Time For Athests To Prove There Is No God.

[Hydra009]

Better yet, prove I don't have a baseball signed by Babe Ruth. I'm not gonna give you proof that I have one either, because by your logic the burden of proof isn't exclusively on me. It's up to you to prove that I don't have one.

Either you have the baseball or you don't.  50/50 chance.  But you wouldn't boast of such a claim unless you had a reason to boast, so you more likely than not have a baseball of Babe Ruth.  :P

I swear to FSM, I've seen serious arguments that ran along those lines.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Pascal's wager, or is it some argument I haven't heard of before?

[Hydra009]

a bastardization of Bayes' theory paired with the assertion that a strongly-held belief is likely true ("why die for a lie?")

An observant mind will note that one can use these types of arguments to support any assertion whatsoever.  It's essentially a filter consisting of a net with a giant hole in the middle.  Useless.  Dangerous, even.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

[doorknob]

There is no evidence to suggest that there is a god. There.

Lack of evidence= proof

one more parting note.

God is a human concept it exists in our imaginations alone.

[Mr.Obvious]

It depends on who Cthulhu is defined as: the first being who sprang forth in the infinite moment of time from the eternal laws of reality, exists in real time and creates beings according to those laws? I can provide evidence, but you prove to me that he doesn't exist. As what does he not exist? As what does he exist?

No; I'm asking you to prove Cthulhu doesn't exist and didn't create our universe. He exists as an immortal being of untold power, both inside and outside our universe. A creator and breaker of worlds.
Now, I can provide evidence for his existance. But I suspect you'll just close yourself of and won't let his insanity into your heart and soul. You'll just close yourself off to the experience. So you should just prove to me that he doesn't exist instead.

Seriously though, I'm betting you don't believe in Chtulhu. In that case, it's simple. The Ancient One we'll name God A. But you believe in a specific deity. (I'm betting christian-based). We'll name your god: God B.
You claim that if God B weren't real, we should be able to prove he isn't real.
So, disprove God A for me. Same concept. And once you do that, I can have a crack at God B. And who knows? If you show me how to disprove what you concider to be a fake god, perhaps yours will stand the test.

I doubt it. But still.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do people like the OP exist in a vacuum before posting here?

[Baruch]

There is no evidence to suggest that there is a god. There.

Lack of evidence= proof

one more parting note.

God is a human concept it exists in our imaginations alone.

What is brilliant about science, is that it exists in both our imaginations, and outside our imaginations.  Plato's Forms.  Though one can argue about the details of that relationship, and Aristotle did.  If things were only in our imaginations ... then we would be solipsistic.  And by outside our imaginations ... this is apart from the fact that different people can share with each other what they are imagining ... there is a reality outside of humanity.  For an atheist, it is impersonal.

[SGOS]

Atheists, time for you to present evidence that there is no God.

Not my time, I guess.  I have no belief in a god, and even less investment in the idea that there is none.  You are asking me to invest time and effort in something I don't even care about.

And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out.

It's up to theists to present evidence of God.

Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative.  That is not true. The negative can be proven

You are now moving the goal posts.  Your challenge was to prove a god does not exist, not a negative.  Hell, I can't even prove Thor does not exist.  Tell you what, since you are smart enough to prove a negative, you prove Thor does not exist.  Then substitute your god for Thor, and presto!  It's mission accomplished, and I didn't even have to lift a finger.

It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium.

I don't know what this means.

Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not yet proven.

This is an odd set of rules.  Did you make them up?

If God doesn't exist, as you atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't.

Oh, goody.  Let's invent a bunch of things that don't exist, and then prove they don't exist.  Do you like to run around in circles?

I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen".

It's a wonderful question.  It gets debated in theological seminars, but you are saying it's off limits to atheists.  I still want to know why an all powerful loving god allows bad things to happen.  Why does he allow Satan, his arch enemy, to exist?  Is he not powerful enough?

If you ask for a definition of God, He is the Deity, the first "being", the Supreme being who creates all things and has existed for all time, being omniscient and omnipotent.

Prove it.

[SGOS]

I can't prove that god does not exist.  This causes me no concern whatever.  But I can't prove that god does exist, either.  This bothered me many years ago, but now it's of no concern.  But if you can prove to me that God does exist, I will believe it.  That's how it works.  Just prove it, and all your concerns go away. 

The reason I am an atheist is not because I can prove god does NOT exist.  I can't do that.  The reason I am an atheist is because I cannot prove that god DOES exist.

[widdershins]

Atheists, time for you to present evidence that there is no God. And don't say that it is up to theists to present evidence of God. That is copping out. Also, don't say that you can't prove a negative. That is not true. The negative can be proven. It's just harder, because you have to prove the whole medium. Also, don't state that you can't prove something that doesn't exist. That is stupid, and assumes something not yet proven. If God doesn't exist, as you atheists obviously believe, then there must be a logical reason why He doesn't. I say logic, not philosophic, like "why does God allow bad things to happen". If you ask for a definition of God, He is the Deity, the first "being", the Supreme being who creates all things and has existed for all time, being omniscient and omnipotent.

When you understand why your request is stupid and arrogant, then you'll be someone I can have an intelligent conversation with.

[Solomon Zorn]

Absence of evidence over a lifetime of personal searching, and absence of evidence over the course of human history, combine to be an absence of evidence sufficient to be called, "evidence of absence."

Or in other words, your lack of evidence, is all the evidence I need, to infer quite confidently, that you are mistaken in your assertions about God, and that I should, therefore, not believe these assertions.

If I were to assert, some positive explanation to be the final word, on how it all began, then I would have the burden of proof.

Although some atheists will make dogmatic claims, about the Big Bang(to their shame), most will admit to not knowing what the definite cause of the universe is.

Our not having a complete answer to such a difficult question, is due to our inability to look back in time, far enough to see the start of it all.

You, and many others like you, seem to want a complete answer very badly, and you are willing to accept myths and fantastic tales, by primitive writers, as the authoritative answers to mankind's most elusive questions:
"Where did we come from?"
"Is there anything after death?"
"What is right and wrong?"

You tie them all together and answer them with one little word: "God."

It seems like such a neat and tidy little answer, until you take off the Holy Goggles, and think more skeptically about it.

Do I think there could exist a power vast enough, and simultaneously microscopic enough, to create and manipulate the universe? No.

Do I really think, the creator of the universe would have left the key to the salvation of the human race on a few scraps of parchment? No.

Do I trust in the traditions of "The Church," to inform me, of the origins and destiny of All? No.

Do I think that divine miracles happen? No.

Miracles only happen in the same respect that anti-miracles happen: by chance.

For every little girl, that falls out of a tree, and is healed, there is a little girl who has the tree fall on her, and is killed.

This is probably more of an answer than your burden-shifting question deserves.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

a bastardization of Bayes' theory paired with the assertion that a strongly-held belief is likely true ("why die for a lie?")

An observant mind will note that one can use these types of arguments to support any assertion whatsoever.  It's essentially a filter consisting of a net with a giant hole in the middle.  Useless.  Dangerous, even.

Holy shit I could only make it a few paragraphs in. What a "scientist" indeed.

[Blackleaf]

Prove to me that invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Don't say it's my responsibility to prove that it doesn't exist. That's a cop out. And don't say you can't prove a negative, because you can. I said so. You can't prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist, therefore, they must be real. You also can't prove that the world isn't secretly being controlled by an alien race of reptilian shapeshifters, or that Bigfoot isn't real, or that we're living in The Matrix, so I'm going to go ahead and say that those things are 100% true.

[Shiranu]

I don't care if you believe, so nah I'm good.