What is the evidence against God's existence?

Answer 1

God is an unspecific concept. That term means different things to different people.

On the other hand evidence is some outward sign or thing, tangible, perceivable, notable, that forms a basis on which to form a judgment or form a conclusion. It is used improperly with the concept of religious belief. How would we go about collecting evidence that something doesn't exist? Religious belief by definition is the unquestioning acceptance of a supreme ruler of the universe in the absence of proof. Every culture has had its version.

You may pray for a sunny day and get one and then believe your prayers were answered but you have no proof, only your personal conclusion, not based on any empirical evidence that a god heard you and granted your wish. Religious faith and "proof" there is any god are both concepts that exist only in the human imagination. The fact that there is no proof accounts for all the thousands of different concepts of the monotheistic God (and the polytheistic gods), as he has traveled throughout human history to the present. To some he is a vengeful, egotistical, warrior God who wants them to slaughter anyone who doesn't believe. To others he's a caring father who loves you and takes care of you, in a world filled with evidence to the contrary. To neighbors after a tornado, one whose home is still standing thinks God saved him and his family, leaving the other, whose home is in ruins, to worry that his family had been punished. Imagination.

We don't go about proving that things don't exist (How would you prove unicorns don't exist?) and if we thought a little harder about that idea we would be embarrassed for entertaining that thought.

Answer 2

No, but there is none that proves that he does exist either.

Answer 2

Actually there is proof "god" isn't real is a wondrous thing called science which proves that the big bang theory is correct, don't as your science teacher if you are in a catholic school because i am and the answer i got was time to take notes because they will get in a $hit load of trouble from the diocese if the say that science is correct. But just think about it is there really any spae for a 'soul' or be like me and say Santa isn't real, unicorns are not real so is god? And bet a friend that is religious that if you wrote a book about a god, buried it in your back yard, and thousands of years later it was found and they thought it was real, bet him that they would and then you might get him thinking about The Bible.

Answer 3

Actually the person above is a little wrong. First of all, science can't prove ANYTHING. Second of all, there isn't proof that God doesn't exist, except some people , like atheists, believe that He doesn't exist. They think "Hey, He's invisible, we can't see Him, how can He exist?" If God didn't exist then none of us would be here. Remember? God created everything! You can't see God, that's true.. but that doesn't mean He isn't there. If you pray to Him and do His will, you will feel him with you everywhere you go. But many people ignore God and just pretends that He's not there watching everything you do. Be careful. Many people will try to tell you that He doesn't exist.

Answer 4

No. But there is also no proof that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, either. The point is: you cannot prove the non-existence of something. Instead, if someone claims that something DOES exist, then they should offer some evidence to back up their claim.

So, the next time someone say that god exists, say, "Prove it!"

Answer 5

No, there is no proof that God doesn't exist. People do try to come up with proof, but no one can do it. God does exist and loves you :). There is proof everywhere you look of the existance of God, he made the Universe, the Earth, and everything in the Earth. Hope that helps you :)

Answer 6

No. Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution and the Big Bang were unquestionable facts, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there is a significant number of highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.

On the other hand:

There are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.

• Teleological Argument: The universe has definite design, order, and arrangement which cannot be sufficiently explained outside a theistic worldview. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of atheism). For example, theoretical physicist and popular science writer Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203). From the complexities of the human eye to the order and arrangement of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design. God is the designer.
  
• Anthropic Principle: The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Professor Russel Stannard (a particle physicist) states: "The universe has been bent over backwards in order that intelligent life should exist...must have known we were coming."

• Sensus divinitatus: The innate sense of the divine exists within all people. People and cultures of all time have, by instinct, sensed a need to believe in and worship something greater than themselves. No ancient society ever existed that did not believe in a supernatural power.

• Tradition: There are historical events which cannot be explained without God. Many people have had personal experiences that turn them toward theism, but there are also events such as the Giving of the Torah to over two million people at Mount Sinai, which are underpinnings for the belief in God.

• Pascal's Wager: Belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or atheism, but belief in God.

• Logic. Why is there reality rather than nothing? Aside from God's creating it, there are only five options:
  

a) The universe is eternal and everything has always existed.
- Even atheists have abandoned this possibility, especially because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
****
b) Nothing exists and all is an illusion. There is no reality; there is only nothing.
- This possibility, it should be obvious, is completely self-defeating. In order to even make such a proposition, the subject has to exist in some sense. If all is an illusion, where did the illusion come from? Even the solipsist, who does not believe in the existence of other minds, has to explain the genesis of his own mind.
****
c) The universe created itself. This is the idea that the universe and all that is in it did not have its origin in something outside itself, but from within.
- Like with the previous two, this makes a logical absurdity. It would be like creating a square triangle. It's impossible. A triangle by definition cannot be square. So creation cannot create itself as it would have to pre-date itself in order to create.
****
d) Chance created the universe. The odds of winning the lottery are not very good; but given eons of time, everyone will win. While the odds of the universe spontaneously appearing are minuscule, could it happen, given enough time? - This option is a dishonest sleight of hand that, like "survival of the fittest," amounts to nothing, because it implies that "chance" itself has quantitative causal power.
The word "chance" refers to possibilities. It does not have the power to cause those possibilities. It is nonsense to speak of chance being an agent of creation, since chance is not a force. "What are the odds of the universe being created by chance? Impossible. Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing because it has no causal power within it. It is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by a curious flip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into the discussion as if it were a entity with real power, the power of creativity." (R.C. Sproul, Not a Chance. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999.)
****
e) The universe is created by nothing. Simply put, nothing created the universe.
- The problem here is that it is either a repetition of option "a" (the universe is eternal) or fails due to the irrationality of "d." In our current universe, the law of cause and effect cannot be denied by sane people. While we often don't know what the cause of some effect is, this does not mean that there was no cause. When we go to the doctor looking for an explanation for the cause of our neck pain, we don't accept the answer "There is no cause. It came from nothing."

• 
  

Now, the other side of the Question: why might people not believe in God?

1. Peer influence. In high school, for example, the one or two religious believers in a class may be subject to ridicule.
   
2. Convenience; desires. No one wants "bothersome" rules, or limitations to their personal pleasure. We see how lack of self-discipline has led to epidemic obesity, drunkenness, divorce rates, violence etc.
   
3. Lack of proper information. People have inaccurate notions about God, religion and belief. They've picked up tidbits, jokes, and "sound-bites," and on such solid authority they dismiss the entire topic.
   
4. Unfortunate experiences. Many have had personal hardships, or a harsh religious upbringing or education, and as a consequence may retain an unhappy feeling towards belief, without realizing that emotions and proofs are two different things.
5. Intellectual laziness. Many people have simply never delved into the subject, to see if God's existence can be convincingly demonstrated.
   
6. Stereotyping. People call us "religious nuts," "Bible-thumpers," etc.; so the average layperson may get a negative feeling toward all belief, not realizing that he/she should first look into the existence of God in principle, before necessarily looking into religion.

Answer 3

No. Many think that science, and specifically Evolution, have proved that there is no God. They don't comprehend that even if Evolution and the Big Bang were unquestionable facts, it would not automatically follow that God isn't there. They also seem unaware that there is a significant number of highly-qualified scientists who do not believe in Evolution.
On the other hand: There are tens of proofs for God's existence. These have been recorded for centuries and are easy to look up. However, this subject ultimately becomes one of personal belief, since our possession of free-will mandates that it be possible to put forth arguments (fallacious or not) against every one of the proofs.
Here are a few.

• The universe has design and arrangement which cannot be well-explained outside a theistic view. (This is how Abraham, without benefit of teachers, came to reject the chaotic world-view of idolatry and the possibility of Atheism). For example, theoretical physicist Paul Davies (whose early writings were not especially sympathetic to theism) states concerning the fundamental structure of the universe, "the impression of design is overwhelming" (Davies, 1988, p. 203). From the complexities of the human eye to the orderliness of cosmology, the voice of God is heard. God's existence is the best explanation for such design.

Link: God's wisdom seen in His creations

• The laws of the universe seem to have been set in such a way that stars, planets and life can exist. Many constants of nature appear to be finely tuned for this, and the odds against this happening by chance are astronomical. Professor Russel Stannard (a particle physicist) states: "The universe has been bent over backwards so that intelligent life should exist...must have known we were coming."
• The glaring lack of transitional fossils has been noted by the evolutionists themselves, such as this statement from the famous paleontologist and evolutionist George G. Simpson; quote: "The regular lack of transitional fossils is not confined to primates alone, but is an almost universal phenomenon."
  "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation" (Corner, E.J.H., Contemporary Botanical Thought).
  
• "Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species" (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum).
  "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. It amazes me that this is swallowed so uncritically and readily, by so many scientists without protest" (Sir Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner).

Link: More against Evolution
• The fact that you need DNA to make DNA. No genetic code can be demonstrated to have arisen by chance, together with the ability to read that code and carry out its instructions. Information does not arise spontaneously; and there is an incredible amount of information in even the tiniest cell.
  "A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations" (Michael Denton, author).
  "The astounding structural complexity of a cell" (U.S. National Library of Medicine).
  Concerning a single structure within a cell: "Without the motor protein, the microtubules don't slide and the cilium simply stands rigid. Without nexin, the tubules will slide against each other until they completely move past each other and the cilium disintegrates. Without the tubulin, there are no microtubules and no motion. The cilium is irreducibly complex. Like a mousetrap, it has all the properties of design and none of the properties of natural selection" (Michael Behe, prof. of biophysics).

See also the other Related Links.

Link: Ancient belief

Link: Archaeology

Link: Hebrew prophecies fulfilled