and you're using a common logical fallacy call argumentum ad ignorantiam. Even if we didn't know how this was possible that doesn't evidence your claim. However we do know, we are evolved primates, our taxonomy is that we are members of the family of great apes, evidence establishes this beyond any reasonable doubt. Our evolution has developed large brains, and vocal chords capable of language. The internet and all it entails is entirely explained by scientific advancements and the related technologies that rely on it. No faith and no deity and nothing supernatural is required.

Our morality is similarly explained by evolution, societal animals have empathy for each other, it's innate in us, and our evolved brains make us capable of self examination and thus we are able to create and understanding complex ideas like human morality and the concept that we owe each a duty of care, in order to create the best societies we can we need to protect the rights off the individual, societies that are tolerant and measure the consequences of our actions. Again no deity and nothing supernatural is needed to explain this, and there is no evidence for either.

"Finally, I do not believe that we can find truth without faith."

Really? This a demonstrably false claim, there re any number of truthful claims we can establish without any faith at all. I'd also like to ask is there anything you can't believe with faith? Thus faith is worthless in verifying truth from falsity.

Sheldon's picture
"2) I presume that you have

"2) I presume that you have already heard various apologetic arguments (e.g. the cosmological argument, the argument from design, etc.) that are commonly used. I believe that these arguments provide proof, or at least reason,"

The cosmological argument is an argument for the first cause, not for a deity, William Lane Craig has revised it with the assumption tacked on that the first cause can only be the Christian deity. It fails in it's first premise, as the premise states:

Everything we see that begins to exist has a cause"

There are several problems here:

1. Everything we see that has a beginning other the universe, exists within that natural physical universe, and is governed by scientific explanations that we can only apply under those circumstance. To make assumptions based on these scientific explanations about events prior to the existence of our universe is just that "assumption".
2. The argument uses this premise and inductive reasoning to try and create a rule, but it fails to point out in the premise that in every single instance those cause are natural and never supernatural, so the argument makes a rule then immediately breaks it to assume a supernatural cause for the universe.
3. We have only one universe to observe so cannot test the claims it required a cause, and we cannot know, and have no reason to believe that the laws of cause and effect existed or applied prior to existence of our universe.
4. The final assertion in lane Craig's version defines God into existence with special pleading by claiming nothing but an omniscient omnipotent transcendent "deity" could create our universe. This is pure assumption, and he is using the assumption such a deity exists in his argument for the existence of that deity, this is both special pleading and circular reasoning.

There are plenty of sites debunking both the Kalam cosmological argument and Lane Craig's version with his assumption tacked on.

mykcob4's picture
@ Faith seeking truth

@ Faith seeking truth
HOLY SHIT that was a long post...unnecessary!
I don't pre-assume anything.
Christianity hinges on one thing and one thing only....resurrection. There is no evidence of a resurrection, not one. There is no record of a crucifixion of jesus. Even your bible was modified to include the resurrection.
There are so many things wrong in your posts I can't begin to tackle all of them.
1) Morality never came from a god, it has always come from a society.

I don't have the time or energy to address all the things in your long post, so I will just say this.
You have no reason to have faith in a god. The only reason you do is because you have been intutionalised to do so. There is absolutely nothing that even remotely proves a god. When you seek information that proves a god, you seek it with the idea that a god will be proven. Guess what that is the same premise every atheists use as well. You think it is the opposite but it's not. The bias by christians and atheists is that there will be solid evidence of a god. The difference is that you jump to a conclusion, and atheists don't

cvt3393's picture


While you may not believe you do not “pre-assume” anything, the fact is that you do. When you make a comment about food tasting good, you pre-assume that your sense of taste is properly functioning. When you make a truth statement, you pre-assume your ability to engage in rational thought and that truth actually exists. When you say there is “absolutely nothing that even remotely proves a god”, it pre-assumes that you have examined and considered all possible evidence and that you are correct in rejecting the evidence. When it comes to the existence of God, no one comes to the table from a religiously neutral standpoint.

When I asked you to account for morality, you stated that morality did not come from a god, but from a society. I would need clarification from you to better understand what you mean, but this is essentially moral relativism. This position pre-assumes, or presupposes, that God does not exist. There are serious issues with this particular view and it fails to provide an adequate explanation for morality. Consider the following: 1) while it may explain how things ought to be a certain way, it fails fails to explain why it should be that certain way; 2) under this view, one can then validate the view that “might makes right”, but we inherently know that this cannot be correct either; 3) if there is no objective standard of morality, what then gives us the right to judge another society’s self-determined moral norms? Under this view, how can you have universal human rights?; 4) how can an individual or group of individuals ever push for moral reform without becoming “immoral” for going against what society has already pre-determined to be moral? Again, we inherently know that this is not the case either. Even if you don’t accept the Christian view that morality is objective and derived from the character of God himself, I encourage you to reconsider why moral relativism is quite inadequate as an explanation.

Based on your last post, it seems that our dialogue is coming to its natural end. However, I would like to share some food for thought. I believe that our view of metaphysical reality has profound implications for both our epistemology and ethics. In your view of metaphysical reality, you do not believe that God exists and it is probably why you seek and confirm naturalistic (and not supernatural) explanations in order to help you make rational sense of the world that we live in. Perhaps this is why many atheists (but not all) put their faith in science and Darwinism to provide the answers. But if Darwinism is true, then we are the product of undirected, impersonal, and non-moral natural evolutionary processes. Then what reason would we have to believe that our thoughts are anything more than predetermined electrochemical reactions or that our minds are geared towards truth and rational thought? What would be moral or immoral about thoughts or actions that are brought about by electrochemical reactions? If survival of the fittest is correct, what place does altruism or sacrifice have in society? Unlike the Christian worldview, I would argue that Darwinism cannot account for truth or rational thought, nor can it account for morality. In the Christian worldview, these things are possible only because God exists and because He has given us the capacity for them as His image bearers.

Whether you are aware of it or not, we all use faith in finding truth and understanding. Perhaps the word “faith” is a loaded term for you, but I would argue that we exercise faith when we decide or act on something in the face of uncertainty. This is not meant to be a comprehensive definition by any means, but I offer it for purposes of this discussion. When you get in a car, you get in with the hope and expectation that you will get to your destination safely, and even this can be a form of faith. When you say that God does not exist because you see no evidence, you again are making a leap of faith as you cannot prove it. Science itself makes use of faith as it often presupposes things like the uniformity of nature and the universality of physical laws which are derived through inductive reasoning (which requires faith).

We all exercise faith (of different kinds) in our everyday lives to lead us to truth, but we often don’t realize it. This is partly because we are not consciously thinking about our presuppositions (which we often take for granted) and what they are actually grounded in. At the end of the day, as long as we have this clashing of worldviews, we are not going to see eye to eye on the issue of proof or evidence of God. Perhaps you assume that the proof or evidence should be readily apparent to all of us, but why should we assume this when we are dealing with a transcendent and incorporeal being? Yet Scripture affirms that God has made Himself known to us in nature and that God Himself came into this world in Jesus Christ. You say there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but there actually is historical evidence. You unfortunately choose to reject the evidence by dismissing it as incredible.

I would challenge you to critique your atheistic worldview and see whether it can adequately answer your questions about the universe and life itself. I believe you will find internal inconsistencies and contradictions that should make you question whether your atheistic worldview is actually correct. The Christian worldview is not only a viable alternative, but it is the only true worldview. However, even with the evidence out there, you will not be able to attain this truth unless you place your faith in the resurrected Jesus Christ who is the source of truth.

mykcob4's picture
Oh my word what a long

Oh my word what a long failure of a post faith seeking truth.
1) For morality to come from a god, you have to prove a god.
2 I don't need help from a supernatural myth to explain anything. To do so is illogical and irrational.
3) Society dictates morality. The scope and breadth of that society determine on whom the morality is dictated to.
4) Morality is dynamically changing over time and different among each society.
5) Morality is subjective. There is no overriding moral code, never has been.
Your bullshit about "pre-assumption is just that BULLSHIT.
I don't use "faith" at all to find or seek the truth. I rely on known facts. I don't need to duplicate every experiment in history every time I investigate something.

This just another attempt by you a myth believer to "move the goal post" to fit your ill-fated narrative.

Gnostic Christian Bishop's picture
A negative, like God's non

A negative, like God's non-existence can never be proven. No logical fallacy can.

The only thing you can show as evidence, not proof, is that their omnipresent God is not present.

The only response possible to that is that God is invisible.

At that point, all you can do is walk away, unless you can convince them to reject their ridiculous supernatural beliefs.

Have you seen this story that speaks to this imaginary argument.


Nie Furia's picture
people are rly bad at

people are rly bad at listening stuff they dont like , they got all these special constructs in head of believes and stuff , so the aproach will be not to deny what they believe (religion) but to put it in perspective , explain how all religions base in solar cycle and previours myths like summerian stories overlap with bible . then you get a clear picture that all modern religions are just shitty translations + human bullshit distracted by thousand of years . and can not be taken seriously. now thats the trick all information is out there people just to busy or ignorant to look for it.

Brenda Kocisko's picture
There is more proof there is

There is more proof there is there is a God you can look at nature painter didn't happen by chance can you see the beauty of it you see God need to look at a newborn baby forming in the mother's room things it takes to make a baby grow is from God when you look at what man has done and tries to replicate God and usually screws things up also Jesus Christ is the son of God and there's more writings about him run anyone else about his existence you can speak of God and people don't get angry but the minute you could Jesus Christ his name in the sentence people get upset Hazel Hazel Son of God and to this day he controls the world the Bible says my ways are not your ways my thoughts are not your thoughts So You Think Like a Man you don't think like that Atlanta man would so put yourself first God said to be the greatest in the Kingdom be last reason why people don't want to believe in a God as they don't want to realize that one day though Stand before Jesus Christ and have to give it to him and for all the things I've done on the Earth people want to do what they want to do and not have to answer to anyone I see it more and more in this generation than any other generation sacrifice it is not in their vocabulary

mykcob4's picture
@ Brenda

@ Brenda
Your post is so fucking batshit crazy it isn't even funny. Any day you want to WAKE the fuck up.
Can you prove your god with anything other than YOU just attributing things to him?
And you think movies are real? You're more messed up than most anyone that I have encountered.
You are a NUTCASE!

Gnostic Christian Bishop's picture


You make a great analogy with your ---- "can you see the beauty of it you see God need to look at a newborn baby forming in the mother's room things it takes to make a baby grow is from God".

I have a perfect link for you to use to prove your point.

Who created those images and reality?

Your God or Satan?


Sheldon's picture
Was that translated using

Was that translated using Babel fish? It's complete bilge anyway, even without the execrable grammar and punctuation. What a collection of sickly saccharine religious cliches, nauseating.

Nyarlathotep's picture
faith seeking truth - How

faith seeking truth - How would you account for...the order in the universe?

That is an interesting but awfully vague statement/question; could you put some teeth on it? Perhaps you could be more clear about what you mean, or give some examples?

Randomhero1982's picture
My spidey senses are telling

My spidey senses are telling me that's refering to the 'fine tuned' arguement, which is the most ridiculous crap ever.

Kevin Rohm's picture
Let's tackle this logically.

Let's tackle this logically.

First, a "God" that has created Nature cannot also be part of that Nature. Thus, such a God must be supernatural, and separate from its creation. Existence is a quality of Nature; of the created. To exist is to have physical being or reality. A supernatural god, then, cannot have a natural quality such as existence. Therefore, a supernatural god cannot exist, by definition.

Second, cause and effect. A "cause" is a moment in time that creates an effect later in that same timeline. Therefore there must be time in order for there to be a cause and an effect. Time, as "spacetime," is a product of the big bang, and therefore did not exist before the big bang. In fact, there is no such thing as a "before the big bang." So, if time didn't yet exist, then the universe had no cause. The big bang itself was in fact the very first "cause" of everything else.

What we now believe happened, and this has so far been proven mathematically, is that the universe is a result of a metastable false vacuum of energy that destabilized and expanded spacetime. That mathematical proof is here:

I can't really give you better proof of god's nonexistence than this.

Eversharpe's picture
There is no such thing as

There is no such thing as "absolute proof" on any topic as one can always claim that we were deluded by the devil, etc. What is possible is to look at the claims made by the belief system and apply the normal process of evidence for/against. Subjects such as genesis, evolution, exodus, floods, answering prayers, loving and forgiving god can all be examined in an objective manner. By putting all of the findings together, we will have assembled a massive amount of evidence against the notion of an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent god. Since the only supposed evidence for today's main religions is written scripture, a good approach is to disprove (via weight of evidence) the veracity of those writings. Absolute proof - no. Overwhelming evidence - yes.

Cognostic's picture
There is no "Before the Big

There is no "Before the Big Bang." The Big Bang is not a cosmological argument and it has nothing at all to do with the creation of the universe. It is an explanatory model/theory that accurately describes the expansion of the universe. Asserting that the universe began from nothing is confounding a mathematical theory with the Big Bang theory.

There is no "nothing." There is not a "nothing" before the Big Bang and there isn't one outside the boundaries of the universe. Any assertion to the contrary is pure speculation,. We have not seen beyond the boundaries of the universe and we have not seen beyond Plank Time. All we have is "something." There is no "nothing." in this universe.

Asserting that a "who" existed before time and space is self negating. How does a nothing exist? How can a thought occur without a beginning point or an ending point? How does anything happen without time? You do not solve the mystery of the origins of the universe by appeal to a greater mystery. If you can make the assertion that a God did it, I can make the assertion that it is only turtles all the way down and both assertions carry the exact same weight.

Cognostic's picture
If you are going to accept

If you are going to accept the burden of proof for the non-existence of god, this can be easily accomplished. Science does this all the time. EXAMPLE "Accolades to Neil DeGrase Tyson (Sorry if that is spelled wrong)

There is a cave and you assert that there is a bear in the cave. I disagree and assert that there in no bear in the cave. I am asserting that the bear in the cave does not exist. How can I prove the negative?

Well, I watch the cave. I know bears can hibernate, so I watch the cave for a year. I never see a bear enter or exit the cave. I see no footprints outside the cave. I see nothing to indicate that a bear is in the cave. Still you insist that a bear is in the cave.

Okay, I take some white powder or fly paper and I place it everywhere outside the cave. Obviously the bear could sneak in or out of the cave when I was not looking and he might be sneaky enough to not leave footprints. I wait another year and see no indication of a bear. I am pretty damn sure that there is not a bear in the cave. Still you insist that there is a bear in the cave.

So I tape a light sheet of paper over the entrance of the cave. I sprinkle powder that would reveal a footprint and add fly paper to that. I wait another year and I still see no indication of a bear. The paper is in place and the powder and footprints have not been disturbed. I am 99.9% sure that there is no bear in that cave. I would even be willing to risk my life and enter the cave at this point and if you insist that there is a bear in the cave, well you need to come up with some facts or evidence that contradicts the obvious.

No one in their right mind would assume there is a bear in the cave at this point. If God is real, he has identifiable and measurable influence on this world. Answered Prayer for example. Like the powder in front of the cave, God's footprints are not there. Prayer works no better than chance and it is even worse than chance if we tell the people we are praying for that they are being prayed for. We can prove a negative. We have 6000 years of NO FOOTPRINTS and no evidence at all for the existence of a God.
The most reasonable conclusion is that a god does not exist. We can be 99.9 percent sure.

Rajid's picture
I think I'd go one farther

I think I'd go one farther than that. I would establish that the bear, if he exists, would require a certain amount of food and water, which is not present in the cave. We know that the bear can not live without this and thus must exit the cave to get it. If we have watched and done what you describe for foot prints, for the amount of time the bear could potentially be without food and water, even allowing for hibernation, then we can establish a very high level of certainty that the bear is not in the cave. Of course, he could be elsewhere! That's the problem with trying to prove a negative! God just keeps running for the shadows!

Rajid's picture
I would strongly suggest you

I would strongly suggest you read the book, "A Universe from Nothing". It will go a long way toward explaining why getting something from nothing is actually the norm and not an exception. Once you start understanding the way the world works from a quantum physics point of view, you realize that something comes from nothing all of the time! This book explains why that is. It's a good read!

Cognostic's picture
Your Qustion is ill formed

Your Qustion is ill formed and begs the solution. "Who" "caused" "everything." There are a number of issues.

Who: assumes it was a person or personality. This is easily rejected as there is no evidence for a 'who." It assumes the answer.
Cause and Everything: Things that are made have causes. Things that occur naturally, may or may not have causes. Why do particles pop in and out of existence in the Higgs Field? We don't know why Water doesn't behave like any other chemical. Time Is Relative and May Not Even Exist. And there is so much more out there that we just don't know. Saying a God is a cause is explaining one enigma with a greater enigma. It just does not work,. Confusing things that occur natural with things that are made is yet another problem. It is a category error. You can not assert that everything is made or that it all comes from something without evidence of that assertion. What are you talking about and how it got here. Specifically. If you say a creator did it, you have to prove a creator exits first.

Once again the question is ill formed. The Big Bang is a fact. The big bang theory is not a theory of cosmology. "Origins of the Universe." The Big Bang theory is a theory of the "Expansion of the Universe." The universe is expanding and this is a fact. We know this from light shift and the Doppler effect. All modern research supports the Big Bang Theory. The universe is expanding.

Where you are getting confused is in the argument of reversing the expansion of the Big Bang to a hot dense mass. A plasma. This is what the particle accelerator as Cern is attempting to do. When we reverse the direction of the big bang we get a "singularity." It is from this singularity that space and time and everything were created. Attempts to move past this point in time, "Plank Time" have failed as our physics break down at Plank Time. To say anything at all about anything at all past this point is pure conjecture. Again you end up explaining a mystery with a greater mystery. Anything at all you assert beyond this point requires EVIDENCE. You can not assert that something came from nothing. We have no example anywhere of nothing. You can not assert that it came from something. We have no example of that something. All you can assert is that we do not actually know. You can also assert that the Big Bang is FACT. Do you know what a scientific theory is? Perhaps a discussion for another time.

sjewins's picture
Why does the cause of the

Why does the cause of the universe need to be a who?


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.