There's no proof that God exists, but no proof that God (or some divine being or force) doesn't exist?

Actually there is quite a bit of evidence that God doesn't exist:

The random suffering in the world is evidence of the nonexistence of a loving, powerful, informed God. The fact that no God has contacted us in an unambiguous manner is contrary to the nature of God as depicted in most religions and therefore evidence that such a God doesn’t exist. The fact that, so far, all the explanations we’ve found for complicated phenomena have involved the interaction of less complicated phenomena implies that the ultimate explanation for the universe as a whole will likewise involve something less complicated, rather than something more complicated such as God. The fact that the knowledge of the world exhibited by writers of ancient religious texts never exceeds what such people could be expected to know through the science available to them implies they had no additional sources of knowledge with regard to God. The fact that many religious texts, including the Bible, are self contradictory, is evidence that they are not divinely inspired. The evidence that faith doesn’t work as a means of obtaining knowledge about the world is evidence that it doesn’t work as a means of obtaining knowledge about God. The fact that faith leads to multiple conflicting claims about God also supports that conclusion. The fact that prayer doesn’t work as a means of changing anything in the world is evidence that there is no God out there to pray to.

Any one of these points might be explained by a combination of circumstances that included the existence of God, but all of them together, in combination with the complete lack of evidence in favor of God, constitute what I consider to be quite solid (though not incontrovertible) evidence that God doesn’t exist.

listed right here are your problems: a million. Infinities are irrational hence out of the area of technological know-how to talk. 2. technological know-how says the situations required to create the super Bang existed only AFTER the super bang got here approximately. Many quantum activities take place in opposite time, so that is achieveable, achieveable and valuable. No greater-temporal tips required. 3. infinite replace isn't achieveable in a finite universe. neither is it technological know-how if it happens. evaluate area a million above. 4. each and every thing did not come from not something. TIME began on the super BANG. No empty not something earlier. No earlier. Finite universe. once you're saying "nicely what became earlier?" ask your self "what's chillier than absolute 0?" not not something the metaphysical high quality yet no situation, there is not any under absolute 0. a minimum of not rationally. I consider each and every thing you're saying, different than that any of this gobbledygook is technological know-how. technological know-how has that is theories in place and that they don't contain INFINITIES or CREATORS. this would not propose they don't exist, yet they are actually not RATIONAL recommendations yet recommendations to be taken on faith. the recommendations you're utilising come from the theologian Thomas Aquinas and are 800 YEARS previous!

In simple terms academia states that in the absence of proof of the existence of something it must be deemed not to exist until verifiable proof is found - thus god is held not to exist pending some sort of verifiable evidence.

So any suggestion of a divine, supernatural being or god is deemed to not exist until a single shred of verifiable evidence for it's existence is produced!!

The first person to do that will become a multimillionaire overnight!!

But what about the specific claims of christianity for their god - there we find evidence very much against a lot of their claims!!!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!!

At best he was an amalgam of those others!!

God serves a purpose, science serves a purpose. The problem is that people think both are the same. God is objective towards Morals and Ethics, Science is objective towards Understanding and Knowledge. People confuse these for some reason. I see it as this, and many deists will fight with me on this till either they or I die. God is an all knowing God, with that comes natural cunning-ness, what says that certain things he made up for us to find out for ourselves? Maybe the human race did evolve over a time span, maybe the Earth was created over a time span. No one is 100% correct yet. People are 100% positive of it, but not correct yet.

It goes both ways man,

We get bashed just as much because supposedly without god and religion we're immoral people. It's not the "cool" thing as you put it, but just the same push and shove as we all do for whatever reason we see fit.

Either way you pointed it out as well theres no proof all the way around, so why are you going to force a belief or religion on someone when you have no actual knowledge of it.

i know how you feel, now i am a believer but none of us are 100% sure untill after we die....now if there isnt a God then we all just stay as dirt on the road side, and if there is, then we either go to heaven or hell. I see it as a win-win situation being a believer because if there is no God, you still dont feel regret because you dont feel anything but is there is a God then whoopy we go to heaven! really, this whole section and all the questions about the "prove He exists" or "prove He doesnt exist" are really stupid...i think this section should be for people to ask questions about their religion and help their uneasiness rather than bash the living hell out of believers or non believers.

now then....WHO WANTS PIZZA?!

Burden of Proof Fallacy.

Atheists don't have to prove their isn't a God. The person claiming there is needs to prove their claim. Once there is this proof, I will believe.

I'm not an atheist because 'it's cool' which isn't true because atheists make up a minority. If I truly believed in heaven and hell I would care less about being 'cool'.

It doesn't bother me that people have faith, but it bothers me when people try to put their beliefs into law. Religion affects each and every one of us every day even if you don't realize it. That's why its important to put an end to this delusion, or at least the control it has on humanity.

You cannot prove a negative - so god will never be disproved.

Google - Russells Celestial Teapot.

I say that I do not believe in a god because it is the sane standpoint to take. You would all laugh if I announced my belief in Unicorns - I don't see it as any different.

You have to first prove that something exists before you can disprove it.

This statement may seem irrational but what I mean by this is that you have to apply the theory and see results. There used to be theories showing good results but they were wrong.Belief in god does not have any results that can been measured.

1. It's not cool to be an atheist, especially in the south.

2. I don't care if someone believes in a higher being, just don't shove it down my throat.

3. It annoys me when someone dogs on someone who doesn't believe.