• i think the existence of them disproves it..
    • No Chance Without Jesus
      And it is the existence of blind people that disproves rainbows....yeah..right
    • OrangeDonRump
      Does the denial of killing someone mean it never happened, even though someone admitted they did to a whole forum full of people?
  • The annoying thing about God is that his very nature makes it so that you cannot prove or disprove his existence.
    • OrangeDonRump
      Leprechauns and wizards frustrate me for the very same reason! I'm pretty sure that's also why I can't find Zeus...
  • No more than any non-atheist can prove the existence of God.
  • None of them has yet.
    • OrangeDonRump
      None of them are trying, Mary. Thousands of years have passed, and even though Millions upon Millions of believers have desperately tried proving their god is real, the outcome is always the same, 100% of the time: EPIC FAIL. No Proof. No Evidence. NO GOD. Every atheist on the planet is satisfied with the very consistent outcome we've already been provided by believers. 100% EPIC FAIL - NO GOD. Who can argue with that?
  • It would depends how you would define God.
    • MisterKatt
      God is a supernatural spirit; but then how does one define a supernatural spirit?
  • Noone can Disprove anything. You can prove things but you can never disprove anything. I believe in God but I have no proof that would be good enough for an atheist.
    • OrangeDonRump
      Atheists are sticklers about no-proof Leprechauns and Easter Bunnies, too. I mean, WTF do they want? They're such a pain for living in Reality...
  • That depends on how you define god and if that definition stays the same over time. It seems to me that god has been receding into the gaps. He's harder and harder to find with each passing year.
    • MisterKatt
      God is defined as a supernatural spirit; but how do you define a supernatural spirit?
  • The onus of proof is always on the person making the assertion of existence of fact. No one can offer proof that something is not. What is not leaves no evidence of itself. That is why our justice system demands assumption of innocence until proof of guilt is provided.
    • Ilovesealions
      That's not correct. The onus of proof is always on the person that makes the assertion be it of existence or non existence. You're correct that it's not possible to prove something doesn't exist but that doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim even if they're claiming one doesn't exist (which most atheists don't claim), it just means it'll be impossible to fulfill the burden of proof. It's still on you you just can't fulfill it.
  • Look up Russell's Teapot.
  • No more than you can disprove the existence of fairies and leprechauns
  • He can to himself and to some people.
  • In the same way that God can disprove the existence of Atheists.
  • no he cant, no one can prove he is there and no one can prove he is not there.
    • OrangeDonRump
      So, since we can't DISprove Middle Earth or Leprechauns, your logic suggests that we MUST assume they could be real? WTF is wrong with you people?? IMAGINARY CREATURES ARE NOT REAL AND DO NOT EXIST. PERIOD.
  • I don't think anybody will ever prove if there is a God. This debate will go on until the end of time.
  • i dont think you can prove or disprove if there is a God but there is a lot of proof that suggests there may not be a god
  • nope. They can't disprove leprechauns, unicorns, big foot, fairies or any other mythical creature either , but the burden of proof is not on them. I could make up a god right now and nobody could prove it didn't exist.
    • Ilovesealions
      The burden of proof is absolutely on them if they're a gnostic atheist and claim that a god doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies on the one that makes the claim.
  • I don't see how they can, I guess thats why they call it faith.
  • Atheists can do anything
  • no more than you can PROVE the existence of God. its 50/50 both ways.
  • They can try
  • As readily as a Christian can prove the existance. +5
  • The onus is not on the Atheist. It's on the Theist. And no one can prove the existence of god.
    • Ilovesealions
      The onus has nothing to do with atheist or theist. Many theists don't hold a burden of proof and many atheists do hold a burden of proof. The burden of proof is determined by gnostic/ agnostic. It's the gnostics (both gnostic theists and gnostic atheists) that hold a burden of proof since the burden of proof lies on the one that makes the claim and gnostic theists and gnostic atheists are the ones that make a claim of knowledge. The ones that don't hold a burden of proof are the agnostic atheists and agnostic theists because they don't make any knowledge claims.
  • No, we will all find out when we die. No side has the ability now. It's a battle between faith and ego.
  • Atheists can not prove or disaprove anything no matter what they claim. Most of them just follow their own desires and self opinions. Real scientists admit that this well-organized universe must have a Creator, it did not came to existence by accidence as atheists want to believe. According to the famous physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Albert Einstein, “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” Now, let me borrow and quote here for you this conversation between an atheist (Wilson) and a believer (Chirri) about the same point "existence of matter and the Creator (God)": -Wilson (atheist): But why should a person consider the existence of the material world as evidence of the existence of the creator of matter? Is it not probable that matter existed without a creator? Suppose someone views that matter or energy is infinitely old, and that it never was preceded by non-existence. Would you be able to disprove his views? -Chirri (believer): It is very hard to accept the idea that matter is infinitely old. When one says that matter or energy is infinitely old, one assumes that the material out of which the billions of stars were built, existed simultaneously. When we are aware that each star contains billions of tons of materials, and that the balance of the raw material is much more than the material which is contained in the stars and planets, we realize the improbability of such an idea. We cannot conceive that all these quantities of materials existed at once and that nothing of it was preceded by non-existence. To say that only a portion of the material is infinitely old, and that the other portions came to existence at a later stage, is to admit the need of a creator, because the inanimate material does not increase by self-reproduction. Only living beings are capable of multiplying by self-reproduction. To allow any gradual increase in the material quantity is to admit the need of a creator. -Wilson: I may agree with you that matter and energy must have been preceded by non-existence. But this is not very obvious to every human being. Does the teaching of Islam suggest the consideration of anything in the nature that was undoubtedly preceded by non-existence? -Chirri: Yes, there is something which we all know, and it was born after the existence of the earth, namely: life. Our scientists state that earth was too hot (and some of them say it was too cold) for any kind of life to exist on it. It took the earth millions of years to become a suitable place for life. Life, therefore, is, undoubtedly, a newborn. Science, however, tells us that life does not originate from non-living being. Pasteur's experiment, which took place in the 19th century, is still standing. Through his sterilized soup, he proved beyond any doubt that life does not originate from inanimate material. The scientists of today are still unable to disprove his conclusion. The earth, along with its atmosphere, at the time of its formation was sterile and unproductive. Transforming the inanimate materials, such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and iron into a living being could not, therefore, be done through a natural process. It must have been done miraculously. This means that the existence of life on this planet is a shining evidence on the existence of an Intelligent, Supernatural Designer.
  • Can a Christian Disprove the Existence of other Religion's Gods?
  • Proving a negative is a logical impossibility. You can never know EVERYTHING in the universe, therefore you can never know for sure that there isn't One. Science is simply not equipped to prove or disprove a living Person. And God is a person, not a phenomenon.
  • That's not possible. What is a bigger question is, can they prove any evidence at all to support their theory that the universe came into existence randomly and undirected.
    • Ilovesealions
      How the universe was created has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism ONLY pertains to the lack of belief in a God. Nothing to do with how you think the world happened.
  • Maybe to their very selves, but never to me.
  • No, they cannot.
  • It's impossible. I'm still waiting for this "miracle". Bring it.
  • That depends on how you define god. It is possible to disprove the more specific you get. Not that the burden of proof rests on atheists. It rests on the person making the claim. I don't make any claim; I just don't believe the claim that god exists.
    • Ilovesealions
      Many atheists (gnostic atheists not agnostic atheists) DO make a claim (that there is no god rather than just that they lack belief in a god) and for them the burden of proof absolutely lies on them even though they're atheist.
    • MisterKatt
      Ages ago the concept of supernatural spirits was invented to explain the various natural phenomena of nature then the spirits began to be called gods and all identified by various names. The god fad began and hundreds or thousands of gods were invented in the forms of man, women or beasts until a man was inspired to say "enough is enough!" and began to enforce belief in only one all powerful, all knowing creator God who would create man in His image instead of of Him being created in an image of a man, woman or beast. What more proof do you want?
  • Look up "Russell's Teapot".
  • NO. they never can and they never will. God Himself gave us logic to figure that out. Atheists have willingly given themselves over to a reprobate mind, that's why they don't believe. Everyone reading this will know for certain 100 years from now.
  • no and a theist can't prove God's existance beyond any shadow of doubt if either argument was presented before criminal court, neither would be valid if it were civil court, both would have to be given merit WE WILL ALL FIND OUT WHEN WE DIE THIS IS AN OVERDONE Q ON AB TO THE NHT DEGREE give it the f**k up already. there are real question on AB from ppl who really need help getting lost in all this trolling!!
  • It's a logical impossibility for anyone to disprove the existance of anything. I'm still waiting for the proof that god does exist, however.
  • Absolutely not. All Gods exist.
  • You cannot disprove or prove a negative. I cannot prove that dragons don't exist by not showing you one.
  • Random evolutionary process has been shown false. Pasteur etc...
  • It's easier than disproving that he can fly, because he doesn't have to flap his arms like an idiot.
  • An Atheist can no more disprove God than a Christian could prove him. It's all based on faith or doubt.
  • No. I'm an atheist and a scientist too. As such I know that it is not really possible to disprove the unprovable! But I certainly see no evidence for a god.
  • An atheist can show that a God is such an unlikely thing that it is pretty certain it doesn't exist, but it's impossible to prove that something does not exist.
  • No more than a believer can prove the existence. It's not something that can be proven or disproven.
  • What ignorant answers. Here's the correct answer: yes. But it takes education and years to see it.
  • Nope. And a theist cannot prove the existence of god. It's the responsibility of the theist to give proof of his/ her claim.
    • Ilovesealions
      It's the responsibility of anyone making a claim to give proof of their claim. If an atheist claims that there is no god (rather than just that they lack belief in one) which some atheists absolutely do, the burden of proof lies on them.
  • They dont need to. The the ones claiming something exists need to provide the proof and they can't.
    • Ilovesealions
      While you're correct that they don't need to (because no one needs to do anything ????????) the burden of proof absolutely lies on them if they claim a god doesn't exist (rather than just that they lack belief in the existence of one) .
  • Specific gods can be refuted, but a negative cannot be logically disproved. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew told the lad that critically reading the Bible shows God does not exist. A deity who created the universe could not be so pathetically ignorant about it as the Bible is. and a wise deity would not have so many blatant contradictions in writings he inspired. The Bible shows critical, logical, objective humans that extremely ignorant barbarians wrote some quite poor fiction about a deity some of them invented.
  • No but that's why most atheists are agnostic rather than gnostic.
  • First, someone with proper authority would have to define what God is. Then, if that concept was in any way falsifiable, a test could be performed. But honestly, none of those things will ever happen, because God is defined by different people using different vague terminology specifically so that the concept itself cannot be made clear. Also, all of the "do not test God" rhetoric from several different faiths makes it clear that any endeavour to try to prove or disprove anything upon which a religion is built is specifically called out and severely punished, so that no one will question these religions.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy