2. Proving the non-existence of god


Attempting to shift the burden of proof to nonbelievers when it comes to your imaginary god wrongly assumes that an Atheist has the responsibility to prove that gods are a fiction, and you do not understand that this is an impossible challenge. You cannot prove the nonexistence of a god simply because there is not the slightest evidence of his existence, it is a logical nonsense, the absence of evidence in favor of the existence of god produced by you believers, is already a sufficient argument to deny any supernatural entity. The burden of proof is always on the one who asserts, and you need convincing and conclusive evidence capable of withstanding any attempt at refutation if you want to prove the existence of god. It is the believer who must present evidence to support his or her claim, not the other way around; if not, all the “inventions” of the human mind would be true; it is a simple consequence of elementary logic. As absurd as it may seem to say, for example, that there is a dog that speaks perfect English from its backside, according to the believer, no one can ever conclude with absolute certainty that there is no being that enjoys such a property. One cannot rule out the existence of Santa Claus, Satan or that Flying Monster made of spaghetti that Richard Dawkins talks about. Although they are so different in meaning and importance, by virtue of their logical form, according to the believer these propositions are all conclusively irrefutable. If a friend of ours told us that he had seen a winged horse, resembling the mythological Pegasus, while describing it in detail, we would not give credence to his word unless he brought convincing and definitive evidence, capable of resisting all attempts at refutation, to support his words. Otherwise, we would have to believe him by an act of faith. The predicates “be” and “exist” are separated from each other by demonstration, by the presentation of evidence; not everything that is, exists. Anyone can define an essence at discretion, but then he must provide proof of its existence if he wants everyone to ascertain its real presence. The burden of proof is thus on the believer’s shoulders-it is he who asserts the existence of an intangible deity or deities, and it is then up to him to prove such existence.

For example, those who believe in the Abrahamic imaginary god Yahweh, the Christian god, imply they themselves have to prove the nonexistence of any other god: Enki, Baal, Atum, Asherah, Nagaraja, Brahma, Olorun, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesh, Ishtar, El, Ptah, Anath, Molok, Amon, Ra, Osiris, Tammuz, Marduk, Kamui, Ahura Mazda, Mithras, Jupiter, Zeus, Apollo, Juno, Hera, Minerva, Bacchus, Athena, Odin, Thor, Pandora, Prometheus, Izanagi, Ogiuwu, etc.

If one examines the succession in human history, the various religions, each depository of different truths, from the Olympian gods to the more current, transcendent ones, one discordant with the other and some, indeed, often in conflict with each other, one comes to the conclusion according to the believer, that they are all true, since one cannot prove the non-existence of a deity.

Even today there are people who believe in fairies, a widespread belief among rural populations around the world, according to the believer then, there would exist fairies, gnomes, elves, trolls, vampires, Santa Claus, the hag, etc.

Maybe they exist right in their garden, how can they be sure that Ogiuwu, the god of death, does not live in their garden along with the fairies? They cannot, because there is no way to conclusively prove the nonexistence of anything.

Then… Don’t waste your time with philosophical reasoning regarding the ridiculous metaphysical proofs of the existence of your imaginary god, they are words in the wind, they are nonsense that lead nowhere, metaphysics is an abstractly cerebral concept with no relation to concrete reality, they are mere “nonsense” spawned by narrow minds, trivial and convenient.

Human thought offers metaphysical solutions, but none of them has ever been proven to be true with concrete evidence, because all metaphysical problems are nothing but pure abstractions, pure inventions that have nothing to do with the sensible, the perceptible, the ascertainable and reality. Any solutions given by a metaphysical problem cannot be relied upon at all, which means they are useless solutions. The metaphysical explorer, and especially the seeker of god, can be compared to someone in a room looking for something without having any idea what it is. And how can he find it? Philosophers have always searched for god and still do, and in thousands of years of searching they have never landed on anything concrete. God is only imaginary.