I can reply to that question in two ways, and either of them is enough.
1- I don’t have to.
You’ve probably heard the term “burden of proof” before. In this context, it works like this: when someone makes a new claim, it’s his responsibility to prove it, or at least provide some evidence for it, instead of someone else having to disprove it. In other words, the burden of proof is on the side of those who make the claim — especially if it’s a bold or uncommon one.
Imagine someone accuses you of being an alien disguised as a human. Would you feel that you have an obligation to prove that you’re a real human? Of course not. It’s the other person who has to provide evidence for their claims.
It works that way, too, for claims like “there is a god, and he’s exactly like I believe he is”. The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. A question such as “can you prove that it didn’t happen?” only works in Ed Wood movies. 
2- Can you prove X doesn’t exist, then?
Another way to counter the “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist” claim is to ask the same question back at you. Can you prove Zeus doesn’t exist? Aphrodite? Odin? Thor? Allah? Kali? Nanabozho?
You’ll have to admit that you can’t. In fact, you could dedicate the rest of your life to proving that any of them doesn’t exist, and you’d fail miserably. I’ll assume, then, that you believe all of them are likely to exist, right?
No? Why not, then? Believing in one god because you can’t prove he doesn’t exist, but not applying the same logic to all the other gods, is a classic example of a double standard. But I bet that you’re applying the “you can’t prove he doesn’t exist” logic to your god only…
(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)
No related posts.
Tags: atheism, atheism faq, disproving-god, logic
Subscribe to this blog
It is worth noting here that given the judeo-xn notion of god, as well as most others, it actually is possible to conclusively prove that such an entity simply cannot exist because the notions and characteristics which supposedly define this non-entity are themselves meaningless as they are self-contradictory.
I enjoy reading your perspective. It makes me think.
[quote comment="10468"]It is worth noting here that given the judeo-xn notion of god, as well as most others, it actually is possible to conclusively prove that such an entity simply cannot exist because the notions and characteristics which supposedly define this non-entity are themselves meaningless as they are self-contradictory.[/quote]
Ah, yes, the good old omnipotence paradox. Much like the irristible force / immovable object paradox, where each condition contradicts the other.
Yep.. that and the contradictions between omnibenevolence and creator of all given that evil in fact exists, and others.. but yes the omnipotence is the most obvious and easiest to use to demonstrate that the judeo-xn notion of god is literally nonsensical and inherently impossible.
[...] definitive against the “you need faith to say it doesn’t exist” position: burden of proof. It’s always on the side of whoever claims something exists, and it’s him who has to [...]
Hmmm…
The idea of god must have come from a child-like thought process at one time in man’s history. Child-like in that it is an innocent thought or idea cultivated out of fear or the unknown. For lack of a better understanding of the world (or nature) man resorted to warm, fuzzy, thoughts of imaginary, all-powerful, caretakers. This is an easier thing to deal with, emotionally, than fear or the unknown. This is why the belief (hope) in such a being is so infantile. Man needed god to understand himself. Now, that man utilizes logic, there is no room for a god; he simply doesn’t fit into the ideas we currently possess.
Religions, on the other hand, are the sociological cultivations of these ideas on a grand scale that once rooted, is about as easy to eliminate as a government… nearly impossible.
Ignorance is less work than knowledge.
Man needed god to understand himself. Now, that man utilizes logic, there is no room for a god; he simply doesn’t fit into the ideas we currently possess.
These above statements are absolutely absurd. What does he/she think now that we understand the human being we must forget the one who created, and still creates all. God is an active God everything from you reading this to me writing this is because God is willing it. Without hesitation God can simply stop willing our existance and we’d all be gone. This doesn’t really have to do with the main point the article of you can’t prove god doesn’t exist but the truth needs to be known in a society where religion means nothing, when it should mean everything!
evan andersen
If you want proof then here goes. As an athiest you believe in numbers? For ceturies people did not us the number 0, instead they used //, as a representation of space. But logic demanded a positive integer that represented nothing and everything at the same time. Your friends, the Greeks, almost rejected 0 because they did not believe that you could make something out of nothing. In turn, this leads us to the concept of a vacumme, also logically nothing if defined by its friends, atom. So therefore, not believing in God is something similar to saying I do not believe in vacummes or 0. Thus, the proof that God exists is everwhere around us. We are complex individuals that create and defy the law of entropy. Therefore, because humans can create and we are an image of Him without being him but can be defined within a context, then we have arrived at God. Evan Andersen says now the ball is in your court to explain how you may also logically end up with defining a vacumme and 0.
evan andersen
The idea of “zero” or a “vacuum” described a concept we see in reality. We simply use those words in reference to those concepts. God we use in reference to a concept we don’t see in reality.
I really don’t see what you hope to prove with that line of thought…