Arguments against the existence of God?

I see you talk about a god in general: omniscience is would go against the laws of physics, since quantum mechanics prevent you from knowing everything. Omnipotence is just as impossible since it means breaking the laws of physics, once again: impossible.

to all those people who say atheists don't believe something they can't see: We believe something that is based on empirical evidence. We believe oxygen exists because we can see how it reacts to its environment (for example: breathing).

a lack of belief in god is evidence because of the burden of proof. Saying that a lack of evidence doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist would mean that you can start believing almost everything.

@Nik well actually the burden of proof lays upon the person making a positive claim, in this case the theist.

@Nik we are making a claim, but this is a negative claim. The theists make the positive claim that a god exists and he must give the evidence: see Russell's teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot

@Nik you appear to not have read my link. the lack of evidence for the positive claim is evidence for the negative claim. The theist could not make a negative claim again since there is now evidence for the negative claim.

@Nik same thing can be used against a deity. notice how you use the lack of evidence for the teapot as evidence against its existence.

@Nik good, let's use that example and take god the same way. Someone makes the claim that a god exists (following your form of classical theism). I look for evidence for this god and find none. Also, i determine that the form he is in (omnipotence, omniscience, source of morals) is impossible or just not true. Thus i determine that he does not exist. If later evidence is discovered that he does exist (he could for example show up and demonstrate how he is omnipotent) I will adjust my opinion about him. This is known as the scientific method.

@Nik with all respect but i think you are missing the point of the teapot example. Just like a god, Russel stated that the teapot cannot be observed, but that still is not a reason to believe in him.

@Nik this is another thing Russel himself mentioned. You see the teapot as a different thing because you have been raised in an environment where it is normal that people believe in a god. If the belief in the teapot had existed for 2000 years, you wouldn't think they are different.

@Nik sorry if i gave you the feeling to judge your beliefs, i merely addressed my answer to you. also i did not give the genetic fallacy above as evidence against a god. I used it to demonstrate the non-difference between a god and an invisible teapot.

There is no such thing as any god. How could this so called god create the world in seven days when in reality it took millions of years. How could more than 8 billion people come from two people "god" created, wouldn't they be inbreed. Life on Earth is a coincidence and nothing else. We ended up on this planet because we were an ideal distance from the sun, not too hot and not too cold. Then water came to Earth by comets which also brought many building blocks for life to start like carbon. The the simplest forms of life appeared the gradually evolved over millions of years. Then our ancestors evolved into what we are today. If there was a "god" how could you prove it, because jesus said so. Yeah right. People always tell me how can you prove there isn't a god. If there is no physical proof there is a god then how could he exist. Someone created religion to try to keep people at peace. That didn't work so well. Most wars start because of religion. 9/11, that was because of some religious nut jobs thought their "gods" will reward them for killing innocent Americans. In the end people believe in religion because they want to make themselves feel good about themselves. Or people pray to god most of the time if their in a lot of trouble.

Classical theism? Like Greek and Roman Gods?

You can't disprove any God because you can't prove a negative.

If something doesn't exist, it doesn't leave evidence of it's non-existance.

All you can point to is a lack of evidence *for* existance. So far, there's no objective evidence (that can be measured, observed, repeated, etc.).

Subjective evidence-- how you feel, where you believe God intervened in your life, how becoming a believer changed your life, etc.-- is not objective evidence; it's subjective. Which means it is real to you, and affects your life as though it were real, but may or may not be objectively real. For example, kids who believe in the boogyman and are sure the boogyman is under the bed at night waiting to eat them, making the hair on their neck stand up-- that's subjective; not objective.

No conclusive evidence that follows the scientific method

EDIT: God seems to be able to defy the laws of physics, which is, according to our current, well established knowledge, impossible. A creationist may answer that God is outside the universe. Also impossible and illogical. In addition, there is no explanation for how God was created. Christians say something like, God is eternal and created himself or something. Once again, highly illogical and impossible

Also, think of ancient religions of the Egyptians and the Greeks. They had their Gods, but today nobody believes in them or follows the religions. Eventually Christianity will go the same way, for the same reasons

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” ~ Epicurus.

So far still hasn't been refuted after like 2300 years.

Or just go with the basic, zero evidence for any god ever claimed to exist. There isn't any reason to believe in something so "big" with any credible evidence to back it up. It isn't possible to give you evidence against the existence of something as you can't prove a negative. That same rule applies for Unicorns, fairies, ect. Sure we can claim they don't exist but we still can't prove they don't.

"atheists have to support the claim that God does not exist"

Actually we don't seeing as the only thing atheists share in common is the lack of belief in god. We aren't the ones making the claim, the burden of proof is on the theists.

You might be after the Gnostic atheists.

______

Edit: My mistake.

There is no proof of the nonexistence of a god. There is proof against specific gods, but not gods in general. You need to be specific on what you consider to be a god. A being that instantaneously poofed the world and everything in it to existence? Wrong.

Omnipotence in general has its limitations, obviously.

Omnipresence would suggest that the entity resides outside of what we consider to be the fourth dimension, or time. The being would have free reign in this dimension. See Hafele-keating experiment to see why this may be possible.

Stories from the bible (old testament) are seen In the Sumerian tales of Gilgamesh written thousands of years before the Torah was even conceived which is said to have been the origins of those same stories .

God is self-contradicting. Concepts like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are paradox and completely illogical. For example, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that omniscience is absolutely impossible and a nonsense concept. And then, as creator of everything, god is supposed to have created himself. A nonsense concept.

We know how religion evolved in early human societies and how people invented numerous gods. The Christian god is no different, and there is no more reason to believe in him than in Zeus, Thor, Huitzlopochtli or any other god.

There are no valid reasons that show there is no God, but Cause and Effect is evidence enough

for a reasonable person.

Without God nothing can explain life and the universe.