What is your best evidence for the nonexistence of God?

[Brickjectivity]

Did you see "The trial of the Chicago 7"(Netflix)?
A zap it was.

No, I haven't seen that yet. There is an article about it though.

 

[Brian2]

My best evidence for the non-existence of unicorns is the fact that nobody has ever produced one, nor have we found a fossil, or found any other credible hint that such a thing has ever existed. Although Tolkien wrote about living tree-like creatures called Ents (his writing being at least a sort of "evidence"), I've also never found anything outside of LOTR that suggests that such things have ever existed on this planet. No sightings, no fossils, no cave drawings...well, nothing really.

And for me, this is the same thing for God. Now please forgive me, I'm going to use only the Abrahamic version of God here -- personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. It would seem to me that if such a thing existed, there would be some evidence that could not be misconstrued.

And having never seen that evidence, I have concluded -- in the same way that I deal with unicorns and Ents -- that this entity does not and did not exist.

So what is your best evidence (pay attention to that word -- it has meaning) that God actually exists?

If I hypothesise the existence of the Abrahamic God I have been told that it should be falsifiable and testable and that it would be good the hypothesis also could predict something.
This hypothesis is not only falsifiable and testable but also predicts things.
Actually it is the predictions which the God of the Bible give us which can both falsify and test the truth of this God's existence and so far they show Him to be real.

 

[firedragon]

Best evidence for the non-existence of God is the 1980's. Anyone who lived through that period can pretty much just say "1980's" man. That was a tough decade for God.


Probably the 1960's but since I wasn't alive then its unfair of you to ask me that.

What? I am deeply offended. The 80's was a ball. It was the most glorious time. The music was absolutely fantastic. Then the 90's rockers were predominantly learning their stuff in the 80's. Open economy began in the 80's.

Just kidding. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

My best evidence for the non-existence of unicorns is the fact that nobody has ever produced one, nor have we found a fossil, or found any other credible hint that such a thing has ever existed. Although Tolkien wrote about living tree-like creatures called Ents (his writing being at least a sort of "evidence"), I've also never found anything outside of LOTR that suggests that such things have ever existed on this planet. No sightings, no fossils, no cave drawings...well, nothing really.

And for me, this is the same thing for God. Now please forgive me, I'm going to use only the Abrahamic version of God here -- personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. It would seem to me that if such a thing existed, there would be some evidence that could not be misconstrued.

And having never seen that evidence, I have concluded -- in the same way that I deal with unicorns and Ents -- that this entity does not and did not exist.

So what is your best evidence (pay attention to that word -- it has meaning) that God actually exists?

Your evidence is non-existence of evidence. But you are asking for evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

That assumes that God is good.

Or it assumes that things fall into those particular categories of "good" and "bad" which is an assessment the writer has made, not the one-god. It never made sense to me to suppose that the one-god proposed by the Abrahamic religions would conform to human conceptions of what is "good" and "bad."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is your best evidence for the nonexistence of God?

Matt Dillahunty always had what I thought was an incredibly apt response to theists who would call-in requesting that he "prove God doesn't exist." He'd simply say:

"How about you first prove that Zeus doesn't exist, and then I'll borrow from your method."

It exposes (or should expose - though at times it is difficult to get some people to react with anything more than a wave of their hand - a sure sign that the dolts didn't even bother to try and understand) the fundamental flaw in their reasoning that brought them to the point that they are asking someone to disprove the existence of something which provides no falsifiable context whatsoever. Usually when the tables were turned like this, they didn't even try. They just moved on to try and make some other ragged, worn-out argument/point. Entirely too typical in these types of discussions - which all usually end up as case-studies in "what not to say if you're trying to get someone to buy into your brand of theistic beliefs."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You assume that a thought does not exist, and that a word does not exist. Tell this to someone who has a big fear.

Fears upset the whole human system, even digestion. People can become instant diabetic due to fear/panic attack; is such diabetic condition unreal?

Google gives us the word + meanings of God. So God exists, and these definitions affects even the real world in all different ways ... so God exists

I do not say that God exists as a human being in the sky, but that was not what you were asking. God does exist and impacts creation.

So I concluded that God does exist (I did not define God yet, though)
@stvdvRF

As a general rule, fear is fear OF something, rarely just fear itself, with no object. (The person who feels fear may not always be able to articulate what is the object of his fear, but there generally is one anyway.)

So, I have a thought about a fire-breathing dragon, and I suppose, if I thought something like that did exist, I might fear it. But neither my fear nor my thought is reified in the actual existence of such a beast, in spite of how my body might be affected by it.

In such a case, I have a thought of something, I even fear it, but it is not real. In the same way, in my view, the thought of God does not make God real, just as the thought of the god of winds, Aeolus, does not make Aeolus real. I still know what causes wind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... I still know what causes wind.

Yes, based a set of assumptions in the end. I just use a different set.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your evidence is non-existence of evidence. But you are asking for evidence.

So, since the only "evidence" you have of the non-existence of 300 ton poisonous serpents is "non-existence of evidence," I take it you spend your life in terror of such a beast? I mean, with such a paucity of valid evidence, you are pretty much forced to believe in its existence, aren't you?

 

[firedragon]

So, since the only "evidence" you have of the non-existence of 300 ton poisonous serpents is "non-existence of evidence," I take it you spend your life in terror of such a beast? I mean, with such a paucity of valid evidence, you are pretty much forced to believe in its existence, aren't you?

Your argument against God is valid. I didn't say "invalid". When someone proposes evidence for God, you could argue that since there is no evidence you dont believe in God. Perfectly fine.

I just said that your evidence is no-evidence. So how could you ask for evidence? Your post was "
What is your best evidence for the nonexistence of God?"

 

[nPeace]

My best evidence for the non-existence of unicorns is the fact that nobody has ever produced one, nor have we found a fossil, or found any other credible hint that such a thing has ever existed. Although Tolkien wrote about living tree-like creatures called Ents (his writing being at least a sort of "evidence"), I've also never found anything outside of LOTR that suggests that such things have ever existed on this planet. No sightings, no fossils, no cave drawings...well, nothing really.

And for me, this is the same thing for God. Now please forgive me, I'm going to use only the Abrahamic version of God here -- personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. It would seem to me that if such a thing existed, there would be some evidence that could not be misconstrued.

And having never seen that evidence, I have concluded -- in the same way that I deal with unicorns and Ents -- that this entity does not and did not exist.

So what is your best evidence (pay attention to that word -- it has meaning) that God actually exists?

Okay then. So you do know what a unicorn looks like, and you do know that unicorns have bones, and die, and.... Well slap my bottom.
God does not have bone, does not die, and no one can say they know what God looks like, because God is both invisible, and all powerful, and cannot be seen by any human - Just imagine though if you could see the sun 93 zillion miles away, and die from that. You didn't see the sun, did you?
However, the evidence God provided is enough for you to know that he is. It's easy to ignore it though, and say, 'I don't see nothing.'
Since you shouldn't be looking for fossils, or drawings, what do you think you should be looking for?
'Heart don't lie to me now. You hear?'
Psalms 10:4

 

[Milton Platt]

My best evidence for the non-existence of unicorns is the fact that nobody has ever produced one, nor have we found a fossil, or found any other credible hint that such a thing has ever existed. Although Tolkien wrote about living tree-like creatures called Ents (his writing being at least a sort of "evidence"), I've also never found anything outside of LOTR that suggests that such things have ever existed on this planet. No sightings, no fossils, no cave drawings...well, nothing really.

And for me, this is the same thing for God. Now please forgive me, I'm going to use only the Abrahamic version of God here -- personal, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. It would seem to me that if such a thing existed, there would be some evidence that could not be misconstrued.

And having never seen that evidence, I have concluded -- in the same way that I deal with unicorns and Ents -- that this entity does not and did not exist.

So what is your best evidence (pay attention to that word -- it has meaning) that God actually exists?

That is an ill formed question. Define the god and then we will see.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is an ill formed question. Define the god and then we will see.

All right, let's try the one that appears in a burning bush, shows His "back parts" to Moses, and writes laws with a finger on tablets of stone.

 

[Milton Platt]

All right, let's try the one that appears in a burning bush, shows His "back parts" to Moses, and writes laws with a finger on tablets of stone.

LOL There you go. Just thought the conversation might get to broad otherwise. I figured that was the one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

LOL There you go. Just thought the conversation might get to broad otherwise. I figured that was the one.

Okay, you didn't like that one, though it is quite Biblical -- and as far as I am aware, is central to the thinking of a great many American Christians.

But at least I tried. It does seem to me that you are hiding behind this "definition" business by declining to provide a clear definition of your own.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

LOL There you go. Just thought the conversation might get to broad otherwise. I figured that was the one.

Or if that one's not good enough, how about either of these?

Richard Swinburne, a prominent Christian philosopher, treats “God” as a proper name of the person referred to by the following description: a person without a body (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. This description expresses the traditional concept of God in Western philosophy and theology.

or this one

St. Anselm defines God as the greatest conceivable being. As Anselm observed, if you could think of anything greater than God, then that would be God! The very idea of God is of a being than which there cannot be a greater.

 

[Milton Platt]

Okay, you didn't like that one, though it is quite Biblical -- and as far as I am aware, is central to the thinking of a great many American Christians.

But at least I tried. It does seem to me that you are hiding behind this "definition" business by declining to provide a clear definition of your own.

No, I am okay with that. I was not even trying to be arbitrary. I just wanted the conversation to focus on a particular god...any god. That does it nicely, thanks.