Can an atheist prove that there is no God?

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Adam Elmasri's official Website:

To support my channel on Patreon:

To support my channel via PayPal:

[maxdoubt]

Yes, anyone can prove God does not exist, for the bible describes God in contradictory ways. The real question is whether any _gods_ exist. I believe none do and I can justify that belief.

[Monolith]

The problem with an unwell defined object is, that it is not definitively refutable due to being unwell defined.

[jodi]

Does God exist? I did not care about it.
Does life after death exist? I did care about it.
If exist then it is the most important event humen are facing.
Wise men always advise be prepare for whatever to come.
Ignoring and not preparing the event of life after death is the most unwise decision I have ever made.
I had to know precisely every thing about life after death but, where to get credible information about it?
God, yes God. So I asked Him although I was not sure His existence, but it cost me nothing to ask God.
Thank God You have answered me. All I need to know about life after death is read the Bible.

[leonite]

It depends on the definition of god. I can prove there's no god, if the god is, abrahamic definition of god.

[elliot]

To establish 'God' exists or not requires the yardstick to determine that, what is that yardstick that is being used to arrive at these conclusions..

[danielcraft]

It is not the responsibility of an atheist to prove or disprove God, in the same way it is not for an atheist to prove or disprove that rainbow unicorns exist. it is a logical fallacy for someone to ask another to "prove god exists", or to ask to "prove god does not exist". You cannot prove the rainbow unicorn either way as it is possible, no matter how improbable, that they do exist somewhere in the universe, the same answer exists for god. So the best answer to this question is to shrug, look at the asker as if he or she is wasting valuable breath even asking the question, and then slowly walk away while shaking your head at the ludicrousness of the question.

[ERLong-wwyn]

The bumbling jumble of words from atheists trying to prove that belief in God is a bumbling jumble of thought. Amusing to say the least.

[xrjx]

Pantheism is a better option. Pantheism makes 2 logical conclusions from 2 premises. The premises are you exist and you are intelligent. All existing beings have a primary cause because a being can't come from nothing. All intelligent beings come from an intelligent being. There is no example of any living being coming from a non-living being, despite what some claim which is just a theory, not proven fact. There you go, your primary source exists and is intelligent, so God is Mind and Matter just as you are Mind and Matter. There is no proof that the universe was created by a separate being so we can safely conclude that the universe is God and it is intelligent. In Pantheism God is not a being but is being itself and we all share in that beingness. You are a part of existence and God is the sum total of all parts of existence. There is no evidence that God verbally communicated to anyone and that is a good thing. If God told you what to do in life you'd be a slave, not free. To be free God must precisely not give you instructions. We are extensions of God and we have been given sufficient intelligence to live as good human beings.

[tdsdave]

I think agnostic as a term is pointless, all it expresses is that we'd not claim certitude in knowing there are no gods, know/knowledge is a subset of belief, a subset of beliefs which we'd claim to have justifications to show they are true, which can also be true of just beliefs. Being fallible creatures, it makes little sense, except in rare cases( e.g math) to say some conclusion we have reached we have certitude in, that is that it is impossible for us to be wrong, regardless of if the claim is related to knowledge or belief.
So agnostic is just expressing the same position as atheist, it's just unnecessary icing on the cake . We say we do not believe in gods and then say but we do not know if no gods exist, but our belief, our atheism, does not entail certitude .
You also have to ask about the definition of a god, is the category of "all gods" meaningful, is the label god even well defined enough to make a category out of it? Anything in effect can be labelled a god, would me saying the pan-galactic-hyper-trout is a god, mean that we should reserve judgement on it's existence when it is merely a label attributed with the ambiguous quality of being a god.


I think this is the motte and bailey of theism, we, it seems, are required to reserve judgement, but how many theists are agnostic theists where by all rights they should be, meanwhile they casually express certitude at a gods existence. We can show that Yahweh, Allah, JC (as a god ) do not exist by definition, by either logical contradictions in their attributes, or contradictions with their narratives and the facts of world. But the theist falls back to the question marks of a vacuous notions of god and our inability to deny them all with certitude, the motte, having failed to make the argument in the bailey. And so it persists.

[Cyber_Jar]

Can you prove a negative. When your argument devolves to getting someone else to prove what you have no evidence for isn't real you already know your thing isn't real

[taasmr]

*If there is no God then who created men, women, oxygen, water, crops, animals, ecosystem, and emotions?*

[frederickpile]

Genesis apologetics channel. Creation Evidence Museum channel. Genesis history channel.

[AheadZaxozaxo-etxk]

Approved to many baby and children died front of the world no one help pray not working no one cares no one help to many people hungry no one help where is God to help this baby and children for the their is no God to believe

[iyyakuttirajasekaran]

God is irrelevant.Simply life is enough.If some body is more interested one can investigate, enquiry and observe and go deep into life.May be some other dimension of life exists.

[celestialsatheist]

I can't say anything if there is really any intelligence that governs the universe but i can prove that Islam is not real

the Quran is the word of Allah isn't it ? meaning the Quran is the word of Allah isn't it ? meaning the Quran is the words of the creator of the universe an all powerful being. So that means the Quran can't have any errors if it does it can't be the word of the creator. Even the Quran acknowledges this (quran:4:82) . Even if the Quran has one error one single error someone can easily discard it as a false religion.
That was the premise
And here's the error

It is He who created you from one soul and created from it its mate that he might dwell in security with her. And when he covers her, she carries a light burden and continues therein. And when it becomes heavy, they both invoke Allah, their Lord, "If You should give us a good [child], we will surely be among the grateful."
Quran 7:189

The Qur'an takes what is perhaps best described as the creationist view of the origins and history of life on earth. This diverges sharply from the overwhelming scientific evidence like overwhelming DNA evidence and the numerous fossils of pre-Homo sapiens species that lived on earth for millions of years prior to the evolution modern humans . All this evidence undeniably states that humans have evolved from prior life forms, over the course of millions of years and through natural selection. The Qur'an not only makes a gross scientific mistake but more noteworthy is that it just repeated the creation myth of former cultures . If the Qur'an was man made and not divinely inspired this is exactly what we expect to find and this exectly we do find. Some poor modern Muslim scholars argue that the notion of two ancestral “parents” is consistent with recent scientific findings that show a common female and male ancestor of all modern humans. This results, however, from a confusion with the nicknames (Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam) by which scientists have referred to human's earliest genetic ancestors. These two individuals, however, are distinct from the Quranic characters as they are simply the last common male and female ancestors of everyone alive today and not of all humans in history. More importantly, whereas the Qur'an describes Eve as Adam's wife (who, notably, was created after him), Mitochondrial Eve lived some 50, 000 to 80, 000 years earlier than Y-chromosomal Adam

So since the Qur'an contains myths and legends of primitive culture than one can come to the conclusion that it is not the word of god and there by false!

[juyeonglee]

In the field of science, everything that exists is to be proved by using the light as a tool.

If God is the spirit which has no mass and is invisible and dwells in the upper dimension, how can they "scientifically examine" the existence of God?

Their ignorance will just skip this thought forever.