JujuSugar:
"Can you prove there is no God?"
This is a question I often see being tossed around in these sections by some christian apologists. Now I'm going to be honest.....
If you are christian and you think this is a good argument to use against atheists and all other non-theists as an argument for YHWH, you must either be out of your mind, or deliberately deceiving yourself.....

budaatum:

I agree. A Christian asking anyone to prove that God does not exist "must either be out of your mind, or deliberately deceiving yourself". That perhaps is why many claim to 'believe' God exists as opposed to 'knowing' that God exists. It sure is why many worship Jesus in fact, since the evidence for the existence of Jesus is more accessible than that for God except amongst the Jesus deniers who really are not much different to the flat earthers.

A Christian who attempts to prove the existence of God to atheists through argument is wasting their time and disobeying God. To begin with, God is a spirit and spirits are unseen. Even the holy text says "no one has ever seen God", so what exactly is it that one is required to present as evidence that God exists? And then there's the question of "exist where, exactly"? These are questions Christians appear to struggle with, it would seem, and which I shall attempt to respond to.

When a Christian is asked to prove that God exists, their mind should jump to when Christ was asked to “throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

The devil is clearly saying, "show me your God exists", and the appropriate response is "Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”

I have always been fascinated by the creation of humans as depicted in scripture.

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

The above text allows the believer to claim "look at me and see God", "in the image of God he created me". Two problems arise however when the believer is looked upon and nothing godly is seen in them - hardly evidence, would be the appropriate retort. The other is that one seems to be saying oneself is God, which many Christians would never claim. But I would ask, why not? Is it not true that "the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" "in the image of God", so "let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven" that shines forth from you the salt of the earth? Or is it the case that one is still just mud awaiting the breath of life to be breathed into it? If the Kingdom of God is truly breathed into me, then I am the evidence for my God and by my fruit shall my God be manifested, but if I walk an ungodly walk, it is not God that does not exist, but the devil that does. After all, my fruit is of particular relevance.

So let your fruits be of the spirit of God, Christian, a light that shines before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven, if the Spirit of God truly exists in the mud that you are!

HellVictorinho:

Nature is insane.
"God" is a word used to describe several nonsense.

budaatum:

Or things that are misunderstood.

rekinomtla:
lol since when is asking some1 proof for their assertions a fallacy?

HellVictorinho:

Nature is insane.
"God" is a word used to describe several nonsense.

LordReed:


Where did the OP say that it was?

rekinomtla:


"There is no god" is an assertion made by lots of atheists.

LordReed:


Does the OP say they have no burden of proof in that case? And does it say it is a fallacy?

rekinomtla:


The op says "Not to mention, this low effort question contains a couple of fallacies".

LordReed:


Did you read the 1st fallacy? Which clearly states that the statement is a strawman?

rekinomtla:


It's not a strawman, atheism has and is still defined in philosophical and ordinary dictionaries as the belief that there are no deities.

rekinomtla:


Philosophical Dictionaries/Encyclopedias:

- Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (2004), p. 530: “The belief that God – especially a personal, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God – does not exist.”

- Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998), entry by William Rowe: “As commonly understood, atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. So an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, whereas a theist is someone who believes in God. … the common use of ‘atheism’ to mean disbelief in God is so thoroughly entrenched, we will follow it. We may use the term ‘non-theist’ to characterize the position of the negative atheist.”

- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1998) :atheism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and theos, ‘god’), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.

rekinomtla:
Hence, not a strawman to ask an atheist if he/she can prove there is no God.

LordReed:

So what it boils down to is which dictionary you are looking at. It is left to the atheist to decide what type of atheism they hold to. In the case of the OP, they make it clear they don't say there is no god.

It remains fallacious because you cannot say all atheists are saying there is no god and the OP is clear that those that do have a burden of proof.

rekinomtla:
Hence its not fallacious.

But nobody is claiming that all atheists are saying there is no god. Theists are just asking a simple question based on the standard definition of atheism.

LordReed:

How can you ask a question based on a standard definition that does not cover every position and then claim its not fallacious? Would you not call it fallacious if I ask you a question from JWs or Mormons theology because you are all Christians?

rekinomtla:


That would be an unjustified assumption since theres 1000s of christian denominations.

Atheism basically only has two definitions floating around, asking a question based on the standard one is completely justified. Atheists who define themselves differently can ignore the question instead of asserting it is fallacious.

LordReed:

If you won't take the time to ask me my position, why should I give you the benefit of the doubt?

rekinomtla:


You could just clarify your position.

On a different note, would you consider the question "Who created God?" to be just as fallacious?

LordReed:

The OP did.

In what context?

rekinomtla:
But then went on to assert that the question contains loads of fallacies, which is false.

In the context of a debate between an atheist and theist on the kalam cosmological argument, is it fallacious to ask "who created god?"

vaxx:
That is your opinion. it is baseless.