Atheists: why do some of you say that there is zero evidence for God?

Let's elaborately discuss this matter. I understand what may be some of the reasons why some atheists say that there is no evidence for God. In the real world, there are some people who have ulterior motives. Perhaps some people do not want there to be a God, and so they just adamantly refuse to see any evidence that challenges their desires. That's what puzzles me so. Many atheists are honest, so I fail to understand why so many of them would say that there is zero evidence for God (as in the Christian God). Why do some of you atheists say that?

What precisely are your parameters for what counts as "evidence?" If you have very stringent rules for what can be called evidence, you might want to reconsider your point of view. In all probability, the evidence that we do actually have probably would not hold up in a court of law. In terms of science or scientific evidence, there is probably precious little to indicate that God exists. Perhaps there is none at all, if you demand to use scientific standards. But this is NOT a scientific matter. This is a supernatural matter. And this isn't a trial, either- this is reality. This is real life.

I already know that we cannot use the Bible itself to prove that God exists. I am well aware of what circular logic is. The Holy Bible cannot prove that God is real, but it certainly suggests it. Does it not? What about people who hear God speaking to them? I am not talking about paranoid schizophrenia or some other abnormal psychiatric condition. I am talking about rational, sane, healthy people who actually can hear God talk to them (as if speaking to them in their mind). Doesn't this constitute anecdotal evidence for God? If the explanation is not psychiatric, and if these people are healthy and normal, then how do we explain their testimonies of hearing God speak?

There are also miracles that science cannot explicate. There are healings that occur every day that do not have any rational explanation. Some of them, to be sure, are "spontaneous remission" cases. But not all of them can be.

These are just a few examples of evidence that we have for God. So why do some atheists state that there is absolutely no evidence at all for God? Explain.

21 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favourite answer

    Creation has always been the proof for God's existence, until people started rejecting it by presupposition, substituting “theories”. Look at a painting, the existence of a painter requires the fewest assumptions; at a building, a builder; a watch, a watchmaker; Creation, scientific theories?! … Only if they’re hoping they can persist in their unrepented sins and won’t have to be accountable to Him on the Day of Judgment.

    Confess your sins to God, truly sorry for offending His love for you, and ask His forgiveness. He will! Turn from your sins and turn *to* God, proving your repentance is real, in faith trusting Jesus took the punishment on a cross your sins deserved. He delights in forgiving all who ask, as often as they ask, even empowering you with His Holy Spirit to do what He commands. Otherwise, if you lose eternal life, it will have been by your own choosing. He made the way.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Well YOU said 'In terms of science or scientific evidence, there is probably precious little to indicate that God exists. Perhaps there is none at all, if you demand to use scientific standards. But this is NOT a scientific matter. This is a supernatural matter.'

    The problem is 'supernatural' is an utterly meaningless concept. Even if there ARE 'aspects of reality' we don't appreciate exist they cannot be supernatural. Why? Well think of it this way: if I take my mobile phone to a remote jungle and hand it to a Pygmy who has never seen a mobile phone or heard a disembodied voice come out of it he will presume it is supernatural and yet it isn't is it. The same is true of ANY unexplained phenomena. Always. Things happen because they can. Just because we do not know why does NOT mean it is 'because' of a supernatural phenomena it's because of a NATURAL phenomena otherwise it could not happen. Ever. Unknown just means not understood NOT magic.

    Also you make a LOT of assumptions. You say some people communicate with God and yet you assume they just couldn't be mentally ill - and you don't even consider the possibility that they are liars. The same assumption is made about alleged 'miracles'. OK I'm assuming they are not true too and maybe they are but this is ultimately why I am unconvinced: Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence. If I tell you I can levitate but only if no one is looking and there are no cameras about why won't you believe me?

    Assume nothing - especially when extrodinary claims are made.

    Assume nothing!

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • The definition of evidence:



    noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.



    that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.


    something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.


    Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

    We say there's zero evidence because usually what theists consider evidence for a god is not evidence for a god at all and can actually be explained through other reasons. Such as people imagining there's a god talking to them just because they believe in a god, and some of those people are indeed not mentally healthy. Not to mention those people can't show others that they're actually hearing god speak to them, and there's no reason to 'take someone's word for it' when they claim such a thing. Anecdotal evidence is about the weakest evidence there is. And what theists consider "miracles" can't be shown to be any mere than mere coincidence or the result of scientifically possible events. And the fact that just because a book exists does not mean it indicates the existence of the characters within that book. After all, there are thousands of religious holy texts that are from religions other than Christianity, as well as many fiction books, yet the existence of those books does not indicate the existence of fictional characters or a god of any religion.

    It's because the evidence you present is not evidence for a god. You're right, this is a supernatural matter. And if there is no evidence that the supernatural actually exists in reality, for what reason should we assume it does and then speculate about the existence of a supernatural deity?

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Because there is zero evidence for god (yours or any other claimed one).

    No, the bible doesn't suggest anything -- any more than stories about Harry Potter "suggest" that Harry Potter is real. In a court, the bible would be dismissed as "hearsay" and not admissible.

    "What about people who hear god speaking to them?"

    Can they show evidence that:

    - they really "heard" something at all, and didn't just imagine it?

    - that what they heard was a "god?"

    - that it was a specific claimed god?

    No, they can't. And since people with completely different claimed gods claim THEIR god speaks to them, and people claim aliens speak to them, etc. clearly there's nothing reliable or verifiable there. Not evidence.

    "There are also miracles that science cannot explicate[sic]." Did you mean explain?

    And no, there aren't. Not a single such "healing" has EVER been shown to be a real "healing" by a supernatural power of any kind. Not one.

    So no, there is no evidence for any claimed god. Not a bit of what you brought up would stand up in a courtroom, let alone with any rational person. You might consider that if you think what you discussed is "evidence," then you will have to agree that Thor exists (the same "evidence" existed for him), that Vishnu exists (the same "evidence" exists for him), that "Allah" exists (the same "evidence" exists for him), and pretty much every other "god" humans have claimed exists. Still think it's evidence?


    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Otherwise rational people can still delude themselves that they hear "God" if they want to badly enough.

    The fact that there are phenomena that are not explainable by science--and may never be--is not rationalization for a god. "I don't know, therefore..." is not logical or necessary.

    Try this on for size. In the face of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect and eternal being creation is meaningless. A being with (at least) all those qualities would not have even considered creating anything.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    Because there is no evidence for any gods.

    Nothing is "supernatural".

    Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Personal stories and testimonies are not evidence. They are just stories. I would argue that those people are NOT healthy and normal if they are hearing a "god" speak to them. That, or they are lying.

    There are no miracles, and everything can be explained. Maybe not right away, maybe not with our current technology, but just because it cannot be explained now does not mean it must be "god".

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 9 years ago

    I'm not necessarily an Atheist. Just not really into organized religion. What the dude with the green alien avatar said is correct.

    You know why they say that someone believes in god? Because if there were evidence you wouldn't need faith. Stop trying to look for evidence, it's a sign of doubt and could lead you towards atheism.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    There is plenty of evidence. They do not care to look as would mean stop sinning.However there is no evidence on evolution.Their so called evidence is a laughing joke that scientifically has been proven a farce.Try telling the NASA scientists there is no evidence for God & they more than likely will laugh at you for they have found much.CREATION by Dr Grant R. Jeffrey,get it & read it.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    God is basically just the human assumption that everything has to be controlled by a conscious intelligent being like us.

    Science proves beyond doubt that nature is absolutely nothing like that.

    All religion comes down humans only viewing the world from a very human-centric point of view.

    If you could look at the Bible in an unbiased way, you would see that the god portrayed is basically a human being. Even if it was possible for a god to exist, it certainly wouldn't act like that.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Sd Sd
    Lv 5
    9 years ago

    Super nature has not been demonstrated to exist.

    The bible suggests that one possible God exists. Other holy books suggest that different Gods exists.

    People hearing God isn't evidence, because you or I can't hear God. It only evidence if you can transfer it.

    show me a documented case of miraculous healing that hasn't been proven to be a sham. Then, explain why God exists just because you can't explain something.

    Also, google burden of proof.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.