Yes. Of course we always have to ask for a definition since people define Gods in many different ways, but yes we can prove that there are no Gods. It revolves around how we can prove that square circles cannot exist. The fact that there at two conflicting definitions that can never be is how we can know we will "never"...
Yes. Of course we always have to ask for a definition since people define Gods in many different ways, but yes we can prove that there are no Gods. It revolves around how we can prove that square circles cannot exist. The fact that there at two conflicting definitions that can never be is how we can know we will "never" discover a square circle, no matter where or how often we look. So the question we need to know the answer to, is God a square circle. Are there contradictions that can never be resolved to know the concept is impossible. At this point I would simply ask that you consider the definitions of God you have come to know and there will be contradictions to the reality that you know. For example, some people believe in a "personal" God, but the evidence contradicts this, so we have Deists who believe a Higher Power is required but "apparently" does not participate in It's own creation because of the lack of evidence for a personal God. God is love? well this world certainly does not support this. When we investigate religions and their holy books, they contradict Intelligence and we only see human ignorance (if you are smart enough to see it) that supports religions being purely man made products that are full of contradictions. The closest God that leaves a little room to ponder is in fact the Deist God, because it does line up with the reality of this world not being influenced in any way by this magical super Being. But even that God contradicts the reality of nature, in particular the natural order that is always from simple to complex over time and the natural limitations that nature has to have. These two contradictions put the concept into the square circle category to "know" Gods are impossible. They are like superman, a product of the human imagination. To make matters even worse for God believers is that we actually do have natural explanations that work. In particular is the knowledge that energy cannot be created. So much for Creation here, it can't be done. This gives us an uncaused cause that "naturally" exists meaning there is no need to impose a magical uncaused cause that violates the natural order. Energy is the perfect fit for the natural order because no matter who simple the existence is, energy is there because everything is in fact energy. The only thing energy can do is convert into other forms of energy. It is the conversion of energies that gives us all of this cool existence, including ourselves. The Big Bang, just one huge energy conversion. While this universe did come into existence, that materials and energy required had existed for eternity in some form or another. It was the "conversion" of this "pre-existing" energy that gave birth to this universe. This universe has an age, but the Cosmos (all that is) is ageless. There is plenty of evidence that God is not there, but theists attempt to hide this fact for their fantasy to survive. People of other religions argue due to contradictions of beliefs/definitions. People within a religion argue for the same reason, you cannot get two christians to agree fully on their religion due to multiple interpretations of vague biblical passages. You have people who disagree about personal Gods because again there is a contradiction of what people say and observed reality of being on our own. The concept of God is pure magical fantasy because this is the only way a God can exist due to the many contradictions I brought up and many more that I didn't mention. My final thoughts on this question is about atheism itself. The definition is we are "not" theist. It doesn't necessarily mean the individual "knows" that no Gods exist, but more about not being convinced that any do exist. We are not addressing the existence of Gods, we are addressing the "claims" that these magical super Beings exist, in that we find the claim absolutely unbelievable due to the magic as well as unsupported. Atheists share no burden because it is not their claim. Agnostics have the burden of demonstrating that a "real" possibility exists where Gods "might" be possible. Such as life on this planet demonstrating that other life might be possible, so there we can have a rational case for agnosticism. Theists have an even greater burden, to demonstrate in a reasonable fashion of how they came to know of this supposed existence. This is when it becomes entertaining as we get a load of superstitious reasons of how they came to know. Atheism is the default when there is "nothing" to move us from nonexistence. After all, nonexistence by definition cannot leave any evidence to share, but agnosticism and theism both require evidence that existence should leave. Most atheists will not know how to answer this question because they believe you cannot prove nonexistence due to it not leaving evidence. I did not prove the nonexistence with evidence of nonexistence, I proved nonexistence with evidence of what we already know to be true in order to rule out an existence because it is a square circle. We use the evidence of two known somethings, to demonstrate how we cannot combine them due to the contradiction. Take any definition of God and you will see there are going to be contradictions that cannot be, because humans are attempting to describe a square circle, where you have some theists giving us evidence for the square and some theists giving us the evidence of a circle, then attempting to combine them into a single God without any success. Theists believe because they have evidence of the square and they have evidence of the circle, but they can't see the big picture that this is not evidence of a square circle and so we continue the irrational debates over the existence of square circles where we actually can "know" why they are impossible.