Why do atheists say "prove to me there is a god & I will believe?"?

The difficulty lies in deciding what constitutes "proof." I fear that atheists are looking for scientific, physical and demonstrable "proof" that comes within their own limited understanding of the physical world and the universe. But how can those measures be applied to something that is outside of the physical?

I'm afraid there is no "proof" that would satisfy an atheist, unless God is in the process of drawing that person to himself. Even Jesus said that if someone came back from the dead, people would still disbelieve. He knew what he was talking about!

I don't require evidence of God's existence, because I know there isn't any, having considered the matter in some depth in my teenage. And believers wouldn't want to prove it in any case, because that would deny faith, although Paul says that faith is itself proof - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1); this seems to be a way to convince people that faith is itself proof of what they believe in.

I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school.

After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses.

When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all).

That was over 45 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity.

I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.

No one can scientifically prove God does or doesn't exist. Belief in God is an act of faith. However, when you pull God out of the equation, numerous theories fall apart. Even Darwin in his later years became a believer in God. Evolution has been proven wrong or can’t be proven at all time and time again. Whereas, the bible has been proven accurate time and time again. You want proof, just look around you. Pick up a leaf. Is it by design or just a roll of the dice? There is design, complexity, and purpose to the universe that cannot be accomplished by sheer dumb luck.

Watch the movie Contact with Jodi Foster. You may find the dialog she has with Matthew McConaughey interesting.

"I've been cruising this planet for over 60 years.

IF God existed he would know what sort of evidence would convince me of his existence… if he wanted me to know it ;)

So far?

Nothing; nada; zilch."

I suppose HE either doesn't care about ME in any way whatsoever…

OR

God is imaginary... I'm going with the latter.

I’m 100% certain god is imaginary.

If he really existed he would have found a way to convince me he exists.

Obviously he hasn't cos just as obviously he doesn't.

If you wanted to convince someone you existed, what lengths would you go to?

Would you drop a few seriously ambiguous ‘clues’... OR, introduce yourself.

Seriously - this has SCAM written all over it.

And-Or

Pretend you were some place and you were invisible – let’s say 50% of the inhabitants “knew” and “loved” you – let’s say you wanted the other 50% of the inhabitants to “know” and “love” you too… cos you really do love them all soooo unconditionally…

What lengths would you go to convince them?

Seriously - this has BOOLSHYT written all over it.

And-OR

“Understand that:

Dreams are not evidence.

Wishful thinking is not evidence.

Logical fallacies are not evidence.

Personal revelation is not evidence.

Illogical conclusions are not evidence.

Disproved statements are not evidence.

Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.

Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence.

Information that is ambiguous is not evidence.

The Universe doesn't care what you believe in.

Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence.

Information that cannot be verified is not evidence.

Information that cannot be falsified is not evidence.

Experiments with inconclusive results are not evidence.

Information that is only knowable by a privileged few is not evidence.

Experiments that are not and cannot be duplicated by others are not evidence.

The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for your faith, only your eyes.”

~

What's invalid about asking for proof of your affirmative claim?

There are an infinite number of things that can't be disproven. The smart thing to do is to just assume that unprovable claims are meaningless. If I believe in god despite a total lack of evidence, why shouldn't I also believe in Galactus and his rainbow unicorn army? There is exactly the same evidence for both beliefs: none.

If you want me to believe anything you have to say, you better have more backing it up than "I said so."

If you assert that god exists then it falls on you to prove that is the case.

The idea that there is the universe proves there is the universe not a god.

The bible or any other holy book only proves that those books were written but like any other work of fiction does not make them evidence for a god.

If your god is out side of our ability to perceive said god on any natural level, then you are telling stories without any evidence for that said god based on your admission that your god is out side your ability to perceive it on a natural level.

I had a feeling that god was with me is brain chemistry not evidence for god.

This goes on and on, if you insist there is a god or gods bring evidence to support your claim.

"Can atheists prove that there is no god?"

- - - I for one, and most atheists do not claim to know there is no god. - There is no evidence to support the claim of the existence of one/any (a positive claim made by theists) and therefore I do not believe there is one/any, much like I do not believe in mermaids due to the lack of evidence that mermaids exist. This isn't such a hard a concept to grasp .... surely.

See also "burden of proof"

I have plenty of real arguments. For example, a god entity cannot exist because it would have to be able to think. The concept of a "soul" is nonsense as all cognitive functioning is physical and the result of chemical reactions within our brains. Take Phineas Gage for example who worked with railroads in the 1800s. A rod managed to shoot up through his head and miraculously he survived. However it destroyed certain parts of his brain that allowed him to control himself and he became nasty and had absolutely no control when dealing with people. He turned into a completely different person because he lost part of his brain. Same thing with people who become vegetables: they lose all cognitive functioning and their personality because of damage to the brain. How would a god think? How would it operate without a brain? If it's not physical than how is it able to think?

There are many, many, many arguments against the existence of a god figure. The cognitive functioning argument is just one of many.

Why should I have to? The universe is, to the best of our knowledge, self-sufficient. It doesn't need any observable supernatural force to work the way it does. The universe is natural, god is supernatural. You're the one trying to prove that there's something outside of this universe pulling the strings, I'm just working on what's already here. Naturalism is self-evident, it doesn't need proving.

How old are you? It is impossible to prove a negative and we don't have anything to prove - believers are the ones who are insistent there is a god yet can't find a single shred of evidence.