Proof for God's Non-existance?

Atheists would say there is no-God. And to the Theist they would inquire on his proof that there is-God. But I would like to wonder if Atheists can walk their own walk, practice what they preach. I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread. Then, we can evaluate each piece of evidence just like for Theists, and determine if the evidence is any good or not.JonEdited by Jon, : added subtitle | removed message to admins

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

But then they are not Atheists; they are Agnostics. From Wikipedia on Atheism:

quote:

---

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2]

---

Atheism does not just sit back an nonchalantly decide not to participate. Atheism stands right up and forcefully declares that there is no God. I just want to know what evidence such Atheists use to come to that conclusion.I should make a note here, now. This thread is not about the definition of Atheist. If you want to call yourself an Atheist even though you declare beliefs more fitting of Agnosticism, go ahead. For the purposes of this thread, Atheist will be defined using the definition given to us by Wikipedia. If you do not feel that you fit that definition as a self-proclaimed Atheist, then that's fine; you are free not to participate. But if you do fit that definition given here, then I would like that you give your evidence. Jon

The problem here is that you think the only alternative to ”assuming no-God’ is ”assuming yes-God’. But there is a lot of grey area in the middle, if you'd be bothered to look. Let's go over it:First: Mindless, uncivilized belittling; completely unnecessary. We shall move on: Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack; I think that's been said many times in many ways in many places. Of course not, nor would I think it does not exist. To say, ”x=yes-mastodon’ and ”y=no-mastodon’:I think X.
I think Y.While the position claimed is difference, the claim itself does not change. ”I think’ is still a positive claim about the nature of X and Y. To make a positive claim of something, you must provide proof. But, you can never know for certain that there is no evidence, can you?Jon

Even if they're just not looking hard enough?

Interesting, but irrelevant.

But that is only to say that there is 'negative-evidence of yes-God', which is not necessarily the same as 'positive-evidence of no-God.' If the show is on Saturday or Sunday (where Sunday can be no-Saturday), and you find a paper that is 'negative-evidence for yes-Saturday' does that mean the same as 'positive-evidence of no-Saturday' (or, Sunday)?If the paper does not say the show is yes-Saturday, does it mean the same as saying the show is on Sunday?Jon

Because, such is the nature of these forums. But, having no proof for either yes-existence, or no-existence, wouldn't the most honest position be that you cannot really know? That makes you fit the definition. I can't name any prominent people, because I really don't pay attention to 'famous' or 'well-known' people. What strength? The strength of a 'positive affirmation of X', where X = 'non-God'? Does someone who lets X = 'God' need proof? And if they do, why the Hell don't you?Jon

No, I do not disagree with that meaning of Atheist in one bit. Thanks to Mike for linking to a source that was able to better-explain what I was trying to say. Atheism is 'positive-conclusion of no-God'.By the way; no Atheist has yet successfully answered the challenge of 'positive-evidence for no-God.' So, far, all they've given are arguments to ignorance, excuses as to why they don't have evidence, or pleaded that they are not required to give any. Does any Atheist have evidence to support their position?Jon

Would people please stop replying to me as though I think we should all just believe in God until there is evidence to the contrary? That is not what I am arguing, and that is NOT the topic of this thread!The topic, to define it again, is for ATHEISTS FITTING THE DEFINITION GIVEN BY WIKIPEDIA IN Message 1 (which I have decided to simply refer to as 'Atheists') to GIVE EVIDENCE that supports the position given in the Wikipedia definition; which is BELIEF AFFIRMING THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD, which I have abbreviated as 'positive-belief in no-God'. Now, anyone who does not have anything to post of that nature, please, cease posting in this thread. I am not interested in your excuses, arguments to ignorance, or comparisons of God to Santa, or Buffy.Thank you,
Jon

It is so very hard to figure out what exactly you are professing to believer, or, not believe. This says: 'negative-belief in yes-God'. This says: 'positive-belief of no-God'.So, which one is it? Do you 'negatively-believe in yes-God' or do you 'positively-believe in no-God'?

I know; I'm not a theist. What is your point? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I do not try to +prove that there is no-beer. Instead, I see if I am able to +prove yes-beer. If not, then I know I have a -situation of yes-beer. See, the matter here is not 'beer', it's the situation of possessing beer; which changes things. When I look into my fridge for beer, I do not say 'do I +have no-beer?' I say, 'do I +have yes-beer?' If I see no evidence of yes-beer, then I say: 'gosh, I -have yes-beer.' (if I'm feeling particularly honest, anyway). I remedy matters by creating +situation of yes-beer, not by trying to create -situation of no-beer.Now, explain to me how that same logic gets you to +declare no-God?Gracias,
JonEdited by Jon, : Word emphasis added.

Just because you cannot find yes-God, does not mean you have found no-God. I would like to repeat my other analogy, here:There's a show, and we know it runs either Saturday or Sunday (yes-Saturday or no-Saturday). There's a God, and we know He either exists or does not exist (yes-God or no-God). We search; and we search; and we search through our house like mad-folk. We look and look and look for God. In the end, we fail to find any evidence telling us the show is on Saturday (there's 'negative-proof' of 'yes-Saturday'). In the end, we fail to find any evidence telling us that there is a God (there's 'negative-proof' of 'yes-God') Is it safe to assume the opposite of yes-Saturday: no-Saturday (Sunday)? Is it safe to assume the opposite of yes-God: (no-God)?It's okay to say there's negative-proof for yes-Saturday; but it's not okay to equate that there is positive-proof of no-Saturday. And, it's okay to say there's negative-proof of yes-God; but it's not okay to say that there's positive-proof of no-God.We can switch this up however you want, really. We can have us looking for evidence of no-Saturday and finding none; we still couldn't assume that it is yes-Saturday. Same thing goes for the existence of God. As Mike pointed out, and I referenced once before, you can't just tell me there is negative-evidence of yes-God, and so = positive-evidence no-God. The ignorance argument fallacy runs both ways.Jon
__________
In fact, I am fairly convinced myself that anyone has yet to find positive-evidence of yes-God. But, I'm also fairly convinced that anyone has yet to find positive-evidence of no-God, either.

I will accept positive-evidence of no-God for a God by any reasonable definition you choose. Does that sound okay? JonP.S. Why not stop by chat?

Thank you, for pointing this out. In the end, this is what I wanted this thread to demonstrate: the illogicalness of the Atheist position. Like a Theist, the Atheist must admit that part of their belief rests on something that they cannot prove. However, as we can see, the Atheists, instead of admitting this flaw in their logic/belief, pretend that it does not exist, and try to make their belief out to be somethin that is an evidenced truth, in the same way Creationists push their 'evidence' and arguments for creation, as though the former exist and the latter are sound.The best we can admit is that we have yet to find any positive-evidence for yes-God, and cannot (by rule of logic) find any positive-evidence for no-God. We would be most honest in admitting this, and simply saying that for lack of positive-evidence for yes-God, we are willing to accept the opposite: negative-evidence for yes-God. This will give us an 'absense of belief', so to speak, and this is the most honest route to take. On all matters, not just God.And, so we end with saying: 'we have negative-belief in yes-God', or, 'we haven't belief in God.' To say 'we have belief in no God' is to take that extra leap which can only be carried forth on the step of Faith; faith in evidence we cannot see.Jon

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium