I have now looked at all the answers to this question.For one thing, being an atheist is a personal attitude that requires no evidence. It is a sceptical attitude which basically says that one should not affirm an existential statement if there is no evidence of existence.
But a recurrent assertion in the answers is definitely wrong, namely that “you cannot prove non-existence”.However, this can be done, and this is also a common practice in science.
However, there are preconditions for proof of non-existence.This includes the recognition of evidence, such as logic and empiricism, if they are rejected, no evidence can be possible. But that is the problem of the person who rejects the proof – if he then demands proof anyway, he only proves how unbelievably wrong his thinking is. Such false thinking then leads to the fact that one literally sees ghosts, such as a god, the supreme ghost.
Another condition is that exactly and logically without contradiction, what is now to be proven must be defined.A logical contradiction in the definition is already sufficient evidence of non-existence, to which no further evidence needs to be added. Thus, there are no “Euclidean square circles” or “married bachelors”, which can be proved by pointing out the logical contradiction. This provides complete proof of non-existence. So since a bachelor is defined as someone who is not married, he cannot be married at the same time. This has sufficiently proven that there are no married bachelors in any possible world.
The claim that non-existence is not provable is false, because it is self-contradictory: it is claimed that there is no evidence of non-existence.It is therefore said that there is no evidence of non-existence. Can we prove that? No, because if there is no evidence of non-existence, it is not possible to prove that non-existence is not provable, because it is claimed at the same time that there is no proof of this!
The first method of proving non-existence is therefore to show a logical contradiction in the definition of the evidence.Now, for more than 2,000 years, believers have failed to define God in a logically contradictory way, so that one is entitled to assume that God cannot exist, as little as married bachelors.
If the believers had a logically contradictory definition, then – and only then – one could even begin to debate the existence of God.Before, this is not worth discussing – the existence of God without a clear definition is indisputablein the sense of the word.
The next requirement is that an existential statement depends on it having a meaning.This means that the existence and non-existence of the claimed have different consequences for this world. Without different consequences, a logically contradictory definition would also be empty incontent.Empty definitions, i.e. meaningless definitions, can be recognized by the fact that they are not to be falsified.
Both conditions, namely:
- a consistent definition and
- a definition that makes sense in terms of content
but the faithful have so far failed in their entirety.This is why God cannot be proved or refuted – one cannot prove or refute nonsense. From the absence of such a definition one can now conclude that there is no God, because God is nonsense. You can believe in nonsense – that’s even the only way – but you can’t knowanything about it.In fact, the fact that you have to believe in it is a serious indicator that this is nonsense.
Basically, this is a conclusive and sufficiently proven fact that there is no God and that there can be no God.Believers, of course, would like to make an exception to logic, something they accept only for their assertion, but not for a different one. This is shown by the fact that the impossible demand is directed at atheists, who may prove the non-existence of God – a God of whom one cannot know what it is.
You can prove that there is no beer in the fridge – you go and look.However, it is not possible to prove whether an undefined X is in the refrigerator or not. Since “undefined” means it can literally be anything, or nothing.If there is a logical contradiction in the definition of X, then this has the same consequence, because from contradiction follows arbitrary. Then this morning’s ham sandwich may have been God, or anything else.
It is often claimed that the existence of the world somehow points to God.But this is pure nonsense, because the existence of the world proves only one thing: the existence of the world. Nothing in the world, nor the world as a whole, can point to something that “is not of this world,” that is, somehow not part of it. Worse still, if that is a logical contradiction, as it suggests.
For each of god’s assumed attributes, it has now been proven that it contains one or more contradictions: omniscience contains a contradiction – one of the proofs of this comes from Gdel – omnipotence is in itself contradictory in every known definition (there are several), omnipotence presupposes omniscience, but omniscience logically contradicts omnipotence, etc.Usf. Virtually every peculiarity that is attached to God consists of a self-contradiction, and if not, it logically contradicts another attribute.
It is not necessary to prove the non-existence of God, because this has already been sufficientlydone.
One cannot satisfy only the “claim” – or indeed, the outrageous request – of the faithful, who would like to have a proof that no one can be, because one does not accept evidence.They demand “evidence without evidence,” and there is no such thing, that is pure nonsense. You have to be quite desperate to do such a cheeky manoeuvre and hope that you can somehow get through it or offer the atheists such parodies. The only effective way to stop atheism is to use force – we know that in the Arab states, so there is the death penalty for atheists. You cannot discuss with them because you cannot reach their level, but you can kill them.
The second way of proving non-existence is to examine a consequence of the definition.This is called the mode of Greats in logic:
If A exists, then this has the consequence B.
B is not the case.
Consequently, A does not exist (there is no A with the consequence B)
You could also do this with God:
If the Abrahamic God exists, he answers prayers.
Prayers are not answered (follows from numerous studies, such as MANTRA and STEP).
Consequently, the Abrahamic God does not exist.
It is interesting, of course, what absurd claims and excuses believers come up with in order not to have to accept this.It is said that God does not answer every prayer – but that is not necessary, it is enough for him to answer some prayers, then the statistical study would be able to measure this, even if no rule is recognizable.Even funnier is the claim that God does not want to be proved and therefore torpedoes such studies – so he causes people to die because they participate in a study. If God had even a little more intellect than the believers who invented him, he would know that such behavior would have the compelling logical consequence of not believing inhim.If he punishes this, god is obviously a monster that should not be worshipred. Those who disguise themselves do not want to be found.
In general, the fact that God constantly changes his qualities, and that every believer insisted on something different, is in itself proof enough that the believers come up with him.
The third possibility of proof, which is not so strict, is based on showing that something is unlikely.This is easy with God:
The number of logically contradictory dedefinable gods is not countable infinite.The probability that the God of any religion exists is therefore one too infinite, i.e. practically zero. If one adds the gods that are not defined without contradiction, the infinity is increased again, but then its probability is still zero. From events or things with a probability of zero one can confidently assume that they do not exist.
So we have three possibilities of proof of God’s non-existence, and all are positive – which is why it is right to say: there is no God, because there can be noGod.Q. E. D.
The only way to avoid this is pantheism – God is identical with the world.I see no point in making the word “God” synonymous with the term “world”, but to make everyone’s own. The consequence of this, of course, is that religions that worship God are somehow nonsense because they give him qualities that he does not have. By the way, most scientists who claim to believe in God are pantheists or deists. But this is just trying to avoid the stigmatizing label “atheist,” even though you’re actually exactly what you deny to be.