Challenge To Atheists: Provide Logical Argument there is no God?

I would like to reiterate that "There does not exist any logical denial to the existence of God, The Almighty".

Denial of GOD is indeed illogical. It does not require a Super Computer or a think tank brain to ascertain the evidence of God, however, pure and sublime faith can easily discern His existence. From where does faith in God come ? It comes from straight and unbiased reasoning, not through twisted logic.

The atheist's denial of God can be easily explained by this example; "Just as if somebody cries out on the top of his voice that [There is nobody present in this house]." ........

It's a big universe out there. I'm not sure it would be at all possible to say positively what does or doesn't exist out there. In fact, some gods are supposed to be (somehow) outside the universe, so I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to say what's out there without any consistent or reliable information.

If it helps, can come up with a meta-logical proof for the non-existence of an omnipotent being in a logical universe like ours is observed to be. It's a proof by contradiction (of course).

Firstly, I want to establish an obvious fact: all triangles have three sides. This is what's known as an analytic truth; it is a necessary truth because it follows from definitions. We define three-sided polygons to be triangles, and we can therefore conclude necessarily that all triangles have three sides. If it had four sides, it would definitely not be a triangle, instead it would be something else.

Secondly, there is the deductively valid argument, "P and not P implies Q". That is, if a contradiction is true (i.e. if something is both true and false), then every statement whatsoever is true. It doesn't have to relate to P at all. For example, if it just so happens that it's both raining and not raining on me, then it follows that all cows are green and are named "Chris". This is a simple (but counter-intuitive) theorem in logic. It means that any logical system with a contradiction is completely useless, since everything would be both true and false. It also means that our system has no contradiction, since not every statement imaginable is both true and false. For example, it's still false that a triangle has four sides, so there cannot logically be a contradiction in the universe.

Thirdly, an omnipotent being has unlimited power. It could create a four-sided triangle. Moreover, it could without simply changing the meaning of the word "triangle". It could literally create an object that both is a triangle and not with three sides. If it cannot, then it would not be omnipotent.

Finally, an omnipotent being with this power means that it's possible that, out there, a four-sided triangle exists. This is a *direct contradiction* with the true statement "a four-sided could not possibly exist". It doesn't matter if the being in question is "above" logic or not (well, clearly such a being would have to be above logic, prima facie). If it exists, the possibility of something impossible exists, which is a contradiction. This would break logic for all time and space. It would be true that 1 + 1 = 3, that cows are green and named "Chris", that the being exists, that the being does not exist, etc. But, since some of these things are not true, this being cannot exist.

But yeah, if the gods don't have to be omnipotent, then I've got nothing general. It doesn't make inductive sense to conclude that such beings will exist, since we've seen nothing with that kind of power before, but there's a first for everything, right? Well, except the things that don't exist...

"any assertions that atheists don't need proof or that's not how the game is played will be rejected"

So in other words, you can't stand people calling you on your bullshit.

The total lack of evidence for God (and no, "stuff exists!" or "where do we get morals?" are not evidence) is a good indicator that he's not there. Of course can't be "disproved", which is why I don't make the assertion "there is no God" (learn the difference between positive/negative atheism) but so what? Plenty of things can't be disproved. It means nothing.

That being said, the absence of evidence is a good enough reason for me assert that the existence of God is, while not impossible, extremely unlikely. Do you know about Occam's razor? Humor me: which is more likely? There's actually a "sky-wizard" who designed all of this, or this is just an unsubstantiated hypotheiss used to control the masses?

"The argument, "you can't prove there is no IPU [or other]" is illogical and non sequitur, and fails to respond to the question: provide a logical reason to believe there is no God."

Actually, it's an analogy that you've failed to grasp.

Also, you've failed to own up to the fact that your whole spiel here is based on a strawman and your lack of distinction between "positive/negative" atheism.

Uh, first of all, take a look outside of your pritsy little perfect church going Christian life and tell me you see Gods hand working anywhere in the world. With all the starvation, war, genocide, terrorism, perversion, greed, and of course, worthless people as yourself. I don't see Gods work. And secondly, why are there over four thousand different religions created by man? Wouldn't you think an all knowing, all powerful being such as your God just make everyone worship him and not give anyone the choice to deny his existence? Oh no, but its all a game right? God gave you the choice to decide on your own. And if you don't do what he wants,YOU'S GOIN TO HELL. And any intellectual atheist would say that it is not only Jehovah that is fake, but each and every religion and spirituality man has ever came up with. How can you be so blind, and cling to one belief system, when there are thousands alike it? You Christian clowns crack me up!! You're just so cute, with your little imagery friends and all.

Look if i say i have a dragon in the back of my car... not a toy a real live dragon that is 30 feet long and a wing span of at least 200 feet. it breaths fire and is grading a chest of gold (that is also in my car). this chest of gold is at least 4 tons. And i drive this around daily... You would say ... No you don't... well where is your proof i don't?

Next i say harry potter is a real story that actually happened. You say No it wasn't... Then i say where is your proof it didn't happen?

Next i say... You can't prove that this isn't true, so it must be true... then you say... well maybe just maybe you can't prove a negative... So logically the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that something exists not on the one saying that it doesn't.

You see the real question is why would it be logical to believe in a god? It takes nothing to not believe in something... however it takes evidence to believe in something.

pointing out that NOT believing in something is the NATURAL state of mind is VERY LOGICAL!. We are pointing out that it takes effort to believe in something... if there is no evidence for said thing than why should any one believe in it?

"Also realize any assertions that atheists don't need proof or that's not how the game is played will be rejected."

I see you have opted out of intellectually honest discourse (i.e. the way we handle truth claims in society). Congratulations. That’s some achievement.

Unfortunately for you, no silly disclaimer is going to change the fact that it is those making the positive assertions (e.g. “There is a God”) that need to provide the evidence.

You ask two different things. I cannot provide a logical argument why "there is no god" (from your title question) but I can provide "a logical argument why it is reasonable to believe there is no God" (last sentence of your post): absence of evidence. Absence of evidence is consistent with absence. It's entirely legitimate to conclude absence if there is no evidence of existence because without evidence the only thing you have is speculation. Speculation is not an adequate basis for believing that something exists.

There is no credible evidence for the existence of god. All evidence asserted (that I've seen) is much better explained through ordinary, mundane natural laws and human nature. Thus I conclude there is no evidence for god, and so god does not exist. This is, of course, subject to change pending new evidence.

There is none such evidence and never will be. The universe is too much for human being ever to understand well enough to make such a definite and erroneous statement as 'There is no God'

Meanwhile they cleverly put the onus on believers to produce evidence..when they know that any evidence presented to them can be reinterpreted in any way they choose.

They don't want to listen because they have already determined their destiny which is hellfire eternally.

Realize that you can't prove a negative. That's a fact.

Things that don't exist don't leave proof of their non-existance.

You can't prove Zeus, Hera, Odin, Thor or Krishna don't exist.

You can't prove Bigfoot or fairies or sea monsters don't exist.

They also could pop their heads up and call you foolish. Anything "could" happen, in theory.

Atheists don't believe in a God because they see no evidence one exists. That's pretty logical.

Is there a logical argument against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient hyperbeing that exists outside of space and time thereby leaving no trace of it's existence, hmm.

Occam's razor says it doesn't exist at all, requires far less leaps of the imagination and gap filling.