Why Atheists say that they don't need to show evidences of God's non-existence?
Do they say this because they can't show an evidence?
- CarymLv 6Il y a 4 semaines
One can only draw conclusions on what he finds, not on what he can’t find.
Christian faith is based on God's promises. Every promise of God is also an invitation to take action. "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart [Matthew 7:8]. There you have it... you must reach out with all your heart.
Just know that the longer we put it off, the more deceitful the world becomes. There are already employed a plethora of false teachers who can't wait to bind and blind the ignorant.
- CaesarLv 7Il y a 4 semaines
The word atheist was made by Greeks to call unbelievers in gods that happen 500 years before any Christian and 1,100 years before any Muslim exist... Who was speaking the truth about those gods, the theists or the atheists? Do you anonymously believe in Greek`s gods? All those gods in the myth or in the fairies section are enough evidence that religions are a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality and the very idea of gods is a product of the human imagination all gods end up there...
- antoniusLv 7Il y a 4 semaines
LMAO! You idiot, if it is non-existent, there is no evidence for it.
- AnonymeIl y a 4 semaines
God's Noodly Appendages are Touching their Hearts, and yet they refuse to acknowledge it. They will spend Eternity in the Giant Vat. RAmen!
- Que pensez-vous des réponses? Vous pouvez ouvrir une session pour attribuer un vote à la réponse.
- AnonymeIl y a 1 mois
cuz they dont need to...its litterally self evident
- SBR32277Lv 7Il y a 1 mois
Two reasons. First, it is not our claim that Gods exist, second, nonexistence cannot leave any evidence since that would contradict it not being there. When it comes existence, evidence is a one way street. Either there is evidence for existence or there is not. Also without the notion of Gods, we would not be discussing them right now, meaning someone had to put forth the "claim" to be addressed. If the claim was that magical fairies are responsible for Creation, we would be discussing that concept and how believers have no reasonable case for their claim.
Having "nothing" is the default that requires "nothing" for its position. It is when people claim "something" or the "possibility" of something, that evidence and or reasoning must be supplied to support that possibility or actual something.
With all of that said, we can reason why something should not exist based on the "somethings" we know about. A square circle for example, we will never have evidence to support its nonexistence, but we can clearly reason why we will never find one due to the contradiction we know about.
Likewise with the concept of Gods, there are things about the concept that would contradict/violate the things we can already know about existence. In particular would be the necessary order of complexity that is built upon simplicity over time. There are not examples of complex existence that cannot be traced back to simpler beginnings, thus a complexity that just exists without this order would be impossible. When you begin to add in other contradictions, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that Gods cannot exist, where even a possibility can never be demonstrated.
Of course most atheists don't think that deep, they simply stop at magical beings existing are unbelievable with no good reasoning to support the claim of their existence or possible existence.
Just to give an example of a case for possible existence, life on this planet is evidence supporting other life in our universe is at least "possible" even though we have not or even may not ever find any. We can be "rationally" agnostic of other life, where as agnostic of Gods is as rational as agnostic of magical fairies since both have zero that would grant any possibility.
- RichardLv 6Il y a 1 mois
Because we don't have the burden of proof, thanks for playing.
- PaulLv 7Il y a 1 mois
Now be nice. You know very well that evidence of non-existence, of anything, is a rational Impossibility. A non-existent entity cannot provide evidence of its non-existence. Only an existing entity is capable of producing evidence.
- AnonymeIl y a 1 mois
Atheists like to pretend they can declare victory by default, projecting their own lack of evidence onto religious believers who actually do have scriptural evidence. The fact is atheism is baseless, there's nothing to support it and no good reason at all to be atheist.
- Bulldog reduxLv 7Il y a 1 mois
Lack of empirical evidence for the existence of an entity is not proof that the entity does not exist, but it is sufficient basis for non-belief. But this is a very abstract concept, so don't strain your brain trying to understand it.