Proof for God's Non-existance?

The response to your challenge, as others here have pointed out, depends entirely on what god(s) you refer to. If you postulate a god that lit his fart billions of years ago to create the universe then simply sat back and watched to see what would happen, but didn't interfere in any way, nobody can prove the non-existence of that god, since he wouldn't leave any evidence even if he did exist.If you postulate the typical fundy idea of god, created the world 6,000 years ago then rinsed it out killing everything save Noah and his group, this forum is rife with proof of his non-existence. If you postulate a loving, omnipotent, omniscient, just god, the existence of crack babies is enough to prove that such a being does not exist.You have to tell us what kind of god(s) you want us to disprove before we can even begin to give a responsive answer.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

By that standard, you are not a theist.There is no way for anyone to know to a 100% certainty that there is or is not a god. Those who profess to be atheists must acknowledge, if they are being honest, the possibility that a god does exist somewhere in the universe that we cannot know about. And, those who profess to be theists must acknowledge, if they are being honest, the possibility that the being that they believe to be god could be a complete figment of their imagination, or perhaps an alien life form that has fooled them.Of course, this isn't what normal people mean when they talk about theism, atheism or agnosticism. They talk about belief, not 100% certain knowledge. Any reasonable person, if they give the matter a modicum of thought, understands that in matters of faith, people come to the conclusions that they do based on a level of evidence that they are comfortable with, but that level is nowhere near absolute certainty.This distinction is one that I have seen religion pushers use to try to convince atheists that atheism is an irrational position. Since it's impossible to know everything, the argument goes, one can never be certain that there is no god. But, since by definition one can never be certain about anything in matters of faith, it's rather disingenuous to claim that a lack of complete certainty somehow undermines the legitimacy of atheism.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

My point would be the rest of what I said in that post. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Please explain how we are to offer "positive-evidence of no-God" when you keep ignoring requests to define what god you are talking about.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Most people who believe in god describe him as loving, just, omniscient, and omnipotent. If such a being did in fact exist, there would not be innocent suffering in the world. Crack babies suffer unspeakable pain and innumerable difficulties in life because of something that someone else did before they were even born, surely an example of innocent suffering.Therefore, crack babies are positive evidence that god does not exist.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You can't even say that without addressing my argument.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Perhaps part of the reason people are having trouble with this concept is that there is an unstated premise, that one has actually sought evidence where it would be expected. You certainly illustrated this idea in your beer example, but making it explicit might help one or two people see it more clearly.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat