There is no need to ‘prove’ god does NOT exist

by eirenehogan

It has been said by theists that “One cannot prove that god does not exist any more than one can prove he does”.  But atheists don’t need to prove god does not exist.  There is no evidence of any such thing.  Most likely in our ancient past, before any scientific research was ever done, people made up some stories to explain why things happen in the world and why people die and what happens when they do.  They would also have tried to make up some stories to explain why we feel a sense of moral right and wrong and why people shouldn’t kill and shouldn’t hurt others.  Those stories have become what we call ‘religion’.  They have become part of our culture and have been handed down to us over the centuries.

Why should we have to try and prove if those stories are about something or someone who is ‘real’ or not?  They are not based on any evidence at all.  Do we need to go out and try and prove if Cinderella exists or not?  Or Jack and the giant from Jack and the Beanstalk?  We all consider such fairy tales, that have also been handed down over the generations, to be good yarns that also teach our children something about right and wrong.  No one seriously considers we need to prove that the characters in them do NOT exist.  So why should atheists be expected to have to prove if god does or does not exist?  We consider the stories of god just that, stories, no more.  If someone out there seriously believes Cinderella does exist, it is up to them to prove it.  And they cannot prove it by simply quoting the Cinderella story.

Advertisements

34 Comments to “There is no need to ‘prove’ god does NOT exist”

  1. Since the existence of God has been proven by modern science and the existence of God is knowable through simple reasoning, the atheist must indeed be able to explain why God does not exist.

    The statement, “But atheists don’t need to prove god does not exist,” is simply the atheist relieving herself of the same demand that she places on her opposition.

    Atheists habitually employ such transparent absurdity because that’s the only way to get atheism to work out.

  2. Hello Silenceofmind. Thanks for your comment. It is no doubt pointless the two of us debating, since we have opposing views and neither will accept the other, but I will have just a small go at it, anyway.

    You say the existence of god has been proven by science? This is news to me. OK, explain it all to me, give me the evidence and links to genuine peered reviewed scientific papers outlining it. Don’t quote some religious website as your proof.

    You obviously believe in a god but I simply do not believe in what you believe in. If you believe that something exists, and you want me to believe in it, you need to prove it. Atheism is not a ‘belief’ it is simply not believing the thing exists that you do believe exists. If you want to believe in it, fine, go ahead, but if you want me to believe in it too, then you have to prove that thing exists. If I believe that trees exist and want to make that claim, then I would have to prove they exist, which would be rather easy. Equally if I were to believe in a fairy sitting on your shoulder, I would have to prove to you that the fairy is there. You would not need to prove anything, because I would be the one doing the ‘believing’, not you.

    In this case, it is you doing the ‘believing’ so you are the one who needs to prove it, not me.

    • Eirene,

      If you don’t want to have a discussion, why did you bother posting your article?

      A reasonable person is always open to discussion and very glad to argue her case when asked.

      Both your post and your comment prove that atheists aren’t interested in reasoned discussion, modern science, or any of the other attributes that made Christian Western Civilization so great.

  3. Exactly. I agree. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. Nice post and I’ll be following from now on.

  4. Silenceofmind, you accuse atheists of the very things those who believe in a god do. For one, ostriches do not stick their head in the sand, but if you had read your science you’d know that. “denial of reality, logic, reason and modern science “. That is laughable. You are not listening to the logic of my original post. It is those of faith who are claiming something exists; therefore that thing needs to be proved. You do not need to prove something when you are not claiming anything. I am not saying the lack of proof is proof of atheism, I am saying that those of faith need to prove a god does exist.

    Scientists work on evidence, and come to conclusions based on that. Those conclusions are not concrete and are open to change when new evidence is found. Those of faith believe they already have the answer and continually try to find evidence to prove that. If evidence comes along which does not prove it, they dismiss that evidence. That is not how science works. You cannot dismiss evidence simply because it doesn’t suit your argument.

    Now you have said that scientists have found a proof for god. You claim you want to have a discussion on this topic, then provide me with that evidence, as I originally asked you to. I am open to a change of opinion if the scientific evidence you refer to is genuine and peered reviewed. Do not simply reply with negative emotive dismissive comments.

    • Eirene,

      I haven’t accused anyone of anything.

      Atheism is as atheism does.

      And atheism is THE philosophy of denial.

    • Eirene,

      I am more than glad to state the scientific evidence that proves the existence of God.

      But I guarantee that like Godless Cranium, you will simply deny the evidence.

      Consequently, of the multiple scientific proofs of the existence of God, I will only give one.

      A scientific proof of God’s existence comes from the field of microbiology where an entire, huge family of substances called proteins has been discovered and studied.

      Proteins are software coded, specialized, precision tools that preform thousands and thousands of different specialized tasks in living organisms.

      By the very standards of modern science that atheists claim to advocate, tool making is one of the few signatures of intelligence.

      Because proteins are tools nearly infinite in their sophistication, we may thus infer the existence of God.

      Inference, by the way is a staple of the scientific method.

      • Ah, ok, some talk of science at last. Oh, and it is the ‘god-of-the-gaps’ theory.

        Now, let me have a look at this. Scientists have found that proteins are extremely complex, not simple in structure. So, the question is now, how did that come about? Scientists do not yet have an answer to that question. So there is a gap in their knowledge.

        In order to fill the gap and look for answers we need theories. There could perhaps be many theories. Your theory is that a god must have made them because they are so complex. Fine. It is a fair enough theory, but it is only a theory. You now need to prove that theory.

        You say that because the makeup of proteins is so complex, therefore there must be some intelligent design behind it, because how could such complex things just ‘evolve’ on their own? The theory is that such basic and ancient forms of life are so complex that they simply must be made by some being that is even more complex because how else could they get there. (and let’s ignore the question of how that more complex being got there). It is fine for you to have such a view, that is your right (thanks to secular humanism) but it is not a proof that your theory is correct; it is merely the basis behind your theory.

        Another theory says they could have formed simply from a random coming together of the appropriate factors at the appropriate time, through chance. You may well find that highly unlikely, but you thinking that is not proof that this theory is wrong and yours is right.

        Let’s look at ‘probability’. Probability itself is not a theory. It explains the theory that the atoms were formed through chance.

        I can toss a coin 100 times and in probability I will most likely not get heads all the time. But, there is also a probability that I may get it 100 times. It could happen. You cannot rule out completely the possibility that it could happen. The more often I toss them the more likely that probability is. The larger the universe, the longer the time, the more likely that proteins evolve by chance.

        It certainly could be for it to happen by chance, but it could happen. And because it could happen through probability, then that discounts your need to have a creator behind it. Sure, there might be a creator behind it, but then again there may not be. The fact that it could happen by chance negates the absolute NEED for a creator. The complexity of it suggests the possibility there could be a creator behind it, but it does not say it REQUIRES a creator, it leaves the question open. It does not matter how long it might take and how low the probability is there that it could happen by chance, the fact that it ‘could’ happen by chance negates the ‘need’ for a creator.

        So, your view that a god created the proteins because they are so complex is just a theory.

        • Eirene,

          Scientific inference is not god of the gaps.

          It is a fact that proteins are high precision, software coded, specialty tools.

          And it is a fact that one way science understands intelligence is the ability to make tools.

          Consequently, there is no god of the gaps, but simple common sense that proteins prove the existence of an intelligent tool maker, who is God.

        • Here in the U.S. tornadoes happen with fair regularity. Every time there is a tornado some people are killed and others survive. In so many cases the latter is ascribed to God. “He was looking after us,” But what do those whose family members were killed say? They never say “God had it in for him or her.” They just don’t mention God at all. This by itself tells me people believe in gods to make them feel better about he randomness of the violence we all experience. That’s why they conveniently forget about gods when someone is hurt or killed. Shows just how much they cling to the belief in god when things go wrong. And that is why people believe in god. Comfort, reassurance, even though, pathetically, it is all an illusion.

          I myself do not believe in gods for a very simple reason. I see no reason to believe in one. I can see why primitive people needed gods to explain what they could not. Then when agriculture started up those who took charge of the towns that sprung up got the idea, “Hey, we need a way to control these people, both to avoid their killing each other, and, you know, to get some extra stuff for ourselves. So religion was born, simply a way of controlling other people’s behavior. That got to be so well accepted by everyone that they started pretending it really was god who made up those laws… it, after all, bolstered their believe that gods exist.

          Trouble is that it did not take long for these laws to start hurting people. They said, “God said thou thalt not kill but I imagine something that person over there is doing will violate some other law of God’s, so let’s kill him so he can’t do it again.”

          That is why believing in gods ultimately results in everyone ganging up on someone they don’t like and thinking it was god’s idea.

          That is why I believe that believing in god is a bad idea and ultimately evil and destructive.

          And you thought you were being a good person to believe in god. The fact is that you are just fooling yourself for your own selfish reasons.

          Eirene, I applaud your stand against sloppy thinking and downright oppressive viewpoints.

          Kit

      • Scientific inference is not considered ‘proof’. It is a basis for hypothesis. If there is only one possible hypothesis then that will be considered a very strong likelihood, but it will always be open to question until actual concrete proof is found. There are several hypotheses for the origin of life. See link here: http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

        The god theory (which isn’t even mentioned in that link) is but one hypotheses. I accept it can be considered an hypothesis, but it is not proven. And it is not by any means accepted in the scientific community as the most likely hypothesis. You no doubt will find it so among a small number who believe in a god and therefore dismiss the other hypotheses (not that all scientists who believe in a god will do this), but it is not considered so by the majority. A belief in the answer before it is proven will give you a bias toward an answer you are seeking and blind you to any other possibilities. That is not considered good scientific methodology.

        • Eirene,

          I am sorry, but that is not correct.

          Inference is a stable of the scientific method.

          In fact, in the field of astronomy and cosmology nearly everything we know is from inference.

          That because all we have to work with is light that has been traveling in space for who knows how long before it reaches Earth.

          But as I said, even with proof staring you in the face, you will simple make excuses, redefine terms or outright deny the evidence, just so your atheism can work out for you.

          Science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that atheism is dead.

      • I have not said inference is not part of science, I have said it cannot be used as proof. It is used to piece together the evidence that does exist to come up with a theory as to what is happening. Eg, the cat’s hair is standing on end. Why? We can infer that it is so because it is frightened. It is not going that step further to say it is frightened because a dog just came into the room. There is nothing to suggest that is the reason why the cat is frightened. It could be any number of causes.

        Scientific inference is also used with the proviso that it can be modified and changed as more evidence is found. It is not a concrete conclusion at all. But your inference has jumped all other possibilities and you have chosen to take it as concrete and of no more need of study.

        And you will continue to go along this path, and I quote you, but replace ‘atheism’ with ‘christianity’: “you will simple make excuses, redefine terms or outright deny the evidence, just so your *Christianity* can work out for you.”

        I do feel sorry for you. You have been told what to think and are not allowed to think for yourself. You need to find proof that the things you have been told you must believe are actually real. You believe they are real for two reasons, 1) it is in the bible. The bible says the bible is true, so it must be true. 2) if you don’t believe it you will burn in hell for eternity.

        The wonder and joy of atheism is, you do not have to believe what someone else tells you, you can actually think for yourself. The other joy is that we are free from the fear of hell.

      • In the following article, note the sentence: “Scientists make such conclusions all the time, which may prove correlations, BUT DON’T PROVE CAUSE.”

        From: http://www.wisegeek.org/in-science-what-is-an-inference.htm

        “In science, an inference refers to reasonable conclusions or possible hypotheses drawn from a small sampling of data. The adjective “small” can be interpreted as far less than all the possible data that can be collected on a specific subject. Scientists make such conclusions all the time, which may prove correlations, BUT DON’T PROVE CAUSE. In fact most “known” scientific facts, are hypotheses since it would be impossible to fully gather all material on a subject.
        The inference can take several forms. A hypothesis or a theory about how something might work or not work is a starting point. One may be made when a person observes something in the known world, and sets out to test whether the theory about it holds up.

        A scientist may also draw conclusions based on the results of such testing. These can become theories, suggest correlations, or become interpretations of results. Suggesting correlations or interpreting data are some of the most common inferences. For example, for over a century, people have had drawings of what dinosaurs might have looked like. These drawings are based on the best ideas that researchers had, based on the evidence available. Examining skeletal structure, making decisions about what types of animals dinosaurs were, comparing dinosaur finds to modern animals, and using some guesswork has created an interpretation in the form of drawings, models, and even movies.”

  5. To quote:
    “Atheists habitually employ such transparent absurdity because that’s the only way to get atheism to work out.”
    “Both your post and your comment prove that atheists aren’t interested in reasoned discussion, modern science, or any of the other attributes that made Christian Western Civilization so great.”
    “And in fact, it is the atheist who blindly yet faithfully believes that there is no God.
    Atheists are like flat-earthers for whom evidence means nothing.”

    And you still have not provided any references to the scientific evidence of the existence of a god.

  6. Well and succinctly put. It just isn’t. Anyone who insists on it is simply superstitious. That has no relevance to anyone else in the world, and it should not, given all the many different superstitions in the world any sense in designing laws based on it. How can you tell everyone your superstition is the correct one?

  7. P.S. What scientist has proved the existence of a god? Which god is it? All this god stuff is simply cosmix masturbation.

    • kitmoss,

      Such questions betray the atheists raw, brutal ignorance not only of science but of our Western Heritage, the wit and wisdom of Western Civilization.

      All the rest of us can do is continue to state the facts and make the argument.

      Otherwise we are left with the fundamental dogma of atheism: Everything just happened all by itself.

      And that is so obviously ridiculous that the atheist is obligated to not only explain it but give some sort of evidence of it.

  8. I do want to add that there is a third explanation of the complexity of molecules and proteins. It can be the agency of an imaginary being or it can be sheer randomness. Most likely it is that the particles by their nature attract other particles in a certain way, and therefore they become molecules. In a similar fashion those molecules are attracted to each other and create organisms. Some work well so they persist and others do not so they dissipate. If you give anything enough time and space they will become more complex. Unfortunately people either can’t or won’t give things enough time to become something more complex. So they create god to explain it.

  9. Why do insults come into this?

    I have not noticed atheists forcing people to believe what they believe, or discriminating against anyone for not having the same god, or burning people at the stake or imprisoning them, or beating them up. No monuments to non-belief, no laws written forcing godliness on anyone, no one sent for reprogramming to some nutty practitioner, no children beaten for impure thoughts or actions, no couples denied marriage or parenting.

    I will take a nice peaceful atheist any day over some one who believes in god and will do whatever it takes, including insulting us, to get us to go for their ideas.

    Sheesh. If anyone deserves to be insulted it’s people who believe. They are always the ones that use their belief to oppress others.

    Kit

  10. Oh, Silence of Mind, you are hilarious. Are you a comedian? Even your name is funny, ‘silence of mind’ – “hey dude, there is nothing in here.” LOL. Just hilarious. Some of the crazy claims you have made, “Since his existence has been proven by science, God’s existence is a matter of fact.” Oh man, that is just so funny! You obviously can’t be serious.

  11. There is no arguing with those who are willfully ignorant and just make it all up as they go along. I declare there is a 15 foot pink allligator that created the earth and will eat the souls of anyone who says otherwise.

    So there. Ha.

    Kit

    • kitmoss,

      Absurdity is not a rational response to a reasoned argument.

      In so doing the atheist is employing simple sophistry which is the willful use of deception instead of reason which is the pursuit of truth.

      • Like I said to the man who told me gay people like me are bad and wrong and are all made this way by having a bad experience with a member of the opposite sex, “Man, you have no idea what you are talking about.” Time to shut this topic down. It’s not worth it any more.

      • LOL. Even more humour. Accusing others of the very same thing you do. Oh man, you are so funny.

  12. Oh, I see, John. I get it now. LOL. How foolish of me. The guy’s just a parody. He’s not serious at all. It all makes sense now. Oh, I should have seen that from the start. LOL.

  13. Hi Kit,

    Yes, people only notice god when they have ‘good luck’ but not bad luck. Perhaps those who died in the tornado didn’t pray properly. Oh, of course, they were all the sinners and atheists. LOL.

    And in reference to your origins of religion, I have read theories on how religion began. Basically to explain unknown phenomenon, but also in terms of cause and effect. If you don’t know how to make sure the Nile will rise each year because you have no control over it, then pray to gods to ensure it will happen.

    And then, out of all that comes its use to prop up the power structure of the pack, as you were saying. The head of the pack claims god supports him, so he has god on his side, and then, of course, he uses that to maintain his position, and so uses his god to control the people. Pretty obvious when you look at the history of religion. Pharaohs who claimed they were descended from gods. Greek city-states with their own state gods. And the Roman Emperor ultimately using Christianity to maintain control over their empire, which continued on during the middle ages with the kings and the Papacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: