Why do atheists demand theists to provide proof that God exists, but won't provide proof for their assertion?

Question

atheists don't believe God exist...but they have no proof that God doesn't exist...it seems both views can be called outrageous and either both should provide proof...or both shouldn't need to provide proof because they are just beliefs and opinions...logic says you can't affirm a negative...there is no God...but this is what many atheists claim...and that sounds like a pretty outrageous claim...because that means you possess all knowledge in the universe to know there is no God...so i would like to see that proof...

Answer 1

Do you believe in pink unicorns? If no, give your 'proof'.

Do you believe in Allah? If no, give your 'proof'.

Do you believe in fairies, or the Flying  Spaghetti Monster, or talking fishes, or mermaids, or gravitons? If no, give your 'proofs'.

Sounds moronic, doesn't it?

Answer 2

Think about this. If we or God provided proof today, would that be the end of it? No! If we provided proof every 2000 years would that be OK? No! What would it take to please every one? You can't. And that is why religion is based on faith. Neither God nor the believers ever intended to keep proving God's existence. Those that don't believe have their own reasons and the rest of us aren't responsible for their disbelief.

Answer 3

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

atheists aren't making any claims.

Answer 4

Its because the burden of proof lies on the one making the claims that something exists.

You cant prove a negative.

Answer 5

First, if I honestly complained to you that there are people making the *outrageous* claim that leprechauns don't exist, what would you think of me? Would I be justified in making that complaint? If it is an atheist's job to disprove someone else's beliefs, that means we can't actually doubt anything that can't be disproved - which is an awful lot of things. Therefore, it makes far more sense for a religious person to have to prove their own beliefs. You make the claim that God exists, and I wouldn't have to make the claim that he doesn't if you hadn't taken that first step. The burden of proof is yours.

Second, it's all very well to suggest that neither group needs to prove their beliefs because they're just opinions if people are willing to keep those opinions to themselves, but every time someone who believes in God tells an atheist they're going to go to h**l because they don't, they're just proving that they *can't* keep their opinions to themselves. And so the debate goes on.

Answer 6

the thing is the likelihood of a god's existence is not very high, it's no different from the existence of santa clause. can you disprove santa's existence? i just go with the evidence, and the evidence doesn't point to a magic man, but to natural laws. nothing in science directly points to a god or gods, but you choose to ignore it on the sole basis that we cannot disprove your gods existence. ha... prove the toothfairy isn't real as well as the flying spaghetti monster.

Answer 7

"it seems both views can be called outrageous and either both should provide proof"

Would it be outrageous for me to ask for proof if you claimed the universe was filled with invisible, pink elephants?  Would it be outrageous to suppose that the universe isn't filled with invisible, pink elephants even though I have no proof that it isn't?

All I can say is what is or isn't more likely... neither point can be "proven" so it is pointless to even ask.  However, given the lack of evidence of an all powerful force (which you would think would be easy to detect) I can say with 100% certainty that there most likely is no all powerful force out there.

Answer 8

That's not how it works.

Answer 9

We base the proof that god does not exist, on all the thing that we know are true like evolution, which against the bible. Evolution contradicts the very first part of the bible, on how we are here. So there must be no god. Also look at all the other regions disproved by science.

Answer 10

yes it's outrageous that we don't believe in theists invisible friends! But why stop at one divinity? We can't claim that Zeus, Vulcan or the Pygmy god of the Azov Sea don't exist, since we have no proof. So they all have an equal opportunity of existing, so in all fairness move over Jehovah, he has to share the spotlight again.

Answer 11

You have no proof, deary.

There is NO PROOF, either way, as to the existence of God.

Answer 12

You need a class in elementary logic.

You can't prove a negative.

i.e. can you prove santa doesn't exist? Can you prove there isn't a tiny teapot orbiting the earth?

Answer 13

what proof do you have that unicorns and dragons and fairies dont exist  

Answer 14

Here's the difference - your proof is not reasonable - scientific proof validated by many is - go figure - do yourself a favor - GO TO SCHOOL - LEARN TO CRITICALLY THINK -  how can you go thru life unaware of whats happening around you - WOW

Answer 15

What silliness.  Atheists do not believe in a god and would not even consider talking about one except for the badgering by the Christians to believe in the fiction.

As for the proof there is no god - disregarding the suspect bible, the absence of any evidence whatsoever is taken as non existence by all academic and scientific requirements.

But there is proof to the contrary that Christians never answer!!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one!!! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!!

Outside of the bible he is not mentioned in anything until many years after his supposed death!!

Answer 16

Many people say you can't prove a negative. Logicians would disagree.

If you can prove 2+2=4 then you have also proved it's not true that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, so you have proved a negative. Also you can prove 2+2 doesn't equal 5 so you have proved a negative.

One way to prove a negative is to assume the positive and derive a contradiction.

1. Assume God exists

2. Then we could see him

3. We don't see him

4. Therefore God doesn't exist

If step 2 was concrete then you would have proved the negative. Trouble is it isn't concrete. God may wish to remain invisible or we are blind in some way. What about the other way round.

1. Assume God doesn't exist

2. Then nobody will ever see him

3. Somebody saw him once

4. Therefore God does exist

Here the problem is with step 3. It might be a mistake, it's not a proof for everyone, the observer might later doubt what he saw, it's a lie, etc.

Steps 2 and 3 are never both concrete for external world proofs. There are always problems with one or the other. So it's true that you can't prove an external world negative but neither can you prove an external world positive. You can only prove internal world positives or negatives. There are no proofs for external world situations. One internal proof you have is that you yourself exist.

1. Assume I don't exist

2. Then I didn't do this proof

3. But I did do this proof

4. Therefore I exist

Step 3 is concrete to yourself but not to anybody else. So it's only a personal proof.

Anything external to your mind exists only as your belief, so proof of God can only apply if he is internal. Interestingly Jesus said that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. Even if God appeared daily in a city center doing miracles, some may still say it was a trick.

To progress with the idea of no God the scientists must first come up with some amazing theory of everything, but things seem to operate down to scales a billion billion times smaller than an atom. Then there is the problem of the large scale too and so they have no hope of such a theory.

So the atheists can't ever give us any hope of a future answer to the problem of existence and the big questions. On the other hand with God you could at least say that he knows the answers and might tell us one day. This is a real answer albeit delayed and with the buck passed upwards. At least it is an answer! There is no other imaginable answer except God, without whom we are truly lost forever, and it is plain common sense that everybody ought to be seeking him.

Answer 17

Can you prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist? I can't either. It's the same for god. The burden of proof falls on the believer. For any claim to be taken seriously, especially one that deals with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent supernatural being, a little proof goes a long way.

Answer 18

A belief does not require proof.  I just choose to go with the more logical belief while you choose to believe in an invisible being.

Answer 19

I know it's a tired cliché, but asking for proof that there's no god really is like asking for proof that Santa or the Tooth Fairy or the Celestial Teapot isn't real.

There are thousands of supernatural claims which have been invented.  All of us reject almost all of them on the basis that they have no supporting evidence.  Atheists are just ever so slightly more consistent in applying this standard than theists are.

Answer 20

The burden of proof is on you. Atheists merely, in face of the lack of evidence, reject the proposition. We'll be glad to change our minds if you produce some evidence.

I can't prove a negative of that magnitude and since there's no evidence for it, disbelief is the logical position. You are making a positive claim of existence so, if it's true, you can provide evidence since it exists, if it's not, you can't.

Answer 21

It only sounds outrageous because you want to listen. Can you prove that Santa Clause doesn't exists?

Answer 22

Its been 4.6 billion years and God hasnt shown himself yet sonny!

Answer 23

The proof that God exists is the Love we feel inside for the Word of Our Lord.  It is not in some ancient relic or artifact that they demand we produce as this proof.  

Those that do not believe simply cannot see this proof because they are blind to the Holy Scripture.  They demand to see the proof of our faith because they see no proof for their own disbeliefs.

Pray For The Sinners.

Answer 24

la la la, thanks for the points.  Once again, you lovely theists either cannot conceive of what burden of proof means or wish to misrepresent atheism to put things on equal footing.  Once again, it fails.  Theism makes a positive claim, god exists.  In the absence of proof to support this claim, the opposite position becomes the default.

When atheism progress int a positive claim, it is almost universally in response to a certain conception of god that is logically inconsistent.  For the same reason that we can say a square-circle does not exist, we can say that any god whose definition presents an internal contradiction does not exist.

Edit to John M:  Because you don't allow email, I must take you to task here and hope that you will read it.  You do realize that your argument goes completely against both your stated premise and the content of your link, right?  You mixed in a dash of skepticism to make it sound reasonable, but anyone who has studied philosophy should be able to point out the error.

Premise: A negative can be proven (accepted as true here, though I have some issues with the paper)

Statement: But god can never be proven to not exist (Flatly contradicts the premise unless proof of god's existence can be shown)

Answer 25

Because the alternative is believing in every god in human history.

It's either that or live as if none of them exist. Guess which I chose.

Answer 26

Well, you are 100% wrong, right across the board.

The demand to prove a *negative* is a logical fallacy. Prove to me that Wotan, Zeus, B'aal, and the FSM don't exist. See, it works BOTH ways, if you wanna go there.

If your views are merely "beliefs and opinions", then you prove atheism RIGHT, since thats OUR point.

Claiming that there is AbZero EVIDENCE is NOT an "outrageous" claim, its in fact, a perfectly reasonable claim, because it is TRUE. If YOU want to claim otherwise, then pony up the *objective evidence FOR your fictional sky pixie*. Oh, as with ALL theists for 2,000 years, you CAN'T ?

Then disbelief in your fictional sky pixie is not only 100% reasonable, its the ONLY reasonable position to take.

Ypu're an atheist, too: When it comes to Wotan, B'aal, Zeus and the FSM. All we Atheists do is just add ONE more to our list of things for which there is AbZero evidence for, that we don't believe in. For the same EXACT reason that you don't believe in all those other sky pixies.

Answer 27

Because in their arrogance they believe that Christians owe them an explanation.

Answer 28

Old.

Prove that [IMAGINARY BEING] doesn't exist? You can't. You can attempt to prove it DOES exist.

Answer 29

Which being do you expect proof for the nonexistence of? Leprechauns? Yetis? President Bush's English teacher?

BTW, periods should be used one at a time. They don't come in sets of three.

Answer 30

Well, prove that my imaginary friend Steve isn't real.  

Answer 31

I don't ask for proof and I don't provide proof.  

d**n, this is the third time I've answered this question this morning